Amendment XVI

[run4it]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Will someone please explain to me how PART of the Constitution is 'unconstitutional'? Please show me where this mentions in any way that only income from corporations is subject, and not personal income? Please show me any subsequent rulings that have restricted this Amendment from its plainly written edict.

It is, what it is. It says the Congress can tax income, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE (corporate profits, private labor, etc).

[raoul duke]

Well. . . from experience, I can say you are going to hear about 'direct' vs. 'indirect' and a whole bunch of other buzzwords that have no meaning. Plus, I'm sure no one will acknowledge that it has never been successfully challenged and the Pollack decision was negated by the 16th Amendment.

[run4it]

The words direct and indirect do not appear in the Amendment. It says that taxes may be layed and collected, and offers no restriction to the mechanics of those taxes.

Next?

[DelawareDistrict]

There is evidence that the 16th Amendment was never ratified properly. Therefor, it should be null & void.

Yes, the Courts have upheld the legality of the 16th Amendment. The Courts also have a history of complicity when it comes to increasing governmental power, even when it conflicted with the original meaning of the Constitution.

[raoul duke]

There is evidence that the 16th Amendment was never ratified properly. Therefor, it should be null & void.

Except, every challenge regarding typos and other clerical errors has been thrown out of court. Every. Single. One.

Yes, the Courts have upheld the legality of the 16th Amendment. The Courts also have a history of complicity when it comes to increasing governmental power. . .

Citation? Maybe something less vague?

even when it conflicted with the original meaning of the Constitution.

Yeah, that happens time to time. That's why we have an amendment process.

[raoul duke]

The words direct and indirect do not appear in the Amendment. It says that taxes may be layed and collected, and offers no restriction to the mechanics of those taxes.

Next?

I was referring to the fact "direct tax" and "indirect tax" were big parts of the arguments made in the Pollack case.

[run4it]

Some of the original versions of the Bill of Rights had variations in punctuation, spelling, etc. Should we be throwing those out as well?

No, the 16th was properly ratified. At the time of Congressional certification, any state could have withdrawn their assent when the final wording was presented. None did. The Amendment is as was intended, both in wording and more importantly, in spirit.

Next?

[Velvet Fog]

Some of the original versions of the Bill of Rights had variations in punctuation, spelling, etc. Should we be throwing those out as well?

No, the 16th was properly ratified. At the time of Congressional certification, any state could have withdrawn their assent when the final wording was presented. None did. The Amendment is as was intended, both in wording and more importantly, in spirit.

Next?

Whats your point?

[run4it]

Whats your point?

The argument that the 16th amendment wasn't really legally ratified is without merit.

As far as DD's contention that the Supreme Court is 'duplicitous', I'll ask who I should believe: a self-serving "libertarian" who has shown a clear anti-government agenda, or some of the most learned and decorated legal scholars the world has ever produced? Hmmmm.....

Next argument that the income tax is unconstitutional, please....

[Velvet Fog]

The argument that the 16th amendment wasn't really legally ratified is without merit.

As far as DD's contention that the Supreme Court is 'duplicitous', I'll ask who I should believe: a self-serving "libertarian" who has shown a clear anti-government agenda, or some of the most learned and decorated legal scholars the world has ever produced? Hmmmm.....

Next argument that the income tax is unconstitutional, please....

You started the thread buddy; your arguing with yourself....I agree with you on this one.

[run4it]

You started the thread buddy; your arguing with yourself....I agree with you on this one.

Nah...Delaware District tried to say that the Amendment wasn't really ratified:

There is evidence that the 16th Amendment was never ratified properly. Therefor, it should be null & void.

Yes, the Courts have upheld the legality of the 16th Amendment. The Courts also have a history of complicity when it comes to increasing governmental power, even when it conflicted with the original meaning of the Constitution.

I was just dispensing of that argument.