# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  16th amendment

## dude58677

....

----------


## TonySutton

repealed immediately, it has exceeded the reach that was originally intended. Another perfect example of why the constitution was built, to chain the federal government.  without chains the monster grows and grows

----------


## KCIndy

I can't imagine anyone on Ron Paul Forums voting for anything except repeal.

----------


## MJU1983

I want to repeal Woodrow Wilson in general...

16th amendment
17th amendment
federal reserve system
wwi and resulting treaty of versailles / wilsonian foreign policy
espionage act of 1917
sedition act of 1918

----------


## Danke

> ....


 dude, u are more knowledgable than this. U know the 16th A did not create the Income Tax. Repeal will only change a small portion of taxable income that was addressed in the Pollock case.

----------


## mport1

Don't care.  Taxation is theft whether or not it is written down on a piece of paper.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> dude, u are more knowledgable than this. U know the 16th A did not create the Income Tax. Repeal will only change a small portion of taxable income that was addressed in the Pollock case.


It's still a major step in the right direction, and symbolically it could do wonders...

----------


## Danke

> It's still a major step in the right direction, and symbolically it could do wonders...


 I agree. But education would go a long way.

----------


## Weston White

Even if it is repealed, the simpleton statist-progressives will simply claim that the federal government has always held the power to levy income taxes upon individuals so it really would not matter one way or the other.  All that it would actually do is put an end to income taxes imposed on investments, rents, property, etc., and little more.

The only true fixes are either (1) a new amendment specifically prohibiting such methods of taxation without apportionment upon individuals, save for any true financial gains realized, or (2) the populace to overwhelmingly call upon the federal bureaucrats to admit the XVI Amendments true breadth, including its own necessity and circumstance to impose taxation in general, and/or (3) the populace to begin justifiably filing for full claims of refund and thereby causing the IRS' scheming to fold in on itself and crash into a permanent state of nullity.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Article One Section Eight:



> *The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,* to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


And note that there is a comma after Taxes in the part I highlighted.  That means that taxes are not necessarily the same as nor limited to Duties, Imposts, and Excises.

----------


## Pericles

From Section 9:

 No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 
   No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. 
   No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another. 
   No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I want to repeal Woodrow Wilson in general...
> 
> 16th amendment
> 17th amendment
> federal reserve system
> wwi and resulting treaty of versailles / wilsonian foreign policy
> espionage act of 1917
> sedition act of 1918


Amen

----------


## Danke

> Article One Section Eight:
> 
> 
> And note that there is a comma after Taxes in the part I highlighted.  That means that taxes are not necessarily the same as nor limited to Duties, Imposts, and Excises.


Yes and as the next post shows they have limitations on what they can tax.  Ie. their limitations.

----------


## Zach Vega

The 16th amendment was $#@!ed up. Actually, the whole Wilson administration was.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> I can't imagine anyone on Ron Paul Forums voting for anything except repeal.


those are your Romnoid agitators, right there.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Even if it is repealed, the simpleton statist-progressives will simply claim that the federal government has always held the power to levy income taxes upon individuals so it really would not matter one way or the other.  All that it would actually do is put an end to income taxes imposed on investments, rents, property, etc., and little more.


I think the 1916 version of the Supreme Court would have been very surprised at Mr. White's characterization of them.




> That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes.  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)


In addition, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would reaffirm its holding in Pollock that a tax on investment income is a direct tax, so repealing the 16th would accomplish nothing.

----------


## Weston White

> I think the 1916 version of the Supreme Court would have been very surprised at Mr. White's characterization of them.


The reference was to politicians and their conspirators, and not the courts; e.g., Rockefeller, Aldrich, Ford Foundation, CIA, et al.





> In addition, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would reaffirm its holding in Pollock that a tax on investment income is a direct tax, so repealing the 16th would accomplish nothing.


What was, was, what is, is, and this what is, is what's happening right now.  Just because you are of the progressive mindset doesn't mean that you, or those like you, are entitled to alter the past to your liking.  That is to mean:





> _Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company_ (Rehearing) 158 U.S. 601, 628 (1895):
> 
> _There can be but one answer, unless the constitutional restriction is to be treated as utterly illusory and futile, and the object of its framers defeated. We find it impossible to hold that a fundamental requisition, deemed so important as to be enforced by two provisions, one affirmative and one negative, can be refined away by forced distinctions between that which gives value to property and the property itself.
> 
> Nor can we perceive any ground why the same reasoning does not apply to capital in personalty held for the purpose of income or ordinarily yielding income, and to the income therefrom. All the real estate of the country, and all its invested personal property, are open to the direct operation of the taxing power if an apportionment be made according to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that no direct tax shall be laid by apportionment on any other property than land; on the contrary, it forbids all unapportioned direct taxes, and we know of no warrant for excepting personal property from the exercise of the power, or any reason why an apportioned direct tax cannot be laid and assessed, as Mr. Gallatin said in his report when Secretary of the Treasury in 1812, "upon the same objects of taxation on which the direct taxes levied under the authority of the State are laid and assessed."
> ..._





> Mr. Albert Gallatin in his work entitled “Sketch of the Finances of the United States” [1796], as referenced within _Pollock_ (157 U.S. 429, 569 (1895)):
> 
> _“The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense.  …that a fixed interpretation should be generally adopted, it will not be improper to corroborate it by quoting the author from whom the idea seems to have been borrowed.”
> 
> He then quotes from Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and continues: “The remarkable coincidence of the clause of the Constitution with this passage in using the word ‘capitation’ as a generic expression, including the different species of direct taxes, an acceptation of the word peculiar, it is believed, to Dr. Smith, leaves little doubt that the framers of the one had the other in view at the time, and that they, as well as he, by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from, and falling immediately on, the revenue, and, by indirect, those which are paid indirectly out of the revenue by falling immediately upon the expense.”  3 Gallatin's Writings (Adams' ed.) 74, 75.”_





> And in _Knowlton v. Moore_, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900):
> 
> _…  This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day.  The definition is as follows: “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”_  See also: _Tyler v. United States_, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930): “_...  A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax which Congress, in respect of some events not necessary now to be described more definitely, undoubtedly may impose.  ..._”.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Just because you are of the progressive mindset doesn't mean that you, or those like you, are entitled to alter the past to your liking.


Mr. White, I do not have a progressive mindset.  I do, however, recognize what the Supreme Court has said over the 117 years since Pollock, and its later decisions regarding taxes are fundamentally inconsistent with Pollock.

Pollock was a poorly-reasoned and highly unpopular decision, and it takes its place in history as one of only three Supreme Court decisions that precipitated constitutional amendments to overturn their results (the other two were Chisholm v. Georgia and Dred Scott v. Sandford).




> Even apart from the 16th Amendment (providing that a tax on incomes is not subject to apportionment), Pollock I is no longer of any significance on the income tax issue, as its rationale has been clearly repudiated by subsequent cases. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., the reasoning of Pollock was flatly rejected in general terms.165 In New York v. Graves,166 the Supreme Court held that New York could tax a New York resident on rents from New Jersey property, although New York could not impose a property tax on New Jersey real estate. In other words, a tax on rents is not a tax on the underlying property. Reinforcing that conclusion is South Carolina v. Baker,167 where the Court overruled that portion of Pollock I that held that a tax on state bond interest was a tax on the state itself (in violation of the 10th Amendment). Pollock I has also been rendered obsolete on the income tax issue by numerous post-Pollock cases that have established that a tax on gross receipts is an indirect (i.e., excise)
> tax, not subject to apportionment.168 Since (apart from timing issues) an income tax is a tax on receipts, repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment (which removed the apportionment requirement from income taxes) would not invalidate an income tax.169
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> 165. 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1915):
> … [T]he provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.
> 
> 166. 300 U.S. 308, 314 (1937).
> ...

----------


## Weston White

> Mr. White, I do not have a progressive mindset.  I do, however, recognize what the Supreme Court has said over the 117 years since Pollock, and its later decisions regarding taxes are fundamentally inconsistent with Pollock.


Oh yes, yes you do, see just one example of many such statements of yours at: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4413646

Clearly you hold the notion that (1) the fundaments of our Nation are largely antiquated and (2) that redistribution and austerity are valid social norms for our Creator granted (Christian founded) republic.

Also that is entirely incorrect, SCOTUS has remained entirely consistent with the fundaments and maxims as advocated within Pollock -which is most likely the reason as to why they will hear no such cases involving the constitutional aspects of drawing such methods of taxation over the heads of the general populace, as any ruling to the contrary would be blatantly obvious and damning to the future control of the establishments politic-agenda.




> Pollock was a poorly-reasoned and highly unpopular decision, and it takes its place in history as one of only three Supreme Court decisions that precipitated constitutional amendments to overturn their results (the other two were Chisholm v. Georgia and Dred Scott v. Sandford).


Negative, only somebody (e.g., you) that fails to neither comprehend nor appreciate the underlying distinction and reasoning, so elucidated within Pollock (and subsequent SCOTUS tax law cases), would think or feel that way; such as would a progressive, corporatist, socialistic individual (e.g., you).


As quoted from your above source (and as can be easily observed these several fellows fall flat right onto their faces before we even make it off of page _numero uno_, although it would appear that at least two of them were sort of on the right path):




> Recent commentary has staked out positions on this issue that I consider to be incorrect. Bruce Ackerman argues that that the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishing slavery) effectively repealed the apportionment-of-direct-tax clauses. Calvin Johnson argues that "direct tax" means only a tax capable (without effort) of being fairly apportioned among the states in accordance with population, namely, a capitation tax or a tax on the states (a requisition). At the other end of the spectrum, Erik Jensen argues that "direct tax" means any *personal tax* other than an income tax. I argue, on the basis of constitutional text, the formation of the constitution, post-ratification history, function, historical evolution, and judicial doctrine that "direct tax" encompasses only (1) capitation (head) taxes, (2) requisitions, and (3) taxes on tangible property (real and personal).  ...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Oh yes, yes you do, see just one example of many such statements of yours at: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4413646
> 
> Clearly you hold the notion that (1) the fundaments [sic] of our Nation are largely antiquated and (2) that redistribution and austerity are valid social norms for our Creator granted (Christian founded) republic.


Mr. White, you are delusional.  I simply described how the EIC allows some people to pay no income tax.  I never said it was good policy.  




> Also that is entirely incorrect, SCOTUS has remained entirely consistent with the fundaments [sic]  and maxims as advocated within Pollock -which is most likely the reason as to why they will hear no such cases involving the constitutional aspects of drawing such methods of taxation over the heads of the general populace, as any ruling to the contrary would be blatantly obvious and damning to the future control of the “establishments” politic-agenda.


Mr. White, not only are you profoundly ignorant concerning tax law, you are paranoid as well.  First of all, the precise holding of Pollock was that in considering whether an income tax was a direct tax that needed to be apportioned, one needs to look at the source of the income.  This rationale has been completely rejected by the Court in later cases.  That's why the Stanton case referred to it as "a mistaken theory".  Second, the Court doesn't need to waste its limited time in hearing cases brought by crackpot tax protesters who claim they've found some magic argument that says they don't have to pay income tax.  The Court has said time and again that a tax on compensation for work is taxable, and it doesn't need to satisfy your harebrained desires.




> Negative, only somebody (e.g., you) that fails to neither comprehend nor appreciate the underlying distinction and reasoning, so elucidated within Pollock (and subsequent SCOTUS tax law cases), would think or feel that way; such as would a progressive, corporatist, socialistic individual (e.g., you).


Mr. White, if you think the 16th wasn't in response to the Pollock decision, then you are not only profoundly ignorant of tax law, you have the American History knowledge of a potted plant.

----------


## Weston White

> Mr. White, you are delusional.  I simply described how the EIC allows some people to pay no income tax.  I never said it was good policy.


Precisely, it is not some much what you say; it is more what youre not saying that truly matters.  Ergo, your non-responsiveness, in hand with your steadfast defensiveness, equates both adherence and concurrence on such matters.





> Mr. White, not only are you profoundly ignorant concerning tax law, you are paranoid as well.  First of all, the precise holding of Pollock was that in considering whether an income tax was a direct tax that needed to be apportioned, one needs to look at the source of the income.  This rationale has been completely rejected by the Court in later cases.  That's why the Stanton case referred to it as "a mistaken theory".  Second, the Court doesn't need to waste its limited time in hearing cases brought by crackpot tax protesters who claim they've found some magic argument that says they don't have to pay income tax.  The Court has said time and again that a tax on compensation for work is taxable, and it doesn't need to satisfy your harebrained desires.


First of all the breadth of incomes in its constitutional sense, is that as defined within the originating 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act (i.e., Strattons Independence was referenced within the Stanton case), and its pith appropriately clarified through subsequent precedence.

As to your delusional, ignorant, paranoid, tax protester, and crackpot comments, I merely point out that my own writings withstand such weak and unimaginative squabbling.

Still yet, you actually argue that it is not for SCOTUS to waste its time with addressing constitutional concerns that so blatantly pertain to _federal questions_, which is as fact its primary function, and you claim youre not of the progressive mindset?

The only person arguing about finding magical cures to avoiding taxation is a one Sonny Jim, the last small few of remaining members of Quatlostia!





> Mr. White, if you think the 16th wasn't in response to the Pollock decision, then you are not only profoundly ignorant of tax law, you have the American History knowledge of a potted plant.


And if you think such was the basis for my response then you have all the faulty logic of a double negative Boolean, that or an insane Vulcan; either one take your pick.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> dude, u are more knowledgable than this. U know the 16th A did not create the Income Tax. Repeal will only change a small portion of taxable income that was addressed in the Pollock case.


True.  But direct taxes would "officially" be disallowed. More of a feel-good thing than anything else.

----------

