Why isn't the 16th Amendment sufficient?

[foofighter20x]

No, we believe Congress had the power, but it did not extend to direct taxation without apportionment. You are mixing up 'no power' with no 'new' or additional power. It's both elements that make up a 'new power.' The Court decisions after the amendment (not just Stanton) agree with this. Because your first point is incorrect, your conclusion in the second point is also wrong.

That may well be the case with you and a few you know. However, most the tax-protester stuff I've seen quoting the Stanton opinion makes the argument with the premises that I described above: to wit, that the income tax itself was unconstitutional and it was the 16th that made it legal [setting up a strawman], whereupon they then quote Stanton to show their strawman argument is wrong [thus completing the fallacy].

Thus, what you just said is exactly like what I just said with my forest-floor analogy. Congress had the power to tax incomes from real and personal property using excise taxes, which fall under the uniformity requirement. Pollock pinned them down. The 16th removed the pin. No power to tax was ever destroyed, thus no new power needed to be created by the Amendment.

The accident of history is that the Court held that Congress had erred, and that such taxes were actually direct taxes (I disagree with the court on this point; a tax on owning the land is a direct tax [no exchange took place], whereas a tax on the income from renting the property is an excise without need for apportionment [the use of the land was exchanged]).

I think we are saying the same thing, but using different language to make the point.

If I'm incorrect in understanding what you are saying, then give me the full run down...

 

[Danke]

You clearly have not read Pollock. Read it.



Then read the response of the 16th Amendment.



You are either in denial about the nature of the Taxing Power, or are deluding yourself. Is that an ad hominem? Possibly. Is it fallacious? Hardly. Ad hominem arguments are only invalid when they aren't relevant. It'd be like saying you are wrong because you are bald. Being bald has nothing to do with how one understands The Taxing Power.

I'm questioning your very understanding of the Taxing Power, which is relevant to the discussion. While it could be seen as an ad hominem attack, it's not fallacious because your understanding is relevant. That it might be an ad hominem in your eyes doesn't make what I've said any less true.

And you have clearly not been able to comprehend what I have written. Nothing contradicts the Pollock case.

I see you are slowly understanding the income tax, just not quite there yet.

 

[Elwar]

People that rely on that passage are doing two things wrong.

1) They assume that Congress had no power to pass an income tax prior to the 16th Amendment.
2) They misconstrue what the 16th Amendment in fact did.

Congress has had the power to lay any tax they wanted, on any good or service (except exports), so long as the reason for the raising the revenue by laying the tax was to retire federal debt, fund the defense of the Union, or raise revenues for the general expenditures of the federal government (which in turn clearly benefits the general welfare).

The only limitations on the Taxing Power, other than the General Welfare Clause, were that direct taxes be apportioned and that indirect taxes be uniform.

The question in 1894 was whether taxes on rental income were direct or indirect taxes. The Court felt they were closely enough tied to the capital property that they were direct taxes. As the tax upon the rents were not apportioned, the tax was unconstitutional.

Read that again: because it was not apportioned, the tax was unconstitutional. That means, the Court did not hold the income tax itself to be unconstitutional; had the income tax been apportioned, it would have been held constitutional.

The problem, however, was that Congress considered the tax an indirect one while the Court found it to be a direct tax. Since, absent a Constitutional Amendment, the Court generally gets the last say, Congress amended the Constitution to exempt "direct" income taxes from the apportionment requirement.

That is why the Court said in the case you cite that it added no new power to tax. Congress already had the power, it was just extremely difficult to exercise.

Imagine you are laying on the forest floor, and that you can freely move your arms. Suddenly, without warning, a log rolls onto one of your arms. You aren't injured, or hurt, but just pinned. You can still move your arm somewhat, but it's just very difficult to do. Eventually you orient yourself and push the log off with your legs and feet. You've freed yourself. You can now freely move your arm again.

Were you really given a new power to move your arm? No. Only the impediment to movement was removed. That's what the 16th Amendment did with the Taxing Power.

The direct tax clause in the Constitution is still in there. The 16th Amendment did not delete the requirement of apportionment, it just added contradictory text.

With your log analogy, the person now thinks that he has full use of all of the limbs, but the log is still there on his arm.

 

[foofighter20x]

You've mistaken my point.

The 16th removed the apportionment requirement for "direct" INCOME taxes, not direct taxes in general.