does anyone know what the first nationwide tax in the us was prior to the 16th amendment and how it was determined and collected???
did census workers send tax bills to residences?? did only land owners pay or even citizens who rented land???
also i have read that some say teh 16th amendment was or is unconstitutional and other that say that accordin to this it isnt unconstitutional
“No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken…"
this doesnt make much sense to me. is an income tax in proportion to the census or is an income tax have nothign to do with a proportion tio the census???
ie…PA has 100k people and needs 20 federal judges etc more space for records and more clerks etc.
SC has 5k peopel and only 1 federal judge etc. and fewer clerks etc. does an income tax on the working somehow digress form the 16th amendment rather than the population of citizens in a state…with incomes or not???
was there some other consideration for calling an income tax unconstitutional??
direct info or a legitimate link would be helpful.
Being as how the 16th Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, it is obviously “constitutional”. Does it violate the original intent of the Framers? Not if you consider their intent of allowing the Constitution to be amended.
The next question should be, was it amended properly? For that I defer…
well…the second amendmetn says keeping and bearigbn shall not be infringed.
what i meant
was there somethign in the language of the 16th amenedment that went directly against the intent of the (sect 1 articel 9 or whichever it was.) concering apportionement and direct taxes???
were there argumetns against the 16th amendment that used a constitutional basis??? saying that it denied language and the intent of the constitution???
the shall not be infringed has been undone despite its clear language and has been ignored.
@cret, I don’t know, but that is irrelevant. That is the purpose of amendments, to change the Constitution in any number of ways, ie. scope, intent, etc. Amendments are constitutional so long as the Constitution allows itself to be amended, which it does.
Although Mr Schiff is, I believe, still in prison for his beliefs, his book does include lots of history and legal arguments and is very informative [explains apportionment etc.].
Well worth the money, but the book may also be available free, on line somewhere- I don’t know, you will have to search.
IIRC, there were no direct taxes until the Civil War, during which Lincoln collected income taxes. The income taxes were then declared unconstitutional direct taxes years later. Prior to Lincoln, the Republic was funded solely by sales taxes and tariffs.
“I don’t know, but that is irrelevant. That is the purpose of amendments, to change the Constitution…”
i dint know if thats irrelevant or not.
you are using the word irrelevant because you think it has a certain meaning. was there a process that wasnt followed with the 16th amendment as far as changin teh sections in teh constitution or were words defiend in ways contrary to their known meanings in a way to let the court or govt get sometign easier or accomplsh somethign wrongly. was their a case against its passage (the 16th amendment) that has this line of reasoning is what i wanted to know. was this an early case of judicial activism according to some and what were there arguments for such.