Free Enterprise Society Fresno Ca.

[Weston White]

The quotation from Adam Smith that WW and other tax deniers love so much is as follows:

"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor…."

Of course, that quote says that a capitation can be a direct tax on wages, but it doesn't say that a direct tax on wages is a capitation.

Saying that a poodle is a dog doesn't mean that all dogs are poodles.

The Adam Smith legend is a common enough tax denier misconception that I will probably add it to the FAQ, and explain why it is legally, logically, and economically irrelevant.

Great be sure to include the proper legal dictionary definition along with it, you know so your readers will know you are for sure full of crap.

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

Why is it exactly do you think that SCOTUS cites Wealth of Nations? Just for SAG? Look to the Annotated Constitution, notice what is specifically missing from all discussion? Hint, never is tax upon labor review, cited, mentioned, or discussed.

Why do YOU think the Court cited Wealth of Nations, Weston? This is just more of your lies. The Court rejected Adam Smith's definition! Read the Pollock case!

I thought you were implying somewhere that you had done all this legal research. Do you not know how to read? THE MERE CITATION OF SOMETHING IN A COURT OPINION DOES NOT MEAN THE COURT IS APPROVING OF WHAT THE COURT IS CITING. Courts discuss and summarize the arguments on BOTH SIDES in the texts of many court opinions. That's what the Supreme Court did in Pollock. Do you really think that we haven't read the text of Pollock?

Have YOU READ THE TEXT OF POLLOCK?

ADAM SMITH'S DEFINITION IS NOT THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEFINITION. What part of that do you not understand? We are trying to discuss a LEGAL definition here, not some definition by a foreign economist.

You are doing almost the same thing you did with the fake citation on Lucas v. Earl at your web site. In that case, you quoted an excerpt from the LOSING PARTY'S ARGUMENT -- without stating that it was the losing party's argument -- to give readers the false impression that it was part of the Court's opinion.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone here, Weston?

Some of us are trying hard to give you as much benefit of the doubt as possible. But you are going to have to change your tune if you ever want to gain any credibility here.

[Weston White]

Weston White wrote:

Why is it exactly do you think that SCOTUS cites Wealth of Nations? Just for SAG? Look to the Annotated Constitution, notice what is specifically missing from all discussion? Hint, never is tax upon labor review, cited, mentioned, or discussed.

Why do YOU think the Court cited Wealth of Nations, Weston? This is just more of your lies. The Court rejected Adam Smith's definition! Read the Pollock case!

I thought you were implying somewhere that you had done all this legal research. Do you not know how to read? THE MERE CITATION OF SOMETHING IN A COURT OPINION DOES NOT MEAN THE COURT IS APPROVING OF WHAT THE COURT IS CITING. Courts discuss and summarize the arguments on BOTH SIDES in the texts of many court opinions. That's what the Supreme Court did in Pollock. Do you really think that we haven't read the text of Pollock?

Have YOU READ THE TEXT OF POLLOCK?

ADAM SMITH'S DEFINITION IS NOT THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEFINITION. What part of that do you not understand? We are trying to discuss a LEGAL definition here, not some definition by a foreign economist.

You are doing almost the same thing you did with the fake citation on Lucas v. Earl at your web site. In that case, you quoted an excerpt from the LOSING PARTY'S ARGUMENT -- without stating that it was the losing party's argument -- to give readers the false impression that it was part of the Court's opinion.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone here, Weston?

Some of us are trying hard to give you as much benefit of the doubt as possible. But you are going to have to change your tune if you ever want to gain any credibility here.

Quit your whining and cite your case, this is the third time I have asked you, it is put up or shut up time.

BTW, that Lucas v. Earl is not my case, it was something I posted in a work in progress. If you had been paying attention, which I am sure you have you would have known that I had been attempting to get some people together to research SCOTUS cases for verification. Though to no real surprise nobody wanted to play. Though we did hash out that case in this thread at LH and it was concluded you did not know what you were actually talking about, IIRC, there was an underlying case involved in that decision. http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... ucas++earl

Do you really think you're fooling anyone here, Weston?

Is that what you think I am really attempting to do? Fool people? If so your wrong to presume that, you are incorrect.

[Weston White]

Of course, that quote says that a capitation can be a direct tax on wages, but it doesn't say that a direct tax on wages is a capitation.

You must be joking, right? Is that something they teach you during your stint in higher education? When you have been shown to be incorrect, simply pervert the respondents answer, phrase into a statement and you are all good again as if nothing bad had happened? Geez, that is funny.

No that is not what is says at all, at no times does it say that and in saying what it does say, the other is to be automatically implied. There are several other statements by Dr. Adam Smith that is not the only one, there is no room for an instance of a negative pregnant.

[LPC]

Of course, that quote says that a capitation can be a direct tax on wages, but it doesn't say that a direct tax on wages is a capitation.

You must be joking, right? Is that something they teach you during your stint in higher education?

Do you really believe that "a poodle is a dog" and "a dog is a poodle" both mean the same thing?

When you have been shown to be incorrect,

You haven't yet shown me to be incorrect.

All you have shown me is that one sentence from a book written by a British economist can be twisted to support your views on the meaning of the Constitution before the ratification of the 16th Amendment. At best, that means that you have a different opinion, not that I am incorrect.

[Paul]

All you have shown me is that one sentence from a book written by a British economist can be twisted to support your views on the meaning of the Constitution before the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

And, of course, he hasn't begun to show you (or anyone else) why any of this matters in interpreting the 16th Amendment. All the 16th Amendment says is that the rule of apportionment shall not apply to taxes on incomes. Under the Constitution before and after that amendment, the rule of apportionment applies only to direct taxes. Unless there were some way in which a tax on income could be construed to be a direct tax, the 16th Amendment has no meaning. So merely proving that a tax on income or some specific form or source of income is a direct tax proves nothing about the constitutionality of a tax on that income after the 16th Amendment. You need to find something that proves that the 16th Amendment was not intended to apply to a tax on that income. Any citation of Adam Smith is totally useless for that purpose.

[Weston White]

I was thinking about how several had stated that capitation taxes no longer mean what it originally meant within Wealth of Nations, and it dawned on me this morning how utterly ludicrous a notion that actually is, namely for the following reasons,(phrased as questions):


1. What does BAR stand for? British Accreditation Registry, being that our legal system was inherited from the British legal system. Our justice system is head deep in tradition, right?

2. Where do the majority of all American English words and their definitions derive from? British English (mostly following along some course of French and Latin), right? In fact, many legal phrases are still written and spoken in Latin, even to this very day, right? Why? Is this due to the legal system being steeped in “tradition”? What is always true about tradition, it does not change, right?

3. All words and their intended meanings as used in the U.S. Constitution came from somewhere, right? Words that come from somewhere always maintain their original meaning, right? Although, in some cases the word itself may have its pronunciation changed or the definition of the word may be expanded upon.

4. Did the Forefathers intend to make up new words or alter the meanings of words used by other nations, such as altering the definitions of capitations from France or of poll-taxes from England?

5. Never during the Convention nor within the Federalist Papers did the Forefathers make any reference to a specific or special definition of any category of ‘direct taxes’ did they? Would this not factually show that they knew what those definitions were and had no intention of making up their own unique definition of those words, such as poll-taxes and capitation taxes?

6. Isn’t true that SCOTUS has ruled that Congress cannot change the definition of ‘income’ as originally meant within the XVI Amendment, such as to reference ‘income’ in its ordinary sense rather than “XVI Amendment ‘incomes’” in its legal sense? Would it not also stand than that neither Congress nor SCOTUS could change the definition of any other word as originally meant within the U.S. Constitution?

[Prof]

I was thinking about how several had stated that capitation taxes no longer mean what it originally meant within Wealth of Nations, and it dawned on me this morning how utterly ludicrous a notion that actually is, namely for the following reasons,(phrased as questions):


1. What does BAR stand for? British Accreditation Registry, being that our legal system was inherited from the British legal system. Our justice system is head deep in tradition, right?

2. Where do the majority of all American English words and their definitions derive from? British English (mostly following along some course of French and Latin), right? In fact, many legal phrases are still written and spoken in Latin, even to this very day, right? Why? Is this due to the legal system being steeped in “tradition”? What is always true about tradition, it does not change, right?

3. All words and their intended meanings as used in the U.S. Constitution came from somewhere, right? Words that come from somewhere always maintain their original meaning, right? Although, in some cases the word itself may have its pronunciation changed or the definition of the word may be expanded upon.

4. Did the Forefathers intend to make up new words or alter the meanings of words used by other nations, such as altering the definitions of capitations from France or of poll-taxes from England?

5. Never during the Convention nor within the Federalist Papers did the Forefathers make any reference to a specific or special definition of any category of ‘direct taxes’ did they? Would this not factually show that they knew what those definitions were and had no intention of making up their own unique definition of those words, such as poll-taxes and capitation taxes?

6. Isn’t true that SCOTUS has ruled that Congress cannot change the definition of ‘income’ as originally meant within the XVI Amendment, such as to reference ‘income’ in its ordinary sense rather than “XVI Amendment ‘incomes’” in its legal sense? Would it not also stand than that neither Congress nor SCOTUS could change the definition of any other word as originally meant within the U.S. Constitution?

Weston, this is the sort of "logic" engaged in by tax deniers.

First, the BAR refers to a fence in a courtroom. Admission before the bar meant, at least in England, the right to argue in a court of law "before the bar." Look up the word. By the way, there is no such thing as the "British Acredited Registry."

Second, the Founders seem to have known exactly what "direct taxes" were. While there is little reference in the debates,the history seems clear. Direct taxes were what we call property or ad valorem taxes. Taxation on property -- especially slaves -- was resisted by the slave states and the farmers in the agricultural states.


As far as definitions of legal terms, those do change as times change. Because the term "person" as used in the 14th Amendment is a broader term that includes, according to the courts, the terms human being (or "individual"), legal entities such as corporations, municipalities, and partnerships, statutes frequently define their scope by reference to individuals, persons, including corporations and partnerships, and entities which is the broadest term, and includes governments.

You, like other "legal researchers" want to "reason" out things -- when the reasoning is based upon nothing but idle supposition. I used to hector my law students to read the statute before reading anything else. You should do the same.

As for the scope of te 16th Amendment, since the history of the amendment is clear, notwithstanding bad arguments and worse research, I'm afraid that you are stuck with a Constitutional Amendment that allows the taxation of income form whatever source ....

[LPC]

I was thinking about how several had stated that capitation taxes no longer mean what it originally meant within Wealth of Nations,

No one ever said that "capitation" means something different than what Adam Smith meant.

All that I have said, and others have said, is that Adam Smith's statement that a capitation acted as a direct tax on wages does not require the conclusion that a tax on wages is a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.

If you actually read the Wealth of Nations, instead of relying on quotes from tax protester websites, you would see that Smith believed that all taxes were ultimately payable from income, and so he judged the "directness" of a tax on the relationship between the imposition of the tax and the income used to pay the tax. He wrote that capitations fell "indifferently" upon different kinds of income, and so a capitation was not usually a "direct tax" in Smith's vocabulary. (He called it a "direct tax on wages" in relation to the "lower classes" only because wages would be their only source of income with which to pay the tax.)

But the authors of the constitution believed that capitations and taxes on the value of land were both "direct taxes," even though neither has anything to do with income. So it is clear that the framers had something different in mind when they used the word "direct" than what Smith meant.

And a reminder: This is all academic after the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

[LPC]

Show me the case where that was so… I bet you can’t.

Bet I can: Pollock -- the very case the tax protesters cite over and over and over. In Pollock, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Adam Smith definition of direct tax, and REJECTED it.

Actually, Veazie Bank v. Fenno was first. In a unanimous opinion in 1869, Chief Justice Chase wrote:

“Must [sic?] diversity of opinion has always prevailed upon the question, what are direct taxes? Attempts to answer it by reference to the definitions of political economists have been frequently made, but without satisfactory results. The enumeration of the different kinds of taxes which Congress was authorized to impose was probably made with very little reference to their speculations. The great work of Adam Smith, the first comprehensive treatise on political economy in the English language, had then been recently published; but in this work, though there are passages which refer to the characteristic difference between direct and indirect taxation, there is nothing which affords any valuable light on the use of the words 'direct taxes' in the Constitution.

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 541-542 (1869).

This sentiment was followed in the second Pollock decision, in which the majority stated:

This court is again urged to consider this question in the light of the theories advanced by political economists. But Chief Justice Chase, delivering the judgment of this court in Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, observed that the enumeration of the different kinds of taxes that congress was authorized to impose was probably made with very little reference to the speculations of political economists, and that there was nothing in the great work of Adam Smith, published shortly before the meeting of the convention of 1787, that gave any light on the meaning of the words 'direct taxes' in the constitution.

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 641-642 (1895).

[Weston White]

All you have shown me is that one sentence from a book written by a British economist can be twisted to support your views on the meaning of the Constitution before the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

And, of course, he hasn't begun to show you (or anyone else) why any of this matters in interpreting the 16th Amendment. All the 16th Amendment says is that the rule of apportionment shall not apply to taxes on incomes. Under the Constitution before and after that amendment, the rule of apportionment applies only to direct taxes. Unless there were some way in which a tax on income could be construed to be a direct tax, the 16th Amendment has no meaning. So merely proving that a tax on income or some specific form or source of income is a direct tax proves nothing about the constitutionality of a tax on that income after the 16th Amendment. You need to find something that proves that the 16th Amendment was not intended to apply to a tax on that income. Any citation of Adam Smith is totally useless for that purpose.

OMG, tell me you did not seriously mean to post this, did you mean to post this?

You seem to miss the very obvious very blatant point that capitations being a tax in consideration of ones labor, it then stands that this is something that a tax on incomes can never be. This would be a case of negative pregnant

I am making no arguments about the XVI Amendment, it has no application in the case of pay for labor, I am not arguing about the Constitutionality of the XVI Amendment nor the IRC. Only that for my purposes either has ZERO application, ZERO relevance.

Look dude, if they had meant to mess around with Direct Taxes, they would have specifically mentioned them within the XVI Amendment. They would have used capitations taxes and possibly even poll-taxes. Guess what they did not! Guess what they did use… ‘incomes’, not ‘income’, but ‘incomes’ and nothing else!

If they meant to accomplish what you claim, they would have repealed AI,S9,C4 and would have modified AI,S2,C3 and AI,S8,C1 to make it so. As they did by way of the XXI Amendment concerning the repeal of Prohibition.

Also you seem to forget that SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that incomes was within the class of indirect taxes, that incomes is an excise tax... besides your argument is moot because the IRS admits and acknowledges that it is an excise tax. Hell the original title of the IRC was the Tariff Act or Tariff Underwood Act, for crying out loud. And I am certain you know what a tariff is and that it has nothing to do with earning a common living.

By the by, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that ‘incomes’ or ‘income’ ever existed within the intended meaning of either what is a ‘capitation tax’ or ‘poll-tax’, all there though is the POLLOCK case, where it was found that the ‘income tax’ was the same as a tax on the property itself and thus direct; hence ‘other direct taxes’ as prescribed within the U.S. Constitution and which are various taxes upon property real or personal… and which have nothing to do with ‘capitation taxes’ or ‘poll-taxes’. This is all the XVI Amendment set out to correct, nothing more, nothing less.

No I don’t need to find anything out about the XVI Amendment, it does not apply to me, personally, I could care less about it. The same as somebody that abstains from drinking alcohol could care less about Prohibition.

See, these are your problems, you all sit there spinning donuts around each other, madly, trying to place bubble gum in the cracks to hold back the dam. I got news for you all, you all are very close to being drowned by a massive and uncontrollable title wave, your time left enjoying your “wealth” (as most of you so proudly proclaim), is drawing very, very short. Everything is coming to a head; the people are awaking in numbers not yet realized.

Oh and now that is not a "threat", getting that out of the way now, because from what I have seen before on this site, that could very likely be construed as such.

[Demosthenes]

Everything is coming to a head; the people are awaking in numbers not yet realized.

Tax deniers have been making this promise for 40+ years...

We're all doomed ... doomed ...

[Weston White]

Show me the case where that was so… I bet you can’t.

Bet I can: Pollock -- the very case the tax protesters cite over and over and over. In Pollock, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Adam Smith definition of direct tax, and REJECTED it.

Actually, Veazie Bank v. Fenno was first. In a unanimous opinion in 1869, Chief Justice Chase wrote:

“Must [sic?] diversity of opinion has always prevailed upon the question, what are direct taxes? Attempts to answer it by reference to the definitions of political economists have been frequently made, but without satisfactory results. The enumeration of the different kinds of taxes which Congress was authorized to impose was probably made with very little reference to their speculations. The great work of Adam Smith, the first comprehensive treatise on political economy in the English language, had then been recently published; but in this work, though there are passages which refer to the characteristic difference between direct and indirect taxation, there is nothing which affords any valuable light on the use of the words 'direct taxes' in the Constitution.

Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 541-542 (1869).

This sentiment was followed in the second Pollock decision, in which the majority stated:

This court is again urged to consider this question in the light of the theories advanced by political economists. But Chief Justice Chase, delivering the judgment of this court in Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541, observed that the enumeration of the different kinds of taxes that congress was authorized to impose was probably made with very little reference to the speculations of political economists, and that there was nothing in the great work of Adam Smith, published shortly before the meeting of the convention of 1787, that gave any light on the meaning of the words 'direct taxes' in the constitution.

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 641-642 (1895).

Again OMG, is that all you people have, really is that it? Guess what they are referring to you silly gooses... 'other direct tax', ..."What are direct taxes"? That question was posted in the Convention, it was recorded that nobody answered and there was no further discussion made about that issue.

Those cases are posing a similar question. Dr. Adam Smith meant direct as in firsthand or primary, keep in mind Dr. Adam Smith did not make up these terms, he merely reasoned how they should be applied so as to be just and proper. It was our Forefathers that made the determination as to how they should be applied, you can tell by the way they applied them that they were following the work of Dr. Adam Smith and not as how they were originally laid, levied, or imposed within France and England.

They are not making any reference to what is capitation taxes or poll-taxes within any of those cases, the definitions of those are very clear and are as well have been clearly defined within legal dictionaries, even decades after those cases you have cited, what is not clear however, is what was actually meant by 'other direct tax' or 'direct tax' as a generality… although it has been referenced that such taxes had to do with property. In the Convention it was also debated as to whether slaves should be apart of that property equation or not and to what degree.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The Forefathers were the ones that determined how to apply the various classes of established taxes not Dr. Adam Smith or the Wealth of Nations, though it is clear they were inspired by the work he conducted and put it to use within their framing of the Constitution.

[Weston White]

Everything is coming to a head; the people are awaking in numbers not yet realized.

Tax deniers have been making this promise for 40+ years...

We're all doomed ... doomed ...

40+ years again you did not have the Internet and the Alternative Media, none of you are safe any longer.

[Demosthenes]

Everything is coming to a head; the people are awaking in numbers not yet realized.

Tax deniers have been making this promise for 40+ years...

We're all doomed ... doomed ...

40+ years again you did not have the Internet and the Alternative Media, none of you are safe any longer.

Yawn. I've been watching tax deniers panic on the internet for almost fifteen years now, Weston...

40+ years and no progress. But leave it to the delusion cult followers to declare that victory is imminent any day now...

[Weston White]

Yawn. I've been watching tax deniers panic on the internet for almost fifteen years now, Weston...

40+ years and no progress. But leave it to the delusion cult followers to declare that victory is imminent any day now...

Yawnskies

[Weston White]

First, the BAR refers to a fence in a courtroom. Admission before the bar meant, at least in England, the right to argue in a court of law "before the bar." Look up the word. By the way, there is no such thing as the "British Acredited Registry."

What you state is debatable at best. It appears to be a tightly held secret. Sure though the word bar has several meaning, though not in reference to “the BAR”, “the BAR exam”, “the baby BAR”, etc.

Second, the Founders seem to have known exactly what "direct taxes" were. While there is little reference in the debates,the history seems clear. Direct taxes were what we call property or ad valorem taxes. Taxation on property -- especially slaves -- was resisted by the slave states and the farmers in the agricultural states.

Yes such taxes applied to property, that much is known, though to what extent and what application, it appears there was confusion in that area. That is a good point though and proves my point, direct taxes are those laid upon property, either real or personal, ones pay would be property, property belonging to one and passed to another in exchange for favour. No the tax was not “especially upon slaves”, slaves were accounted as property and proportioned as 3/5 of 1, though there was some debate about how this should be work within the Convention.

As far as definitions of legal terms, those do change as times change. Because the term "person" as used in the 14th Amendment is a broader term that includes, according to the courts, the terms human being (or "individual"), legal entities such as corporations, municipalities, and partnerships, statutes frequently define their scope by reference to individuals, persons, including corporations and partnerships, and entities which is the broadest term, and includes governments.

Sure words get expaned upon over time, such as the word cited in your example. Though never in the case of Fundamental Law, those do not change, except though the amendment process, period.

You, like other "legal researchers" want to "reason" out things -- when the reasoning is based upon nothing but idle supposition. I used to hector my law students to read the statute before reading anything else. You should do the same.

Save it for your classes, lest you forget I am not one of your pupils.

As for the scope of te 16th Amendment, since the history of the amendment is clear, notwithstanding bad arguments and worse research, I'm afraid that you are stuck with a Constitutional Amendment that allows the taxation of income form whatever source ....

Never had I stated that was not the case, I completely agree with you on that. Though XVI Amendment incomes is not a creature that was born to burden working class America.

[Judge Roy Bean]

40+ years again you did not have the Internet and the Alternative Media, none of you are safe any longer.

Right, Weston. Judges in the civil, tax and criminal courts will succumb to the wisdom of the TP/TD web sites as opposed to the doctrine of stare decisis.

And thus we should also expect that the power of Twitter will make SCOTUS do away with the IRS!

Please, keep betting that way and you can become an inmate as opposed to an employee of the state.

[Paul]

Look dude, if they had meant to mess around with Direct Taxes, they would have specifically mentioned them within the XVI Amendment. They would have used capitations taxes and possibly even poll-taxes. Guess what they did not! Guess what they did use… ‘incomes’, not ‘income’, but ‘incomes’ and nothing else!

If they had meant to mess with ALL direct taxes, they would have said so. What they did was say that all taxes on incomes are exempt from apportionment. Since all taxes on incomes are exempt from apportionment, what constitutional limitation do you think is violated by the current income tax, as written or as applied by the IRS? Calling it a capitation just means that it is subject to apportionment under the original constitution, but the 16th Amendment changed that for taxes on incomes, so you haven't gotten anywhere by claiming it's a capitation.

If they meant to accomplish what you claim, they would have repealed AI,S9,C4 and would have modified AI,S2,C3 and AI,S8,C1 to make it so. As they did by way of the XXI Amendment concerning the repeal of Prohibition.

Here's a test of your research skills and your reasoning skills. Under the constitution: How are senators selected nowadays? How about the vice president? Is slavery allowed?

After you've figured these things out, go back and look at your statement copied above, and tell us why it is ignorant. Do your own research and thinking for a change.

Also you seem to forget that SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that incomes was within the class of indirect taxes, that incomes is an excise tax... besides your argument is moot because the IRS admits and acknowledges that it is an excise tax. Hell the original title of the IRC was the Tariff Act or Tariff Underwood Act, for crying out loud. And I am certain you know what a tariff is and that it has nothing to do with earning a common living.

I hadn't forgotten. You're the one who keeps arguing that they are wrong by saying that a tax on income is a capitation. All I've been doing is telling you that, even if you're right, your argument doesn't get you to the goal of declaring the current income tax, as written or as applied by the IRS, to be unconsitutional.

By the way, what is a tax on income -- an excise or a capitation? Make up your mind.

[Weston White]

Nope - words change, meanings change and one meaning that was popular in the 1800s ("gay" for example) now has a completely different meaning now - "nice" is another one. Sometimes words fall completely out of usage, while others are created. English is a messy, polyglot, mongrel, amorphous language.

Is “gay” or “nice” used in the U.S. Constitution, I don’t think so. However, as I already said, words to get expanded upon over time… though not in this case.

If they are silent on the subject, we can never know. However, I doubt they wanted a static, fixed document, with no flexibility to handle new situations that might arise.

That is exactly what they want, and intended, with one exception, it is called the amendment process. If they remained silent then it would obviously be conceded that they intended to use the definition of the words that were widely known. Ergo, that would be the definitions as originally prescribed in England and France, which is what Wealth of Nations served to exemplify… perfectly I might add.

And in the Constitution, as first ratified and through the first 12 amendments there was no mention of slaves or slavery either. Again, if it isn't in writing, all is supposition.

They discussed slavery a great deal within the Convention also there is mention of slavery right in AI,S2,C3.

“… which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. …”

No and no. The is NO definitions section to the Constitution. If the writers wanted to be specific in regards to "income" they would have written that specific definition into the Constitution. They didn't so your argument is mooted. Also, here is the text of the 16th Amendment: "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." Please note, the word used is "incomes". And again, there is no definition of it, just that it is.

The use of income came along later on, I think somewhere in the mid1800’s. This term was specifically defined later on within the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act. SCOTUS has directly ruled on this in numerous cases. The Annotated Constitution, specifically makes reference to “income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.” within. Also what you claim to be, is never discussed one time within either, you would think something as monumental as what you allege would be mentioned at least once. But no it is not, never, not once.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html ... amdt16_hd8