Famspear logic on the meaning of the 16th Amendment!

[Micheal360]

We start off with famspears interpretation Of the text that has been cut and pasted from findlaw.com the floor is all yours Famspear!

History and Purpose of the Amendment
The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.

What is the logic and interpretation of that text Famspear?

[Famspear]

We start off with famspears interpretation Of the text that has been cut and pasted from findlaw.com the floor is all yours Famspear!

History and Purpose of the Amendment
The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue.

What is the logic and interpretation of that text Famspear?

Why do you ask?



Hint: If you try to embark on yet another hamster wheel adventure on the meaning of "direct tax," "indirect tax," "excise", "duty or excise", if you try for the umpteenth time to conflate "direct tax" with an income tax imposed directly on you, you run the risk of having this thread shut down by me or, more likely perhaps, by some other moderator.

[noblepa]

IANAL, Michael360, but I don't see your point.

In his FAQ, famspear has simply stated a few facts about the Pollock case, which clearly held that certain parts of the income tax law of the time were unconstitutional.

Congress then passed, and the states ratified, the sixteenth amendment to address the issue and remove the constitutional impediment.

Any argument so far?

I don't see how the statement you clipped from his FAQ is in need of any interpretation. It is merely a recitation of historical fact. He simply states the problem that arose (the Pollock decision) and Congress' attempt to alleviate the problem. There is no great leap of logic to defend.

Unless you dispute his historical facts, it seems to me that there is nothing to discuss.

One can argue about the ramifications of the sixteenth amendment and tax laws passed pursuant to it, or about court cases decided about it. But that's what has been going on here for the last couple of weeks, with your posts.

However, the clip is not subject to interpretation.

If you dispute his historical facts, please offer some sources, such as the congressional record, showing the debates about the amendment, or other such historical records.

As for the meaning and ramifications of the amendment, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the only things that matter are final, unreversed appelate court or Supreme Court decisions. In this country, it is very much the case that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. They, not you, not me, not any of your internet "experts", not even famspear himself, are the final arbiters of any controversy.

[AndyK]

The sock puppets (and any other interested readers) can refer to any of the two or three previous threads beating this topic to death or they can actually look at any of the Supreme Court decisions regarding the issue.

They can NOT, however, post anything further on this LOCKED thead.

[Famspear]

I'm unlocking briefly, just to clarify what may have been some confusion. The quote posted by Micheal360 was not from me, but instead from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, report: “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation”.

re-lock thread.