fjfjvmvm Says:
Aug 26, 2008 - ys construed to entail certain taxes on wealth and (not income.) The only reason the 16th amendment was passed was in response to a novel (and stupid) interpretation of the Constitution in the Pollack case. Even under the Pollack precedent there was no need for an amendment to authorize income tax. So the constitutional stuff is idiocy. More idiotic is the retarded, petulant, childish nonsensical view that "things would be great without taxes." Show me a country without taxes thats great.
fjfjvmvm Says:
Aug 26, 2008 - The inaccuracies in this shit come hard and heavy. The quote from Judge Fox is in a bit of dicta (i.e. irrelevant speculation with no legal consequence.) Further Fox says a few sentences later that every Judge would accept that the 16th amendment is part of the Constitution. Further the Constitution specifically conveys on Congress the power to levy taxes in Article II. It only bars "direct" AND "unapportioned" taxes. "Direct" is a term of art which was alwa