Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative sympathizer
This case has nothing to do with the 16th Amendment. It is about the taxing power of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Here's a link to the decision. Point out where you think the 16th Amendment is at issue...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

14 posted on 07/04/2012 11:47:01 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Ken H
At the link you provided:

"(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.

"It need not be apportioned" follows directly from the 16th amendment as this tax is a tax on income and not a direct tax covered by Art. I, §9, cl. 4. and income taxes are specifically exempted of the requirement that they be apportioned.

15 posted on 07/05/2012 8:32:05 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson