Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College

2/16/2014 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

I didn't know so many people here believe the 16th Amendment altered the requirement that direct taxes are required to be apportioned, or altered the legislative intent for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

JWK

[AceMineral]

Some people just don’t get it.

[Political Junkie Too]

So this is not about the Electoral College? This is just about what Levin said about taxes while talking about the Electoral College?

-PJ

[JOHN W K]

The passage determines the number of Representatives each state gets, which is directly associated with the size of each state's Electoral College voting strength!

JWK

[machogirl]

I believe Mark is correct. Perhaps he may check in on this thread?

[John Valentine]

Some people just don’t get it.

Some people just can't read.

[Procyon]

While Congress retains the power to impose a direct (or head) tax on every person within the United States it chooses not to do so. It is easier and far more lucrative to collect indirect taxes upon income which they have been able to do since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. So the examples provided showing the disparity of revenues collected vs electoral votes (or population) reveals that Californians on average are not reporting incomes higher than many other States. But it’s merely a statistical curiosity and has no Constitutional implications.

[Political Junkie Too]

So which point is being made here, Nifster's point that the 16th amendment delinked direct taxes with census apportionment, or your point that census apportionment for the purpose of taxing was also used to apportion the Electoral College?

Or are they one and the same?

-PJ

[John Valentine]

If you are speaking of Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3, please read it again, this time with due care to understanding the words therein.

There is NO language in there that provides for any sort of taxation test for determining the number of representatives for any state. In fact, it’s entirely the other way around; it’s the states’ population that determines the amount of direct taxation that can be assessed against each state.

Now, you may be correct that this element of the Constitution is largely ignored, especially now, after ratification the of the 16th amendment, but in no case is either the size of a state delegation to the US House of Representatives - or a state’s allotment of Electors to the Electoral College affected in any way whatsoever by the amount of taxes collected from within it’s borders.

[P-Marlowe]

Ask me if I care.

[JOHN W K]

Congress, from the very ratification of our Constitution, had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes” without apportionment and this was not only established in Springer vs. United States when the Court upheld an un-apportioned tax on incomes imposed during the Civil War, but the Court also examined and explained what made the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 (a tax calculated from profits and gains) “indirect” and not requiring apportionment,
see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).



Keep in mind that to this very day, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned as stated by the Court! In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:



“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”



A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”



And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:





A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several
States.



The truth is, the requirement that Representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned nas never by changed, nor has Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 been repealed and declares:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

JWK

[John Valentine]

You know, this kind of off-the-wall looney tunes vanity post ought to be unwelcome on Free Republic; hosting absurdities like this potentially opens the entire site to ridicule.

[John Valentine]

So what?

[Timber Rattler]

Ping!

[JOHN W K]

Did you miss the part that declares "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned" ?

JWK

[TigersEye]

Is your point in any way relevant to Levin’s point?

[JOHN W K]

Your "great one" promotes the socialist tax on incomes with one of his "liberty amendments".

JWK

[sickoflibs]

Levin ping!

[John Valentine]

“A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

With all due respect for Justice Roberts, this part of his opinion is errant nonsense.

[Procyon]

The 16th Amendment created an exception to the rule of apportionment on direct taxes, declaring that Congress could levy a tax on income from whatever source. The apportionment rule continues to be applied on all other forms of direct taxation. There are, currently, no other Federal direct taxes other than on income. All other current Federal taxes are excise taxes on import and consumption.