I have read up on it. I have an LLM in tax. You’re right that a “direct tax” can be imposed so long as there is apportionment. But apportionment is lethal for the tax in practice, so Congress’s authority to levy direct taxes was rendered too cumbersome to actually implement, and this by express design of the Founders. Roberts knew he had to deal with the issue, so he simply said that a “tax” that places every American into a direct relationship with the IRS is not a “direct” tax in clear contradiction to the simple and accepted definition of “direct” tax. The man is a liar.
Yes, but nonetheless, the power is still there to do that. But the Supremes have actually done a number on that as well. Basically they have allowed Congress to end-run that and define anything they want as an excise tax. Thus, the first Income Taxes were born decades before the 16th Amendment came into being.
A little known fact is that the Feds got most of their revenue from excise taxes on alcohol and beer prior to the 16th. The IRS was needed for Prohibition. There is an interesting quirk of history there.
Roberts knew he had to deal with the issue, so he simply said that a “tax” that places every American into a direct relationship with the IRS is not a “direct” tax in clear contradiction to the simple and accepted definition of “direct” tax.
Sort of. Look into the Supreme Court decisions on what is a "direct tax" and what is not as they have ruled in the past.
Prior to the 16th, they had an excise tax on wages - that is fine, but the pre-16th Income Tax also taxed rental income and interest income. Those two, the Supremes held were a direct tax because it was a tax on personal property and the personal property aspect made it a direct tax and thus required to be apportioned.
Congress could have placed an excise tax on rents (as opposed to rental income) and that would not have been a "direct tax".
Suffice it to say, there is a long history of Congress levying every kind of tax they can think of. Some survive, some get ruled Unconstitutional on the apportionment technicality. Some come back after being ruled out of bounds by being sneaky about it.
I don't like the ruling, but I can understand Roberts' logic a bit. Technically, the individual mandate is an income tax levied when a trigger condition is met. Technically, that falls under the 16th then, and technically, it is Constitutional.
That's a lot of "technically". Way too much "technically" and more than the average person would be able to understand so IMO "technically" the decision should be Unconstitutional under the doctrine that it is too weird for the average person to comprehend.
But we have to live with it. What matters more now is less about how we complain about it and more about what we DO about it.