If that is so, why did they have to pass the 16th amendment.
And as far as lawyers contemplating appeals, thats what happens when you get a decision where the court has to twist itself into a pretzel to come to a conclusion.
In 1895 the Supremes ruled that a tax on personal property was a direct tax and had to be apportioned -- that was because the Feds were taxing rental income, interest income, and such as well with their 'income tax'. Yes, there was an income tax in the 19th Century. It started in 1861 to pay for the Civil War.
They didn't need the 16th Amendment to simply put an excise tax on wages.
In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. the Supremes ruled that the 16th gave *no additional taxing powers* to the Congress, but simply made it so that the courts could no longer rule that certain items were a direct tax and then subject to apportionment.
So as you see, Congress has had the power to tax anything they want since the Constitution was written. The manner in which they tax it -- that was up for debate and subject to the Supremes ruling on it. The 16th merely stopped the Courts from declaring certain items up for apportionment.
The Congress could have, in 1790, passed an excise tax on wages. The 16th simply removed the requirement to deal with certain things via apportionment. That is all it did. The 16th gave no new taxing power. It simply removed some items from the apportionment rule.
So even if we repeal the 16th Amendment, there is nothing stopping the Congress from putting forth an 'excise tax' on anything they want. The Courts have always ruled they can do that, subject to the few restrictions that Roberts lists in his decision like personal property.
But Roberts did stop a lot of the regulatory agencies dead in their tracks. This is a HUGE gift to us and in terms of rolling back Federal Power, is worth the price of admission as I see it.
Keep in mind, three years ago, everyone thought that a mandate could just run. Now we discover that a mandate is dead in its tracks. Neither Congress nor an Agency can just "order" someone to do something. They can only regulate activity.
I'll say it again: That is HUGE. People just don't appreciate the severity of it yet.
BTW, according to Mark Levin, who really is a lawyer, the so called "beat down" of the commerce clause is not a ruling of the court which would create a precedent since roberts did not join the 4 conservatives in this ruling, but issued his own separate opinion in the 5-4 decision. so it only applies to this case.