[The Pack Knight]

What part of 16th Amendment nullifies the Direct Tax Clause with regard to a wealth tax?”

In my opinion, The “16th Amendment nullifies the Direct Tax Clause”, period.

The Supreme Court may disagree.

Your opinion is baseless. It is contrary to the plain language of the 16th amendment, which authorizes only an income tax.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you since the earliest days of the 16th Amendment. In Eisner v. Macomber in 1920, and in Helvering v. independent Life Ins. Co. in 1934, the Supreme Court held portions of the federal income tax unconstitutional as unapportioned direct taxes because they did not actually tax income.

[Brian Griffin]

“In Eisner v. Macomber in 1920, and in Helvering v. independent Life Ins. Co. in 1934, the Supreme Court held portions of the federal income tax unconstitutional as unapportioned direct taxes because they did not actually tax income.”

1920, 1934, really?

[Brian Griffin]

“It is contrary to the plain language of the 16th amendment”

The 16th Amendment is “contrary to the plain language of the” direct tax clause.

Your 1934 case is older than Plessy v. Ferguson(1896) was in 1950.

[Brian Griffin]

“Your opinion is baseless.”

Amendment XVI and the direct tax clause can not both be valid, logically.