Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: The Pack Knight

“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?


183 posted on 08/03/2018 12:24:12 PM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: Brian Griffin

Cases don’t become bad law just because they are old. The Court cites cases older than that all the time. The Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise.

But, if that’s your hangup, the Supreme Court applied the Direct Tax Clause as recently as 2012 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Obamacare case. “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.” The Court held that the individual mandate tax was not a direct tax, unlike “taxes on personal property,” and cited Eisner v. Macomber.

Your proposed tax is unconstitutional.


188 posted on 08/03/2018 12:49:11 PM PDT by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

To: Brian Griffin

And lest you respond to NFIB v. Sebelius by pointing out that I was quoting Roberts’ opinion, see Scalia’s dissent: “ Finally, we must observe that rewriting § 5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, § 9, cl. 4. “


190 posted on 08/03/2018 12:58:00 PM PDT by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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