Replies

The 13th Amendment is utterly incapable of having any effect on the 16th Amendment - later in time controls. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between the 13th Amendment and the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment wins, hands down.

Again, you are mistaken. The Constitution cannot contrdict itself - it is one of the basic tenets of law. Since the 13th came first, it is the 16th that must be corrected to not contradict it.

If you're pro-tax, why not just come out and say so?

Again, you are mistaken. The Constitution cannot contrdict itself - it is one of the basic tenets of law. Since the 13th came first, it is the 16th that must be corrected to not contradict it. If you're pro-tax, why not just come out and say so?

Ahh, so, since the Amendment that imposed Prohibition came first, the Amendment that repealed Prohibition must not have accomplished what we all have been thinking it did - since the Amendment imposing Prohibition came first, it must be the amendment that repealed Prohibition that is in need of correction, at least if we follow your "argument."

"Pro-tax" - why, if I am then I'm in very fine company, as the Founders were all pro-tax themselves, too. Or haven't you read those bits of the original Constitution that granted Congress the power to tax, subject only to two limitations, that all direct taxes (being property taxes and head, or capitation, taxes) be apportioned among the states according to the enumeration of the census, and all other taxes being imposed with uniform rates.

Speaking of which, I don't suppose you've ever actually read the Income Tax Cases - the two Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. cases that held the last pre-amendment income tax unconstititional, have you? If you had, you'd know that under the holding of those two cases, the only income Congress could not have taxed with an income tax like the one we have today would be income derived from real property or personal property; with respect to all other income - including most particularly wages - the Supreme Court in those two cases explicitly held that such other types of income, such as wages, could be taxed under the Constitution so long as the rates imposed were uniform.

So, if one were to succeed at the fools' errand of repealing the 16th Amendment, wages, salaries, and compensation for services rendered would still be subject to the Internal Revenue Code and the taxes imposed thereunder; the only income that would no longer be subject to tax under the Internal Revenue Code would be capital gains, rents and royalties from real property, and income derived from capital assets, such as interest paid on loans extended, dividends on shares of stock held, and the like.

Not a very pretty picture if you ask me.