No, we were too busy laughing at you and seeing you go down in flames to notice that.
The 16th Amendment ist he constitutional basis of the income tax.
While an income tax was previously attempted, its constitutionality was doubtful, which is the reason why the 16th amendment was enacted.
Even today, people cahllenge the validity of the income tax based on their theory that the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified by the States.
If you want to spin some kook theory, go ahead. But trying to claim that Christine can’t run circles around you on the US Constitution is a different story.
Read the Constitution. Note that it gives Congress the power of taxation, but notes that direct taxation must be population-apportioned. Note that Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. found that property-based taxes were direct--and, therefore, had to be apportioned. But the Sixteenth Amendment allowed the Federal government to tax income regardless of source--not just indirect--without apportionment.
Even today, people cahllenge the validity of the income tax based on their theory that the 16th Amendment was not validly ratified by the States.
The current income tax includes various manners of income. Therefore, it requires the 16th Amendment to stand. But that doesn't mean all forms of income tax would be eliminated by the Sixteenth Amendment.
If you want to spin some kook theory, go ahead. But trying to claim that Christine can’t run circles around you on the US Constitution is a different story.
Oh, she runs in circles, alright!
Funny how the "kook theory" is the prevailing one. You might not be able to understand the difference between direct and indirect sources of income, and their differences under the pre-16th Constitution, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
In fact, your argument is exactly what was shot downby the Supreme Court of the US in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), which lays out clearly that the power of income taxation was there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, but that sixteenth amendment simply removed the requirement to apportion it, the extent that it was a direct tax, amongst the states (as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, for direct taxes. Indirect wage income was free from apportionment requirements even without the sixteenth, but some other classes of income were not, as they were considered direct.
If Miss O'Donnell is going to claim that Chris Coons was wrong on the First Amendment because he slightly paraphrased without substantially changing the meaning, she must accept that she's either wrong on the 16th (by claiming she was paraphrasing and not being technically correct) or a hypocrite (by saying it's okay to ignore her error but not his). Either way is untenable.
I'd rather have a senator who knows what she's talking about.