Posted on 06/29/2012 7:17:36 AM PDT by seton89
US Constitution - Art 1/Sect 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
It taxes our patience.
I have been saying this for years.. no one listens. This clause in the Constitution has never been repealed, regardless of the language of the 16th Amendment. It is therefore still in effect, and the 16th is misunderstood. The 16th may have expanded taxing power, but it DID NOT expand jurisdiction. The feds have never had authority to tax individuals within the States, UNLESS they volunteer into a quasi-federal citizenship status in order to get benefits.
For any clause to lose it’s power, it must be repealed. The amendment outlawing the transportation of liquor was REPEALED. Has the above ever been repealed?
obamacare is none of the enumerated taxing powers given to the government by our Constitution or its existing amdnements.
Roberts made it up as he went along
The Court may have “reminded” the fedral govt that it has enumerated powers, but then Roberts’ ruling completely and torturously and unconstitutionally ignored those enumerated powers ...
Per the Roberts court- just ignore those pesky tax labels defined by enumeration - it’s the thought that counts (sarc)
Is obamacare a capitation tax? (er, no)
An excise tax?(er no)
An income (er, no)
Then what is it? Well, as Roberts ruled, those knuckleheads in Congress obviously “intended” it to be a tax even if they didn’t say so and even if it didn’t meet the enumeration definitions ..... nevertheless, it is a tax and thus we go forward because it was the job of the SCOTUS to save this law. Thus spake John Roberts.
Thanks to Mark Levin for last night dissecting this line of reasoning so laymen can understand what happened yesterday
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mclemente/the-constitutionality-of-obamas-mandate-which-enum
The Power to Lay and Collect Taxes:
In a paper entitled The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance, Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest, argues that the Constitution grants Congress the power to “impose a tax on people who do not have health insurance.” Such a tax would be a means by which Congress could enforce its mandate. Punishing those who do not buy insurance with an added tax burden would cause a majority of Americans to acquire coverage.
Such a tax may seem like a legitimate way to discourage individuals from living without insurance but the federal government does not possess such broad taxation powers. Like every other power vested in Congress, the Constitution holds limitations on lawmakers’ ability to collect taxes. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to collect excise and capitation taxes. The 16th Amendment created a national income tax. But an extra tax burden placed on individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance does not fall under any of these three categories. In a 2009 op-ed written for Politico, Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, writes:
It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Art 1/Sect 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
I would say that “without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
effectively repeals “unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken”. But, I’m not a lawyer.
The Constitution as you knew it no longer applies. You might as well be citing the back of a cereal box.
I’m still in shock that John Roberts has gone liberal on us.
Why is it that conservative judges can go liberal, but liberal judges never go conservative????????
If Romney wins the election, and if there are retirements from the Supreme Court in his term, it would be good to hold his feet to the fire on judicial appointments.
If you can find a copy, read it. Makes perfect sense and would prevent out of control Fed spending.
Note that the greater number of people affected by the Individual Mandate (which is a tax of some kind) are poor, and understanding that many of them will lose their right to vote if convicted by the federal government of non-payment, it seems pretty obvious this is just another poll tax passed with the intent of depriving young poor people of their right to vote.
Congress has the power to prohibit such taxes.
Your presumed point is addressed in my comment.
“If Romney wins the election, and if there are retirements from the Supreme Court in his term, it would be good to hold his feet to the fire on judicial appointments.”
If Romney wins the election it would be ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to hold his feet to the fire on a daily basis on every issue important to conservatives.
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes Article I, Section 9 is still in effect, for every other tax except for taxes on income.
The problem for the Supreme Court is that if ACA is constitutional because it is a tax, it is unconstitutional because it is not based on income and it is not in proportion to the census
Someone has to pay the tax/penalty before anyone has standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the tax/penalty.
My hope is that it is struck down as legislation long before anyone pays the tax/penalty (2014) - but if it is still in place - we can expect a challenge under the grounds you expounded upon.
It is NOT an excise capitation or an income tax - it is a tax on behavior.
Congress doesn’t have the limited and enumerated power to tax behavior (or, in this case, non behavior); although they certainly do - under the Constitution it has only the limited and enumerated power to impose excise capitation or income taxes.
People keep saying they're going to do this, but so far, not a single person has stated exactly how they intend to make mitt do anything Conservative. He doesn't even like Conservatives. I would go so far as to say he's actively hostile towards Conservatism. He's not going to do anything for us.
mitt is for mitt and nothing else. Once he's POTUS he'll revert to his natural, psychopathic self; creating enemies lists, consolidating the NWO, and putting the finishing touches on the police state begun by Bush and obama, only now he'll have real power to attack those enemies. And those enemies are Conservatives and Constitutionalists.
So now how are you going to hold his feet to the fire?
Mark Levin indicated the way the ruling is written, no one will be able to claim standing to challenge obamacare on this clause because the law is NOT a tax
So one part of the Roberts ruling is, it is a tax, and the other part is, it is not a tax
Catch-22, eh?
Jeez, John Roberts really bent over backwards to look up his rear end to write this one
I would LOVE to see a debate between him and Mark Levin on this decision
That is why they did not associate any criminal penalty with non-payment. If you have a refund, they can take from it, but if you owe money they can’t do anything, right now, if you don’t pay.
well, Anthony Kennedy was prepared to throw out obamacare
and he is not exactly a conservative ... as noted by the Arizona immigration law decision
OK, I knew I would have to do this...
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
The question is... what does “income” mean? Well, The Supreme Court defined it for us because it actually was not clear. Here’s what they said...
‘There can be no doubt that the word [”income”] must be given the same meaning and content in in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v Macomber, supra, a case arising from the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of “income” which was applied was adopted from Stratton’s Independence v Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include “profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets”, there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.’
Since that 1909 Act imposed an excise tax upon corporate profits, it is “definitely settled” that “income” for tax purposes consists of corporate profits. This is entirely consistent with the earlier Brushaber opinion that Amendment 16 gave Congress “no new taxing power.”
The 16th Amendment has NOTHING to do with your 1040. You volunteered for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.