The Constitution defines the limitations and extent of federal power. SCOTUS, as the third branch of the federal government, is bound by the Constitution just as are the first two branches. Decisions regarding questions of the extent of federal power must therefore be made based on a good-faith effort to apply the Constitution AS WRITTEN and as ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
Judicial activism, as regards to the Constitution, is when a Justice inserts his own moral views in place of the Law of the Land, the Constitution as written and originally intended, thus attempting to rewrite the Constitution from the bench as the Justice sees fit. SCOTUS has had a sad history of judicial activism especially beginning with the 20th Century during which many earlier constitutionally-based assumptions and SCOTUS decision were either ignored or overturned without sufficient constitutional explanation.
Back to the point of this discussion which I think turns on
1) Is the “consumption” tax (with no VAT) better than the income tax? I believe it probably is. I think the “slave” tax argument is a good one and the extent to which government is allowed to meddle into our private lives to get an income tax is unconscionable and not what the framers of our Constitution had in mind at all.
2) What would it take to get a court decision (preferably state court) to declare the 16th Amendment null and void becasue it was never validly ratified? In the alternative, what would it take to get a new Constitutional Amendment that would repeal the 16th Amendment AND prohibit the income tax AND replace it with a “safe”, clearly limited consumption tax?
As I have said, either the 16th Amendment is removed or the discussion about the consumption tax is removed. One or the other. And if the 16th Amendment can’t be either declared invalid or repealed, then we’re back to pushing for a low, flat tax of around 10%.