[Allagion]

Could you answer me this? Do the states also have the power to nullify SCOTUS decisions such as Roe v. Wade or National Federation v. Sebelius if they consider them repugnant to the Constitution?

What is your definition of "Constitution-based reasoning" for the purpose of finding a case regarding 16th Amendment ratification? I ask because there are too many varied opinions on what is and is not constitutional.

As to the cases, yes, Pollock invalidated the Revenue Act of 1894. But it did not prohibit indirect taxes on incomes not derived from properties described in the case.

Brushaber is directly on point. The case was not just about corporate taxes. Brushaber was also challenging the statute since it required corporations to withhold and return individual income taxes derived from gains on investments the company held. So, interest on bonds, pre-distribution dividend payments, a percentage of return on a transaction, etc.

Furthermore, Brusharber claimed the Revenue Act of 1913 could not retroactively collect personal income taxes on dividends or bond interest from March 1, 1913 to October 3, 1913 when it was enacted. Why? He claimed the 16th Amendment didn't come into effect until a law was passed invoking it, which was October 3, 1913. Therefore, Pollock was still in effect until that date and he did not have to pay taxes on his investments absent apportionment.

SCOTUS rejected this argument. The 16th Amendment came into full force and effect when adopted on February 3, 1913. Therefore, the income tax on his investments as of March 1 did not have to be apportioned.

[PapaNew]

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%.