[Elect]

I posted the following and received the following as a response on another forum. Frankly, I don't believe the individual is correct, but thought maybe someone here could give me some confirmation of that fact.

My Quote:
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 both require direct taxes (i.e. taxes directly on the people's "income", as opposed to taxes indirectly imposed upon the people through items they buy) to be apportioned among the states. Unless the first Article of the Constitution is repealed or amended, your interpretation of the 16th amendment would clearly render it unconstitutional. You cannot legally amend the Constitution with an amendment which of itself violates the Constitution.

Their Response:
You seem to have mistaken your idealism for legal definitions. While you may feel this is the case, the 16th amendment defines federal income taxation as indirect taxation and with no apportionment applicable. Again the amendment:

16th amendment- 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.

Again, AMENDMENTS SUPERSEDE OR REPLACE EARLIER CLAUSES. It is a change to the constitution. In this case, it redefines federal income tax as indirect tax that is not due to be apportioned. Again, you don't have to like it, but it is the law of the land. It was also upheld by the courts, from your own quote:


Quote:
...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..."

The rest of your post has no bearing on teh constitutional powers of congress to set, collect, and spend income taxes. I am not arguing the constutionality of how its implemented. However, the constitutionality of the ability of congress to set, collect, and spend income tax without apportionment is on solid legal footing and has passed constitutional court muster.


Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916)

Again, you don't have to like it, but throwing up a bunch of red herring to the central argument of Congress's power to collect income taxes doesn't change its solid legal footing. Pay special attention to the part that says :

Quote:
from whatever source derived

PS: Again, your defining of income taxes as from corporate sources doesn't make it so and its dramatically contradicted by historical precedent. The modern corporation didn't even exist till the late 1800s (though a few of the important laws that laid the ground work for them came from the early 1800s, still few DECADES after the Constitution was written.)

As I said, you don't have to like it, but if you are that passionate, write a letter of justification for refusing to pay your taxes to your local congressman, reject the irs, file suite, and ask for appeal to the supreme court. That is your legal path of remedy. The problem is you are trying to substitute your feelings on the matter with the legal definitions and cases work. The goverment and the law don't care how you feel about it, and complaining about it won't change it. Start a political party and try to change it. More power to you.

Is this guy off his rocker, and if so does anyone have anything I can respond with. Does an amendment in fact supercede existing articles of the Constitution, and can the Constitution contradict itself? I've never believed it could be true, but in law, God only knows...

Thanks in advance for the help...