OK, I may be wrong on that issue. I may be right, too.
This still doesn't mean that there are many itmes in the Const. that contradict each other, and that it is a matter of common occurence. The Supreme court did rule that that the confusion surrounding the issue of direct vs. indirect taxation happened when people assumed that the 16th allowed a direct tax without apportionment.
-Y
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mertensv16
Wrong. In fact, only one amendment in history (the
21st) contained language expressly referring to the portion of the Constitution that it was superseding.
The Constitution still contains language that (a) recognizes slavery, (b) provides that the person finishing second in the Presidential vote becomes the Vice President, and (c) provides that Senators are to be elected by the state legislatures. Are you seriously suggesting that any of these is still the law?
Congress already had the power to tax incomes before the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court held in 1881 that a tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax. The sole reason for the 16th was to overturn the result in the Pollock case, which had held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax.
|