Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
I won't let it slide. Article 1, Section 10 is completely irrelevant to this discussion as it speaks of limits on state governments, not the federal government.

While there is doubt on the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, it DOES amend Article 1 in that it grants Congress the right and power to tax income without any regard to population or apportionment. Congress was granted a power originally denied. It's really that simple. Later cases, such as Eisner v. Macomber in 1930 uphold the 16th Amendment supercedes Article 1 and grants Congress additional powers not originally granted.



Ahh, the Eisner case (1920). Iâ??m glad you brought it up. The Eisner Case was a stock dividend case; that is a stock from a corporation. It relied on two other cases. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. These latter two cases were cases relating to corporations.

Eisner V Macomber 252 US 206,207

â??Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it to be understood to include profits gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets ... not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value on the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed ..."

That a â??corporationâ? may derive income from labor as it utilizes labor in pursuit of profits is entirely correct. However, to say that income may be derived from labor is entirely different than saying that labor equals income.

The Internal Revenue Code (laws passed by Congress) does not define the word â??incomeâ?. That is because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress DOES NOT have that authority. The Supreme Court ruled:

Eisner V Macomber 252 US 189, 405Cr 189 (1920)

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

So, If Congress does not have the authority to define the word "income" by legislation, the IRS certainly does not either.

Look, Iâ??m a reasonable guy. Iâ??m not advocating that we all stop paying our taxes. All I'm trying to point out is Congress and the IRS have abused and overstepped their bounderies and the income tax is only one in an ocean of examples.

What desperatly needs to happen (as Jato has pointed out) is we need to abolish the IRS and go to a simple tax system. A flat tax maybe the answer but I'm open to other idea's as well and I have read many great tax purposals. However, I fear that until the economic conditions become FAR worse for the overwhelming majority of us who are not filthy rich (top 10%), no significant changes to make our tax system fair is going to be made. The wealthy control (cough own) the overwhelming majority of our Goverment and their intrests reign supreme.

Last edited by Icefury; 04/26/06 05:18 PM.
2000 CSVT Frost Silver 3.0 Hybrid