Income tax is NOT constitutional.Submitted by jayprakash on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 08:53
First post on this matter : http://www.dailypaul.com/... .
After that I've done more research.
And now, I'm convinced, that income tax from earnings within the US is NOT constitutional.
And I bow to the genius of the Founding Fathers.
Everybody is very welcome to refute or add to what I'm about to write. But please be exact, quote laws, constitution, judge verdicts and so on.
And also, I'm challenging "constitutionality" of the income tax, not the subsequent laws, or that "everybody pays it".
The best explanation I've seen to this day
The best point is about the powers of the congress and the taxes:
US Constitution 1.8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
"No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature."
BAILEY v. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)
"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states. "
That means, that if the Congress lays tax on trade, or services within a state, it would also regulate that trade or service.
For example, if Congress does not like "shoe polishing", it can lay a 99% tax on it.
But the constitution does not give the congress the power to regulate "shoe polishing", or any other service or trade within a state.
I believe the "Commerce among the states", is mostly covered by US Constitution 1.9 :
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
As I understand it, the main goal of The Founding Fathers, was that internal commerce within the US would flourish, and companies from outside of the US, would be very motivated to move their business to the US to avoid the income tax, and so bring more and more capital to the US.
That also means, that the 16th amendment changed nothing on the constitutionality of the income tax. It is still constitutional on foreign trade, and not on commerce within the US.
WILLIAM E. PECK & CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes"