Today in Supreme Court History: July 12, 1909

7/12/1909: 16th Amendment is submitted to the states.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Amazing that Amurica was able to get along without an Income Tax for 133 years, of course it’ll only be a tax for the “Rich”

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahaha.
Insert Ray Liotta laugh scene from "Goodfellas"
https://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/is/images/direct/9a26b04b82df7ddfba8e43a63119119c5cc704e3/Ray-Liotta-Goodfellas-Henry-Hill-Laughing-8x10-Photo.jpg

[Frank Drackman]

So you’re saying I’m funny? I make you laugh?

[Mr. Bumble]

Touche.
Did anyone else get it?

[Frank Drackman]

You mean, let me understand this cause, you know maybe it's me, it's a little (redacted) up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to (redacted) amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

[minus the clever name]

Ties in with the disconnect between the spending of money and "where will we get this money/"

[Poxigah146]

That was because once women got the right to vote, they started voting for "compassion." Compassion is expensive.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No, it "started" with unnecessarily expanding the Navy in the 1880s to protect against those dastardly Europeans who might invade the US. Called the Steel Navy because they were the first "modern" deep water warships, as opposed to little coastal ships.

Then once they had a modernized navy, they naturally couldn't let them sit idle, and sent them to Cuba and Hong Kong to protect American interests, which led to the 1898 Spanish-American War and the beginnings of Empire, which required more ships to protect the new colonies, the basis for the Great White Fleet, and helped inspire the intervention in WW I. If the US had not captured the Philippines and Guam in 1898, there would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

[Jerry B.]

Yeah. There would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor because there was nothing to attack. Just drop a few hundred English speaking Japanese administrators and police off at the dock, and take over.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Oh, bullshit. First off, the point of my comment was that the Japanese would have had no need to attack the US to protect their supply lines going near the Philippines. I can only conclude that you are utterly ignorant about WW II in the Pacific.

In the second place, Japan did not have the logistics to invade Hawaii, let alone occupy it. Hawaii is a net food importer on top of it.

Your ignorance is typical of keyboard warriors who know nothing but slogans they don't even understand.

[bernard11]

Sixteenth Amendment ratified - 1913

Nineteenth Amendment ratified - 1920

[Frank Drackman]

My 2 daughters are about as “Compassionate” as King Cobras, problem is getting them to vote, 1 lives in CA, the other TX, have to agree it’s a waste of time for them

[Poxigah146]

Why do Democrats insist on repeating the lie about blue states subsidizing red states? Do they think that a lie becomes a truth if you say it enough?

[Frank Drackman]

Its right up there with the (redacted) that MAGA supporters are on Medicaid and get Food Stamps (and that Illegal Aliens don’t)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On this date in 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Pollock v. Farmers Loan Trust Co., striking down the federal income tax of 1894. The bill had passed as part of a general reduction in tariffs, although President Cleveland was no fan, letting it become enacted without his signature.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/today-history-income-tax-ruled-unconstitutional-pollock-v-farmers-loan-trust-co/

It was a 5-4 opinion with future Chief Justice Edward White and John Harlan among the dissenters. Pollock turned on the opaque reach of "direct taxes," something that confused the Framers, though others are quite sure what it means.

The Supreme Court soon began to apply the ruling narrowly. Many thought it would be overruled. Others thought this would lead to disrespect for the law. A constitutional amendment was deemed the best approach; it would firmly declare that income taxes are constitutional.

The issue was not totally clarified as suggested by Moore v. United States (2023), which dealt with congressional power to tax unrealized sums. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. Jackson concurred, partially referencing Pollock as a warning about the Supreme Court unduly reaching out to interfere with the congressional power over taxation.

[minus the clever name]

I would say to Jackson : The raising of money is supposed to be tied to the spending it is for. Nowadays, we proffer a $50 Billion bill and then say "okay, let's go raise that money" Founders abhored that approach. IT was the default mode of Biden.

The Consitution never gave Congress the power to just go ask for some money. IT had to have a purpose.

[F.D. Wolf]

It will doubtless be argued that the adoption of this amendment will open a way to the curbing of swollen and ill-gotten fortunes, or at least will compel the owners to pay a larger share of the expenses of government than they now do, and that the poor will be relieved of taxes in the same proportion.

Heed not the syren voice. The spirit of extravagance grows by that it feeds on. It will never be curbed by the feeling of repletion. Its capacious maw constantly craves more. It holds tightly all it has once acquired, and will never release a source of revenue once opened to it, unless forced by long and arduous struggle to disgorge. Let not the poor man then flatter himself that his burdens will be decreased under this amendment, nor that the levy of such a tax will materially check the attainment of ill-gotten wealth. The dishonest man of fortune, on the contrary, will probably escape, without much difficulty, the burdens of the tax, leaving it to fall all the more heavily upon the honorable and the upright.

Raliegh C. Minor, The Proposed Income Tax Amendment to the Federal Constitution, 15 Va. L. Reg. 737, 751 (1910). https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1103962.pdf