Repeal of the 16th Amenedmetn.

[Nareissa L. Smith]

Okay . . . .

1.  The federal government cannot function without money.  Period.  This is even more true now than in 1913.  Moreover, even if the individual federal income tax were eliminated, the federal government would simply get the money from the states, which is what happened before the 16th amendment.  Ergo, the federal tax would be eliminated, only to be replaced with even more onerous state taxes.  It's a zero sum proposition.

2.  Section 2 of the proposal would overrule Wickard.  This should not be done lightly.  There are a number of intra-state activities that have an impact on interstate commerce, and as our economy continues to evolve, this should be even more true, particularly with the advent of the internet(s) and other technology which bridges the gaps between people quite effectively.

3.  I seriously doubt there was one organizing principle behind the "tea party" movement, and if there was, it definately was not taxes.  Moreover, if it was, as the author states, a protest against "an unprecedented expansion of executive power", then that protest should have taken place sometime between October 2001 and January 2009.  To me, the tea party "movement" is nothing more than people that are dissatisfied with the fact that the executive powers they worked so very hard to expand under G.W. Bush are now wielded by the opposing party.

4.  Americans pay less taxes than anyone in the world.  It might do well to remember that, especially when our country needs more, not less from us, not just financially, but in all ways.
________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Calvin Johnson [CJohnson at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:44 PM
To: Scot Powe; taxprof at listserv.uc.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Cc: Alan Rau; Bill Sage; Daniel Rodriguez; Sanford Levinson
Subject: Repeal of the 16th Amenedmetn.

                I am in favor of this.  The 16th Amendment is redundant, and just clutters up the Constitution.   Apportionment was a defining characteristic of “direct tax” in the original intent,  The Founders s (Hylton 1796) properly held that any tax not comfortably apportioned was of course not a direct tax, and they knew what they were doing.   An unapportioned direct tax is not unconstitutional, it is impossible.
                It is time to reverse Polllock v. Farmer’s Trust (1895), and return to a purified understanding of  the Founder’s intent.

Barnett: Next Step After the Tax Tea Parties: Repeal the 16th Amendment
Op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:  The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers Can Make Washington Pay Attention<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.>, by Randy Barnett<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.> (Georgetown):
In response to an unprecedented expansion of federal power, citizens have held hundreds of "tea party" rallies around the country, and various states are considering "sovereignty resolutions" invoking the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments. ...
While well-intentioned, such symbolic resolutions are not likely to have the slightest impact on the federal courts, which long ago adopted a virtually unlimited construction of Congressional power. But state legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. ...
What sort of language would restore a healthy balance between federal and state power while protecting the liberties of the people?
One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is


Calvin H. Johnson
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
The University of  Texas  School of Law
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 232-1306 (voice)
FAX: (512) 232-2399
Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cvs/chj7107_cv.pdf
For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge University Press 2005) see http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/RighteousAnger/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090423/37771dbd/attachment.htm>