Reply With Quote
You can mount a legal challenge to anything. The authority of Congress to levy taxes is undisputed though.
Apparently Bernie’s got Putin’s endorsement. Anybody want to guess why? Does he think Bernie’s the easily most beatable by Trump or maybe that Bernie elected is equally or even more divisive to the US population at large than Trump. Must be some reason.
Last edited by picnroll; 02-21-2020 at 08:13 PM.
You can mount a legal challenge to anything. The authority of Congress to levy taxes is undisputed though.
I think it has much more to do with keeping a highly politicized, polarized US public, which is working out great, if that’s the end game.
I mean, look at this whole thing, now half the country rather believe a fat orange moron than our intelligence services.
In some ways yes and in some ways no.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...-supreme-court
Warren’s proposal likely no.
True but one thing is for sure, if Trump loses he won’t go gracefully and quietly. He will continue out of office to rabble rouse his supporters and Bernie is no healer of wounds. It would be an idealogic warfare unseen since the civil war.
No, seriously, quote me case law where the SCOTUS has ever challenged the authority of Congress from levying taxes.
Heck, Obamacare’s individual mandate was saved by that exact Congressional power, and we’ve had marginal tax rates all the way up over 90% before.
Now, I would agree this would be in much more shaky ground if it’s a wealth confiscation instead (that is, it’s not a tax on new income)
Ergo, a positive for a foreign adversary
Yep. A win-win for Putin. And Putin has those naked pictures of Trump with a donkey to hold him in line.
Wonder what he has on Bernie. Pop giving him a blowjob?
I know it’s a joke but obviously Bernie’s not as stupid and degenerate as Trump to put himself in a compromised position. Big problem with Bernie is he’s a zealot with a vision, least willing to compromise. That’s what the bros love about him. What we’ll end up instead of two factions, those that love and those that hate Trump, three factions, Trump’s nuts and crooks, the angry centrist democrats and Bernie’s gang. There will be congressional noise and inaction like never before seen. I can actual see where Putin would even prefer Bernie over Trump.
might face a challenge, but there's a lot of SCOTUS precedent allowing all kinds of taxes, with even some opinions stating that the "apportionment" requirement on direct taxes (probably the challenge you are referring to) should only be applied where it can be reasonable
"The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in such cases where it can reasonably apply; and the subject taxed, must ever determine the application of the rule." (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...00006&as_vis=1)
and realistically, the apportionment rule has absolutely no reasonable application in the modern day, and was enacted at a time where the best measure of economic strength was population. i know there was one SCOTUS case, Pollock, which found the income tax uncons utional, but that case has virtually never been relied upon for subsequent rulings, and there are other SCOTUS opinions which have called that very ruling/analysis "mistaken."
you're right that it may face a challenge, but if passed (big if), it would remain in effect until a court struck it down
Do you really think with the current Supreme Court it would have a snowballs chance in ?
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
Washington Post reporting Putin is backing Bernies run for Presidency OMG
Duncan should have waited for a debate before he opened his mouth
pollock was an awful decision that came out of nowhere after years of fairly consistent rulings on congress's tax power, which was poo-pood on at the time, and subsequent rulings have called it mistaken. it was never formally overruled, but it was basically rendered moot after the 16th amendment was passed, so i dont even think the opportunity to do so ever came up
it was partially overruled in south carolina v baker... but even in that case, the court basically said that pollock has already effectively been overruled over the years (though that was really tailored to one very specific issue, not the case at large)
Good on Timmy. For everyone it's impossible to not see race, but Timmy can!
I am sure Tim hates trump because perico and where he is from
Trump does not want free handouts and Duncan wants free handouts because pop likes free handouts
Why work for something
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/2020/a...Q60HISA8_uCrS0
Lol mini mike is nuts if he thinks he is going to beat trump
thinking duncan would be getting the handouts
Exactly and that really is a threat to our national security.
Dude he wants free hand outs for his country not himself
Nonsense. The Pollock decision followed from the "direct tax" interpretation that U.S. courts had adopted from the beginning. The Cons ution requires apportionment of direct taxes.
The Pollock decision led to the ratification of the 16th amendment, which removed the need for Congress to consider sources of income when imposing an income tax. Court decisions after the 16th amendment have been under different law than that which applied at the time of Pollock.
Your notion that a 1982 decision could somehow "overrule" Pollock is just peculiar, since 1982 is after the adoption of the 16th amendment. You don't know much about this subject. Not that you should, since it's all irrelevant now.
CNBC: Trump's Small-Business Approval Rating Hits All-Time High of 64%
VI is a US territory.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
