my question to Abe Lincoln

[veritas]

A couple of months ago a client invited my wife and I to the annual Republican Lincoln party in Vancouver. Wa. He has aspirations for office in that state. Mind you I am not a republican. But it was something we have to do sometimes

At the end of the get together we were entertained by an individual playing old Abe. He played the part very convincinly and was very well versed. The best part was when he took questions from the audience. Questions regarding the war between the states and slavery were posed among others.

Suddenly it occured to me to pose a question. "Mr. President do you think the supreme court will hold your income tax constitutionally". There was a momentary pause then he responded "Yes of course it is only Temporary".

Well there was a certain response which you can imagine.

[Bees Knees]

Anything is constitutional, when there is an amendment that makes it constitutional. The right to keep and bear arms was never in the original constitution. It took the second amendment before that became constitutional. The Income tax became constitutional after the sixteenth amendment. That was prior to Abe, so his correct answer should have been no. After the sixteenth amendment was ratified, the answer is yes, as every court in the nation has confirmed.

[ChEAr$]

huh?

Anything is constitutional, when there is an amendment that makes it constitutional. The right to keep and bear arms was never in the original constitution. It took the second amendment before that became constitutional. The Income tax became constitutional after the sixteenth amendment. That was prior to Abe, so his correct answer should have been no. After the sixteenth amendment was ratified, the answer is yes, as every court in the nation has confirmed.

sixteenth amendment was "prior to Abe"? Nope; passed by congress in 1909,
ratified by 3/4 states 1913.

[veritas]

first income tax

Abe was correct sort of. The tax was temporary but was brought back as all taxes seem to do. It was challenged and found to be unconstitutional in the late 1800s.

I find it ironic that it was a republican who first passed such an insidious tax.

On another note, some of the framers felt the second amendment among others were uneccessary since they felt such rights were obviously our natural rights

[taxmandan]

On another note, some of the framers felt the second amendment among others were uneccessary since they felt such rights were obviously our natural rights

Assuming something is never a good idea. One of the framers of the Environmental Protection Act was questioned about why human interests/needs were not granted any importance in the law. He said that at the time Congress assumed that human benefit was always a priority when addressing environmental issues and didn't need to be codified in law. They never envisioned the trouble that would be caused by the preservationists who want no consideration for human needs/interests when dealing with the environment.

[Bees Knees]

sixteenth amendment was "prior to Abe"? Nope; passed by congress in 1909,
ratified by 3/4 states 1913.

I meant to say it was after Abe. Thus, his answer should have been no.

As for the temporary status, I don't see why that should make a difference. Without the amendment, there could be no tax on income, regardless of whether it was temporary or permanent.

[JohnH]

The way I understood the comment was in the broader sense, without respect to the specifics of dates & times. That is, politicians often pull off their biggest capers by claiming something is "temporary", then making it permanent later on.

In that context (given his keen sense of humor & personal wit) I think the real Abe would have fully appreciated the irony in the reply.

[ChEAr$]

Re old Abe Lincoln, last time I bought my wife a Grand Marquis, the salesman of the dealership with which I had long done business, wanted to "upgrade" me to a Lincoln.

My reply was simply "there's no way I could drive a car with that man's name on it."

grin

[joanmcq]

I believe his answer was correct because there was an income tax to pay for the civil war. it was temporary.

[Bees Knees]

I believe his answer was correct because there was an income tax to pay for the civil war. it was temporary.

But was the income tax to pay for the Civil War Constitutional?

Just because there is a law, it does not mean it is Constitutional.

[erchess]

Constitutionality of Income Tax

As bees pointed out there's no real question that the income tax is constitutional because a validly passed amendment clarified the point.

I personally hold that it was constitutional before the passage of that amendment because I know of nothing in the Constitution to forbid it. Count me among those who believe that the Federal Government may do anything unless forbidden by the text of the Constitution or the Common Law. There is even a clause in the Constitution to the effect that the Federal Government may do anything that is "necessary and proper". I do know that the Constitution specifically mentions certain taxes that the Federal Government may impose and if there is language to the effect that only these taxes may be imposed I hope someone will point that out.

[DonPriebe]

I do know that the Constitution specifically mentions certain taxes that the Federal Government may impose and if there is language to the effect that only these taxes may be imposed I hope someone will point that out.

Article I, Section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

[veritas]

I would

Count me among those who believe that the Federal Government may do anything unless forbidden by the text of the Constitution or the Common Law. There is even a clause in the Constitution to the effect that the Federal Government may do anything that is "necessary and proper". I do know that the Constitution specifically mentions certain taxes that the Federal Government may impose and if there is language to the effect that only these taxes may be imposed I hope someone will point that out.

Hold that the federal government can't do anything unless provided for in the constitution.

[Nashville]

Good Luck

Hold that the federal government can't do anything unless provided for in the constitution.

Good luck on this, Veritas. Fact is, the government does what it wants and interprets the constitution to its own ends.

A more correct statement might be the federal government can't do anything because of gridlock.

[veritas]

Sad

Good luck on this, Veritas. Fact is, the government does what it wants and interprets the constitution to its own ends.

A more correct statement might be the federal government can't do anything because of gridlock.

but true.

Hence we now have to tell them how many bathrooms and tvs when we have the census.