Connect with us

Democrats

Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal is most definitely unconstitutional

Published

on

Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax proposal is most definitely unconstitutional

Elizabeth Warren has touted her latest anti-capitalist proposal. In her last proposal, she introduced measures that would make corporations less investment-worthy in an effort to shift their priorities. Now she wants to impose a wealth tax on the richest of the rich, .1%. The wealth tax would be a new tax in the repertoire of Uncle Sam.

It must be stated that a wealth tax is not an income tax, its a federal tax on assets. Note: total assets and not net assets would be taxed according to the original report and subsequent reporting thus far. The proposal has seen a lot of praise from Democrats who are weighing their options of the proposal with AOC’s 70% income tax proposal.

Direct taxes and the Constitution

The wealth tax would most certainly be classified under a direct tax. An indirect tax would be one of consumption. An essay by the Heritage Foundation writes that “the Framers believed that ‘direct taxes’ needed to be cabined. The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state’s share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose.”

Congress did, however, pass taxes such as a carriage tax which the Supreme Court ruled in Hylton v. United States (1796) counted as an excise tax. It seemed as though the confines of a direct tax would be restricted to a capitation tax, or a head tax, and land taxes. A head tax is specifically prohibited in Article 1 Section 9. This changed with the landmark ruling Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The Supreme Court held “that the Act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds; this was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states.”

The Progressives later passed the 16th Amendment allowing Congress to circumvent the apportionment clause with regards to income tax. We have been taxed ever since.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

“From whatever source derived” may allow for the expansion into capital gains and even the death tax, but Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would be legal yoga, as the assets, chief among them, land, would be taxed. Without appropriation, a condition which is absent from Elizabeth Warren’s proposal, Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would most certainly be a direct tax scheme imposed by Congress. Though the 1895 decision was largely negated by the 16th Amendment, its commentary on direct and indirect taxation is definitive in spite of efforts of Congress to negate it in favor of the Hylton decision. The 16th Amendment has since undergone little visitation from the high court. Perhaps relevant to Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is the Eisner v. Macomber (1920) where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not tax stock dividends as they were not an income event.

“We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

The precedent set in the Macomber decision, which according to an additional essay by the Heritage Foundation, has been cited favorably numerous times by the Supreme Court as recently as 1991. The three Supreme Court cases combined show that a wealth tax would need apportionment which would defeat the intentions of the bill. A state with an at-large representative would only have to contribute 1/435th of the revenue. I guess we know where all the rich people are going, Wyoming… All the sudden the 3% wealth tax on billionaires is instantly reduced for those who move accordingly and the $2.75 trillion in 10 years is infeasible, at least with Elizabeth Warren’s .1% target. Furthermore a wealth tax could not function as Elizabeth Warren intends, further proof that she has no intentions of abiding by the Constitution. The Supreme Court notes in Pollock:

By the act of July 14, 1798, when a war with France was supposed to be impending, a direct tax of two millions of dollars was apportioned to the States respectively, in the manner prescribed, which tax was to be collected by officers of the United States and assessed upon “dwelling houses, lands, and slaves” according to the valuations and enumerations to be made pursuant to the act of July 9, 1798, entitled “An act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses and the enumeration of slaves within the United States.” 1 Stat. 597, c. 75; id., 580, c. 70. Under these acts, every dwelling house was assessed according to a prescribed value, and the sum of fifty cents upon every slave enumerated, and the residue of the sum apportioned was directed to be assessed upon the lands within each State according to the valuation made pursuant to the prior act and at such rate percentum as would be sufficient to produce said remainder.

So to summarize, the apportionment means that Congress has to demand a specific amount of money and divide that sum among each state according to their representation. The wealth tax has no intentions of doing such meaning it is not only outside of the protections of the 16th Amendment but also directly prohibited by Article 1 Section 9.

I hope this was a strong presentation for the wealth tax’s unconstitutional status. Although I am most certain the 9th Circuit Court or some District judge in Hawaii will rule otherwise if this comes to fruition.

Image Source: Flickr


Subscribe on YouTube

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Can Lacy Johnson beat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis?

Published

on

Can Lacy Johnson beat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis

Minneapolis is one of the bluest major cities in America. The race for the Democratic nomination for the MN-5 district is essentially the general election because Democrats have held the seat belonging to Minneapolis since 1963. The closest a Republican has come to winning the district in this century was Alan Fine in 2006 who “only” lost to Keith Ellison by 34.3%. Oftentimes, the Democrat wins by over 50 points.

But Republican Lacy Johnson seeks to make history. He’s not making the attempt by being a moderate RINO trying to coax the people of Minneapolis into believing he’s basically a Democrat. His platform is boldly conservative and includes a balanced budget amendment, school choice, and a bear-hug embrace of President Trump’s economic policies.

Growing up with nine siblings in modest circumstances didn’t make him feel poor. It did make him realize it’s his responsibility to support his family as an adult and not rely on government. This is exactly the type of mentality we need more of in Washington DC. It’s the kind of mentality that will serve Minneapolis well.

Under normal circumstances, even being a strong candidate isn’t enough in Minneapolis when you have the letter (R) next to your name on the ballot. But in 2020, Johnson has one major advantage that should give the GOP hope. He’s going up against Ilhan Omar, the “Squad” member who has been nothing but an embarrassment to herself, Minneapolis, and the United States of America. Despite accomplishing essentially nothing outside of Twitter in her brief tenure, she still walks the halls of Capitol Hill as if she’s a diva rockstar. That’s part of the charade her “Squad” members portray; they’re a shame even to Democrats but because they’ve gained nationwide popularity among radical progressives, they’ve been allowed to keep playing their games. For now.

But even as Omar struts around Capitol Hill, she’s ignoring the people who put her in office in the first place. To Omar, Minneapolis is merely a place where she’s forced to campaign. We can see this based on her actions; literally nothing she has done in DC has even come close to affecting Minneapolis residence. That’s uncanny, even for a Democrat.

The people of Minneapolis may finally vote red for two reasons: (1) Lacy Johnson is a winner with great ideas, and (2) Ilhan Omar has been nothing but an embarrassment, absent from Minneapolis since her election. President Trump should endorse him.

Image source: Facebook.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why Bernie Sanders failed so hard this time

Published

on

Why Bernie Sanders failed so hard this time

Elizabeth Warren is the new Bernie Sanders. Mark it down. Sanders will be out of the race before the Iowa caucus even though he won it in 2016. Why? Because he was replaced by a younger, sleeker model.

But there’s much more to the story of the Sanders 2020 failure than just another radical progressive using the same basic talking points. Warren is something that Sanders is not. In fact, Warren has the one piece to the puzzle that Sanders has always lacked. He’s an old white straight male.

Elizabeth Warren female and will therefore beat Sanders for the radical progressive votes. It’s as simple as that.

In fact, it’s already happening.

Bernie Sanders South Carolina crowd size one-third of Elizabeth Warren’s

Campaign events by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, competing for voters on the Left flank of the 2020 Democratic primary field, proved a study in contrasts this weekend as far as crowd sizes are concerned.

Nearly 300 people attended a Sanders town hall in Columbia on Saturday, while over 900 showed up to see Warren in Aiken the day before.

It was conspicuous that Eric Swalwell, Cory Booker, and other male candidates declared they would have a female running-mate long before they ever were a blip on the polling radar. They’re reading the tea leaves, seeing the writing on the wall, and realizing this version of the Democratic Party values intersectionality more than anything else. If a lesbian minority non-Christian ran this election cycle and had an ounce of personality, she would have run away with the nomination. But today, one must pick their favored intersectional characteristic since nobody possess all of them.

Do they go with minority female Kamala Harris? Gay male Pete Buttigieg? Minority political outsider Andrew Yang? It seems like most are picking the same card that beat Bernie in 2016. The Democrats want a female, and even though Warren is Caucasian (plus 1/1024 Cherokee!), she has the advantage of advancing the Sanders agenda and at times doubling down on it. Harris is trying to do the same, but she’s a mess. She can recover, but her bouncing policies are not as endearing as Warren’s strict adherence to radicalism-at-all-costs. And by “all costs,” I mean ALL costs… to everyone.

Despite being 1-2 in the polls from the beginning, neither Joe Biden nor Bernie Sanders have a chance of getting the nomination. The new Democratic Party will not nominate an old white male because they’re neither racist nor sexist. Ironic.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Do Omar, Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority?

Published

on

Do Omar Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority

Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib want Israel to be boycotted, divested, and sanctioned. They want the Democrats in the House of Representatives to take Congressional action against Israel. They want to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel. Most importantly, they want Israel to no longer exist, replaced by the Palestinian Authority and a “New Palestine.”

Do they also support the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities? Do they agree with the anti-LGBTQ tenets of the Muslims organizations the Congresswomen support?

In a society in which the media handled things in an unbiased manner, these are questions the press would be asking Omar and Tlaib following the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities in the West Bank, an area where Tlaib’s grandmother lives and where she petitioned to visit before declining to do so after Israel allowed it.

The press should ask them if they support the Palestinian Authority’s move against LBGTQ individuals:

Palestinian Authority bans LGBTQ activities in West Bank

The Palestinian Authority banned members of the Palestinian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community from carrying out any activities in the West Bank.

The ban came after the grassroots group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society (Arabic for “the bow”), which engages and supports Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ, was planning to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus at the end of the month. The group operates both in the West Bank and among Arab-Israelis.

Both Tlaib and Omar claim to be supportive of LGBTQ rights. But they also have a not-so-subtle attachment to the Palestinian Authority and are actively working to put them in control of all of Israel. Does that mean they would approve of their ban of LGBTQ individuals “from the river to the sea”?

While many in America’s LGBTQ community continue to support and often partner with Islamic groups to help their friends in the Democratic Party, others in the community have spoken out against the anti-LGBTQ policies Muslim majority nations impose on their people. This needs to be addressed by LGBTQ leaders; they can’t (or at least shouldn’t) ignore the plight of the international LGBTQ community for the sake of political expediency.

The Palestinian Authority’s ban on all LGBTQ activities in the West Bank should be a point of contention that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib need to reconcile. But they won’t. Mainstream media will bury the story and nobody will ask them how they feel.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending