tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post6814742056082890423..comments2024-03-18T12:50:08.098-05:00Comments on Free Association: Can We Finally Understand the Three-Fifths Clause?Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-75720050613828620582016-02-19T12:55:49.192-06:002016-02-19T12:55:49.192-06:00The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requi...The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for the income tax, but the income tax per se was never construed by the courts as a direct tax and hence did not need apportionment. The income tax was always regarded as an indirect tax, not requiring apportionment. What triggered the amendment was the <i>Pollock</i> Supreme Court case (1895), which had ruled that a tax on <i>property income</i> functioned like a direct tax on property and hence required apportionment. (It's a myth that the Court ever said a tax on wages and salaries was unconstitutional.) Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-59584647443505940062016-02-19T12:38:58.097-06:002016-02-19T12:38:58.097-06:00It is of course true the slaves were to be counted...It is of course true the slaves were to be counted as 3/5 for the apportionment for the House of Representatives, but the other purpose of Article I, Section 2, is that TAXES would be collected on a "per capita" basis when the Congress levied an "apportionment" on the State governments, for Federal revenue needs. This should be the system we use today, but the 16th Amendment specifically repealed the tax-apportionment detail.<br />Joe Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291560283071288527noreply@blogger.com