0
In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895), the US Supreme Court held the government had levied a direct tax against the people, in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution, which reads:
Article I, Section 2
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
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."
According to the Court, federal personal income tax legislation imposing a tax on profits derived from real estate investments, stocks and bonds in "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes," (aka Wilson-Gorman Tariff, 1894) was unconstitutional.
According to the Court, this direct tax was invalid for several reasons: It violated Article I, Sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution because the tax on real estate income wasn't apportioned among the states in accordance with congressional representation, as required; the tax on profit from stocks and bonds improperly created a burden on state and municipal governments' ability to borrow money; and the tax on municipal bonds constituted a tax on the states, which was considered a violation of Articles IV and V.
The Court overturned the federal income tax law, but Amendment XVI, ratified in 1913, gave Congress power to reinstate personal income tax in the areas the Court disallowed.
Amendment XVI
"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."
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Blake
Rene
SteveAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What do you think of Supreme Court Justices having political party affiliations?
Supreme Court Justices do not necessarily have parties because they do not run for a political seat. The criteria for a supreme court justice has to be someone who is familiar with the law such as a former lawyer. If Supreme Court justices ran on a political platform that could complicate the position they hold because many political parties have money or a platform they run on.
Federalism under marshall court?
Federalism had a strong-hold under Marshall Court. John Marshall, a Federalist, was the 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Can the President decide if a law is unconstitutional?
The President has the enumerated power to make treaties, which are U.S. laws. Two-thirds of the Senate must consent. Note that consent from both houses of the legislature is not required, and also that the judicial branch gives significant deference to the Executive Branch when interpreting laws regarding foreign policy because it is a power enumerated to the Executive. Also note, the several executive departments, such as EPA and Homeland Security, make code which is effectively law because the Legislature delegates such authority to the Executive.
Will you ever see a murder trial in the US Supreme Court?
No. The US Supreme Court only exercises appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases originating in the state and federal court systems; they do not hold trials. The federal court of original jurisdiction (trial court) for a murder case would be the US District Court overseeing the territory in which the crime occurred.
Judges hold office during good behavior?
Some do. That's what the constitution says about the Supreme Court justices, for example.
