Superficial Explanation of 16th Amendment?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Last Sunday on Constitution Study radio (my little Internet Radio show on Sunday mornings) I tackled the 16th Amendment. . . Income Tax.

A listener sent me an Email stating that I did not go into court cases regarding the issue, or spend much time on the belief that the amendment was not properly ratified.

In response, the listener must realize that my show on BlogTalkRadio is limited to 30 minutes, unlike my KCAA show which is a full hour. Second, the show is not designed to be a deep study of the Constitution, but to give folks with little, or no, exposure to the Constitution the basic information regarding the founder's original intent, and the impact of subsequent amendments.

As for the references the Emailer made to court cases, I must remind that it is not the duty of the courts to "interpret" the Constitution, nor to decide how their interpretation is to be applied. The job of the courts is to apply the law as it is presented. Allowing the courts to "interpret" the Constitution is largely why we are in the Constitutional crisis we are in in the first place.

Also, the power to interpret the Constitution through the assumed authority of Judicial Review was never a power granted to the courts by the States. In fact, the courts gave that authority to themselves by way of an opinion written by John Marshall in 1803 (re: Marbury v. Madison). So, using court rulings to verify or explain the constitutionality of any law or action by the Congress is not a premise I am willing to subscribe to.

In the simplest of terms, the income tax is constitutional because an amendment was ratified (allegedly) instituting the policy. Studying history, we can also conclude that the Founding Fathers did not support direct taxation as mandated by the 16th Amendment. When comparing the current government spending policies of Washington to the authorities granted by the Constitution, it becomes clear that a vast majority of government is unconstitutional. If spending was reduced to constitutional levels, federal spending would be approximately 5% of GDP. Prior to the 16th Amendment in 1913, government spending was about 2%-3% of GDP. When considering that the proponents of the 16th Amendment argued the income tax was going to be voluntary and temporary, for the purpose of paying off the Spanish-American War debt, and if our spending was reduced to 5% of GDP under Constitutional guidelines, the logical conclusion is that under those conditions the income tax would no longer be necessary and the 16th Amendment should be repealed.

The unfortunate part is that the cockroaches of Washington are too drunk with power, and would never allow that to happen. . . even incrementally. But we fight on, anyway, because that is what patriots do.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary