Kooler: Tijuana street funding (was Re: T1 or Other alternative to DSL)

[Lan Barnes]

DJA wrote:
> 
> However, that amendment was never constitutionally ratified. Here's why
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/ica_ltnw.htm
> 

I'll look at the link. But the constitutional objection to income tax was
strained at best. Congress has the constitutional power to raise taxes, and
there are no specific restraints on it. It can't be attacked on "due
process of law" grounds because (1) a law and process exist whenever a tax
is passed, and (2) why would any one tax be more subject to that argument
than another. My memory of the history of that episode (vague at best, so I
could need correction) was that the Supreme Court in that period was a
little to the right of Ghengis Kahn, and they ruled income tax
unconstitutional because they liked rich people better than others.
However, a constitutional amendment was a slam-dunk because the states
wanted the revenue too.

Much more shaky IMHO (and IANAL) is the existence of income taxes at the
federal, state, and local levels. IIRC the constitution specifically
forbids taxing the same thing twice.

> you obviously know what you're
> talking about, as usual.

Don't _ever_ say that about me. ;-)

Sometimes I feel like an ape.

-- 
Lan Barnes                 lbarnes at san.rr.com
Icon Consulting, Inc       858-273-6677

Love withers under constraints; its very essence is liberty; it is
compatible neither with obedience, jealousy, nor fear; it is there most
pure, perfect and unlimited where its votaries live in confidence,
equality and unreserve.
                              - Percy Bysshe Shelley