Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
The same logic labels attempts to return Constitutional law to a bare reading of the language of the Constitution as "judicial activism." I think you parse too deeply when you describe a removal of social engineering-driven tax treatments as social engineering themselves. Returning things to an earlier status will have an effect, but if it brings us back to a less engineering-driven environment, I think using that label is illogical.
|
I don't believe there is ever a state of purity. Are you suggesting adopting the 1913 tax code simply because it was the first? Or do you prefer the 1861 or 1892 versions? If we adopt those codes, sould we also reinstate the excise taxes from which government derived most of its revenues at the time?
Under the 1913 Code, approximately 1% of the population paid income taxes. Let's just use that code, and raise the rate sufficiently to create the income we need.
With respect to reading the plain language in the constitution, all I want to know is what it means to say that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That says that absolutely no law can be made by Congress, period, limiting what I say?
