It is a slam dunk case. If you read all the articles for the wealth tax, they argue it isn't a direct tax simply because nobody knows what a direct tax is. Or t

It is a slam dunk case. If you read all the articles for the wealth tax, they argue it isn't a direct tax simply because nobody knows what a direct tax is. Or that the tax actually taxes income. Both of those are wrong. Wealth tax is a direct tax, since it is paid by an individual on their possessions, rather than any transaction. The constitution only allows a direct tax on INCOME, not possessions. If I have 100 million dollars in cash, do not make any money, I would still owe 1 million dollars under the wealth tax. Is that an income tax? No. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a-response-to-professor-bruce-ackerman/ https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-wealth-tax-constitutional.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren... This article, for the wealth tax, basically makes the argument that the justices should stay true to their 'originalist' principles and uphold it, rather than actually examining the law. I think this is the best precedent for something like this: When the court ruled that a federal tax on property was unconstitutional, which is similar to what Warren is trying to do. The court has ruled on this in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... > ...Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property...