4 ms·

What shaky ground do you see the income tax on?

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Look up the controversies on the passage of the 16th amendment. Basically, state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) for that amendment, enough for it to not pass, but the librarian of congress accepted it, and the Supreme Court decided that was okay. My personal conspiracy theory is that the current librarian of congress hasn't put the equal rights amendment into the constitution to avoid the 16th amendment being overturned in the inevitable legal challenges.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) Pretty sure that's not a thing. You can't say "we ratify this, but only if it's fully adopted by X date". But hey, legislatures can argue whatever they want, and it's up to the courts to decide. And the amendment itself included no expiration date (unlike the equal rights amendment, so there's likely no connection there). > or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) This is certainly contentious, and sure, is similar to issues around the ERA (though I think the issue with the ERA expiring is more serious than arguments around states revoking their ratification). My argument on this is that if a state could rescind ratification for an amendment that hasn't yet been adopted, why wouldn't they also be able to do that for amendments that have been adopted? The latter is (hopeflly) clearly absurd, so the former shouldn't be permitted either. Personally, as a matter of avoiding chaos, I think the system should be set up so there are no take-backsies, but unfortunately the constitution doesn't clarify that point. I think putting expiration dates on amendment proposals is a much more sane way to ensure that amendments aren't ratified and adopted mainly through inertia and long-term political games. But in the ERA's case I believe the argument that the expiration is not valid is because the expiration doesn't appear in the proposed text, just in the "foreward" that introduces the amendment. On the other side, there are some who believe that Congress doesn't have the power to extend the expiration date, as doing so would be effectively a new amendment proposal with zero ratifications. (I don't know where I personally stand on that from a legal perspective. I certainly want the ERA to be adopted -- I think it's patently disgusting that all 50 states wouldn't immediately ratify it without question in this day and age -- but not in a divisive way that reduces trust in the political system even further.)
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Your argument here agrees with the librarian of congress at the time of the 16th amendment, but not the current librarian.
- mminer237 4y ago
  Do you have any more specific information? I'm not finding any controversy about it. 42 of 48 states ratified it, so even if one or two got overturned it wouldn't make a difference. Which states are contested and why? Which court case concerned it?

Look up the controversies on the passage of the 16th amendment. Basically, state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) for that amendment, enough for it to not pass, but the librarian of congress accepted it, and the Supreme Court decided that was okay. My personal conspiracy theory is that the current librarian of congress hasn't put the equal rights amendment into the constitution to avoid the 16th amendment being overturned in the inevitable legal challenges.

kelnos 4y ago
> state ratifications had possibly expired (if there really is a expiration date) Pretty sure that's not a thing. You can't say "we ratify this, but only if it's fully adopted by X date". But hey, legislatures can argue whatever they want, and it's up to the courts to decide. And the amendment itself included no expiration date (unlike the equal rights amendment, so there's likely no connection there). > or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification) This is certainly contentious, and sure, is similar to issues around the ERA (though I think the issue with the ERA expiring is more serious than arguments around states revoking their ratification). My argument on this is that if a state could rescind ratification for an amendment that hasn't yet been adopted, why wouldn't they also be able to do that for amendments that have been adopted? The latter is (hopeflly) clearly absurd, so the former shouldn't be permitted either. Personally, as a matter of avoiding chaos, I think the system should be set up so there are no take-backsies, but unfortunately the constitution doesn't clarify that point. I think putting expiration dates on amendment proposals is a much more sane way to ensure that amendments aren't ratified and adopted mainly through inertia and long-term political games. But in the ERA's case I believe the argument that the expiration is not valid is because the expiration doesn't appear in the proposed text, just in the "foreward" that introduces the amendment. On the other side, there are some who believe that Congress doesn't have the power to extend the expiration date, as doing so would be effectively a new amendment proposal with zero ratifications. (I don't know where I personally stand on that from a legal perspective. I certainly want the ERA to be adopted -- I think it's patently disgusting that all 50 states wouldn't immediately ratify it without question in this day and age -- but not in a divisive way that reduces trust in the political system even further.)
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Your argument here agrees with the librarian of congress at the time of the 16th amendment, but not the current librarian.
mminer237 4y ago
Do you have any more specific information? I'm not finding any controversy about it. 42 of 48 states ratified it, so even if one or two got overturned it wouldn't make a difference. Which states are contested and why? Which court case concerned it?