No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereb

No. Section 9 literally uses the word “tax”, and states that a "tax or duty" may be imposed, drawing an explicit distinction between "tax" and "duty" and thereby directly addressing potential misunderstandings such as yours. Section 9 VERY explicitly and VERY carefully allows for a property tax which is not a duty. Why would the framers include this clause, as written, if they believed it unconstitutional for Congress to enact property taxes? At the very least you would expect an exceptional clause if that were the case. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. State property taxes existed in the US for 100 years before and also during the constitutional convention. It strains credulity to claim that the framers intended for state property taxes to be unconstitutional while also not enumerating this fact and even specifically enumerating limits on taxation of certain types of property. Furthermore, the legislative and executive actions of constitutional convention members, within their respective commonwealths and states, clearly demonstrate that the framers did not intend to prohibit taxation of property particularly by non-federal governments (or even by the federal government, for that matter, as long as funds were equally distributed). Again, it strains credulity to claim that a framer would write a constitution intended to prevent states from taxing property, and then go serve in a state legislative assembly or executive that approved taxation based on the value of estates or properties. And we haven't even made it to the 9th amendment. Again: I'm much more willing to accept that Marbury v Madison was a mistaken interpretation of the constitution than I am to accept the US constitution can be somehow interpreted to disallow state property taxes. To be blunt, if SCOTUS tried to do something this blatantly ridiculous and made-up, most state governments and courts would simply ignore the ruling.