exist Moore v. United Stateseach separate opinion held that the 16th Amendment (ratified in 1913) was “vetoed” Pollock v. Farmers Loan Trust Co. (1895). For example, Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion expressed it this way:
This Court’s 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601, later prohibited unallocated federal taxes on property income, so rejected Hubbard’s Holdings. See paragraph 7 above. rejected That aspect of Pollock.
Judge Barrett concurred:
Sixteenth Amendment rejected Pollock’s second claim stated that “Congress has the power to lay and levy taxes upon income, whatever their source, without apportionment.” But it did not veto Pollock first believed that personal property taxes were direct taxes.
Dissent from Justice Thomas:
Sixteenth Amendment ratified veto This is Pollock’s view and therefore can only be understood within the context of Pollock and prior history.
Judge Jackson stated the problem slightly differently:
In 1913, the people’s representatives responded, using their power subversion Pollock passes constitutional amendment. Sixteenth Amendment back to normal Congress has the power to tax “income without distribution regardless of source.”
Here, Jackson suggests that the original Constitution contained this power, and pollock Congress was wrongfully deprived of this power. This amendment is like pressing CTRL-Z on the Supreme Court. (Will she see the Eleventh Amendment? Chisholm v. Georgia in the same way?
I have no doubt that future Congresses will pass and future presidents will sign taxes that outrage one group of people—taxes that some think ask for too much and others think ask for too little. There may even be some enforcement that, as a policy, everyone agrees is wrong. Pollock tells us, however, that the role of the courts in such disputes should be limited. “[T]The remedy for this abuse is to be found at the ballot box and in sound public opinion, and the people’s representatives will not long, if ever, ignore the situation, nor will the judiciary ignore the power it has given Pollock, 158 years old, United States, 680 years old (Harlan, J., dissenting).
Everyone knows Lochner, Plessy,as well as civil rights Case. But most students don’t know pollock.
I think of constitutional amendments as overthrow hear cases in the same manner as the Supreme Court veto A case. Constitutional amendments change the fundamental organic law. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide for pollock is wrong—although many proponents may hold that view. Instead, the Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress new powers so that it could exercise those powers. Unfortunately, analogizing constitutional amendments to judicial decisions will foster a cult of judicial supremacy. It assumes that the Supreme Court and the Article VI process adopt similar approaches: Both institutions can change the Constitution by overturning certain precedents.
I will make the same argument when Congress passes a new statute in response to a Supreme Court ruling. I have some power here. In the spring of 2009, Justice Alito visited George Mason Law School. About two years ago, the court ruled Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007). Justice Alito’s majority opinion held that Ledbetter’s claims were statute-barred. Justice Ginsburg’s dissent called on Congress to amend Title VII. The first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Judge Alito was asked how he felt about Congress’ decision to overrule him. As I wrote above, Alito responded that Congress would not “veto” a decision. Instead, Congress changed the law. Going forward, courts must apply this new law. I agree with Alito 2009.
