.

Here is a short video in which the Moores explain their fight, a fight for truth, justice and the American Way!
.


.

It is more than just sickening that Justices KAVANAUGH, ROBERTS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, JACKSON, BARRETT AND ALITO all refused to answer the fundamental question in Moore v. United States which was, what distinguishes a direct tax from one that is indirect as understood at the time our Constitution was framed and ratified by the States.

In writing the Court’s opinion, KAVANAUCH notes: “Congress has rarely enacted direct taxes because the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned among the States. To be apportioned, direct taxes must be imposed “in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 4; see also §2, cl. 3. In other words, direct taxes must be apportioned among the States according to each State’s population.

But instead of confronting and answering the question which has plagued our country almost from its beginning, see, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 175 (1796) the above mentioned Justices cowardly avoid answering the question and instead reference a host of previous court opinions, not one of which actually answers the question, but by innuendo and dicta, suggest a particular tax is indirect when historical documentation may prove otherwise.

On the other hand, Justice THOMAS in a dissenting opinion, in which Justice GORSUCH joined, accurately summarizes the seven other Justice’s outright negligence which indicates their concern is that validation of the Moores argument would deprive the U. S. Government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue, and not whether the Constitution is violated by the Tax.

Justice THOMAS writes:

“The majority is not ashamed to lay bare the consequentialist heart of its opinion. Because it wrongly concludes that the Moores’ constitutional argument would invalidate not only the MRT but also other longstanding taxes, the majority frets that the Moores would “deprive the U. S. Government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue” and “require Congress to either drastically cut critical national programs or significantly increase [other] taxes.” Ante, at 21. “The Constitution does not require that fiscal calamity,” the majority proclaims. Ibid. I agree. But, if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, “[t]he judicial Power” afforded to this Court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape. “

“Even as the majority admits to reasoning from fiscal consequences, it apparently believes that a generous application of dicta will guard against unconstitutional taxes in the future.”

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress “no” in the future. But, if the Court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

In concluding Justice THOMAS correctly points out:

“The Court today upholds the MRT, but not because it endorses the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous view that “realization of income is not a constitutional requirement.” 36 F. 4th, at 936. The majority acknowledges that the Sixteenth Amendment draws a distinction between income and its source. Ante, at 7. And, it does not dispute that realization is what distinguishes income from property. Ante, at 8. Those premises are sufficient to establish that realization is a constitutional requirement. Sixteenth Amendment “income” is only realized income. We should not have hesitated to say so in this case. I respectfully dissent.”

JWK

What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.