> “But it’s not a slam-dunk case, as the precedents go both ways, and it’s not an area the Court has opined on for a long time.”
Sounds like she might have a case, rather than just naked pandering.
I think it’s good to have a variety of intellectual positions and to work the best possible policies, and to ask if we would be better off without some some sacred cows
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.
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.
Sounds like she might have a case, rather than just naked pandering.
I think it’s good to have a variety of intellectual positions and to work the best possible policies, and to ask if we would be better off without some some sacred cows