« Ruling on restraining order | Main | The assassination attempt »
Wondering about the impact of this on 18 USC §922(o)
At Volokh Conspiracy, discussion of a case holding unconstitutional the federal ban on private "stills." Part of the reasoning is that the taxing power is limited to, well, taxes, and a prohibition on private stills raises no taxes. Nor is it "necessary and proper," since it does not punish non-payment of a tax, but imposes a penalty on people before the tax is due (i.e. liquor has been distilled).
4 Comments | Leave a comment
"the power to tax, not the power **not** to tax."
So if Congress refuses to collect the tax on new Class III items for sale to the public, do they get to punish people for failing to pay it?
That was answered once, but this ruling casts doubt on that answer.
Next up: Wickard v. Filburn
Somebody cite the district opinion from Mississppi or the one in IL....I think both said the same thing, in NFA cases.
Yep, taxation by the fed must meet raising revenue and the rate legitimately must be the lowest rate that raises some amount of revenue since the rate vs revenue curve is a LAFFER curve. Rates to reduce consumption are NOT legitimate whether or not the liars on the courts say so.
The N&P is restrictive, once more not what the liars on the courts say. Each and EVERY law Congress passes must be shown to be BOTH necessary and proper, proper primarily meaning linked to the delegated powers NOT some open ended BS like the courts claim.
One correct point is that the tax, direct on the producer was not due under this law. How many folks were killed or otherwise abused under the no private stills clause of this law.