• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

July 11, 2012|Direct Taxes, Obamacare, Sibelius

Direct and Indirect Taxes

by Mike Rappaport|2 Comments

Over at the Originalism Blog, Mike Ramsey discusses whether the Obamacare tax is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional because it must be apportioned.  Mike links to some work by Jose Alicea.   Another discussion of whether the tax on not having health insurance is a direct tax is this one by Rob Natelson.  Here is an excerpt:

My book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant (2d ed., 2011), pp. 159-61, contains what may be the most complete compendium of Founding-Era sources on the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. While there were some exceptions (for example, although taxes on ownership of capital and household goods were direct, excises on ownership of luxury goods were indirect) the usual line of distinction was that direct taxes were imposed on status, while indirect taxes were imposed on transactions. A tax that one must pay despite doing nothing is the quintessential direct tax.

Mike Rappaport

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Judicial Deference, Self-government, and Judicial Rule, or Have a Coke and a Smile
Russia, Drugs, and Rock’n’Roll (2): How Best to Keep Rockin’ in this Drugged Free World

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Reading the State of Britain with Roger Scruton April 19, 2018
  • Chappaquiddick Rescues the Truth: Kopechne Needn’t Have Died April 20, 2018
  • Superman and the Drive-By Media April 20, 2018
  • Explaining the New Illiberal Liberalism April 18, 2018
  • The Constitution and Executive Privilege July 12, 2012
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. Andrew Hyman says

    July 11, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    The “Direct Tax Act of 1798” was unpopular, it led to a considerable expansion of the federal government, , and it’s unpopularity contributed to the election of Thomas Jefferson in the presidential election of 1800. But once in power, the Jeffersonians did not repeal the direct taxes enacted in 1798.

    Reply
  2. Martin says

    September 24, 2012 at 6:50 am

    , the Mass law has some growing pains. When you bring more pepole into the health care system, it takes awhile for the system to expand to accommodate them. The important thing is that the residents (and physicians) in Massachusetts like what they are getting, despite the growing pains.With regard to the courts well, they’ll do what they’ll do. In any event, I fully expect the GOP to repeal it. Then we’ll see what the GOP does, once the health care ball is squarely in their court.@retire05: As I wrote, I’ve debated all of this extensively (including a consideration of the issues which you now raise, e.g. impact on me, personally). I truly don’t have time to rehash everything all over again. I’m confining myself to new issues, such as the topic of this thread. I’m not going to re-argue all of the many basic considerations, which we’ve covered previously, in excruciating depth and detail.- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CAReply

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

The Road to Iranian Democracy

by Luma Simms

The suppression of the Green Movement last time around widened the gulf between Iran’s elite and its people.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Chappaquiddick Rescues the Truth: Kopechne Needn’t Have Died

    Mary Jo Kopechne perished not because Ted Kennedy crashed his car, but because the legacy was more important than telling the authorities she was in it.
    by Nathaniel Peters

  • Superman and the Drive-By Media

    Prime territory for Clark Kent to investigate: the biased and superficial work done by our most prominent journalists.
    by Mark Judge

  • Partisan Gerrymandering and The Original Meaning of “Election”

    States are responsible for the nature of elections: without a strong historical argument to the contrary, partisan gerrymandering is constitutional.
    by Mike Rappaport

  • Reading the State of Britain with Roger Scruton

    In Where We Are, Roger Scruton helps us see Britain's possible futures, but the question remains: is he pessimistic enough?
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • Is Partisan Gerrymandering of Congressional Elections Unconstitutional Under the Original Meaning?

    Professor Ned Foley argues that the Constitution limits congressional gerrymandering. Why is this?
    by Mike Rappaport

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks