zekester
Regular Member
SCOTUS SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO!!!
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html#113
"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
May get the argument about the 1st, because that is what this case is about....but pretty clear to me.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html#113
"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
May get the argument about the 1st, because that is what this case is about....but pretty clear to me.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
Last edited: