Why did it require an amendment to the U.S. constitution to establish a federal income tax, but not to establish a federal social security tax or federal Medicare tax? Why did it require an amendment to the U.S. constitution to outlaw alcohol on the federal level, but not later to outlaw other drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) on the federal level?

Hamlet.

To answer your second question - When Alcohol was made illegal in the US by amendment, it was a very popular and "socially accepted" activity. An Amendment was needed by the courts so that they could have a clear legal foundation to enforce this new government resistance to alcohol. Street drugs do not require an Amendment in order to make them illegal; because, although they are quite popular, they are not "socially accepted". Sep 17 03, 11:23 AM

boman547

It did not require an amendment to tax incomes. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before before directed to be taken." The 16th amendment chaged that provison. It says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Therefore, the 16th amendment allows not the income tax but also the social security and Medicare taxes. I see Hamlet answered part II of the question so I'll end here. Sep 17 03, 11:33 AM

boman547

I should have added, it did not require an amendment to tax incomes but it did require one to tax them as we do. Sep 17 03, 11:35 AM

skylarb

In other words, FICA IS an income tax, though couched as an insurance program, and it is therefore covered by the 16th amendment--so the effective federal income tax is about 15 percent FICA (counting employer and employee) plus the marginal tax rate, or a 40 percent federal tax rate on the average tax paying citizen. It was entertaining to read one senator say, back when the 16th amendment was passed: "The American public will never tolerate a two percent tax on their incomes!" I'm still curious about the drugs question--whether a thing is "socially acceptable" or not has nothing to do with whether or not the Federal Government has the constitutional power to forbid its manufacture, sale, and use. I am curious as to what part of the constitution gives the federal government this power with regard to drugs. It's power over interstate trade? But if so, could they constitutionally outlaw any product, such as say, double-stuff Oreos? Also, drugs such as opium and marijuana were in the past in fairly regular use in the U.S. and probably had no more of a social stigma than alcohol--which itself had enough of a social stigma to persuade people to pass a prohibition amendment. So while alcohol was illegal, those drugs were legal. Sep 18 03, 7:47 AM