Our Changing Constitution by Charles Wheeler Pierson
page 78 of 147 (53%)
page 78 of 147 (53%)
|
outside the national jurisdiction, or were so arbitrary and without
basis for classification as to amount to confiscation, relief might be obtained under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. [Footnote 1: See, e.g., _Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright_, 249 U.S., 275.] [Footnote 2: _Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R._, 240 U.S., 24.] By far the most important and interesting of the implied limitations of the federal taxing power remains to be noticed. That is the limitation which prohibits the National Government from burdening by taxation the property or revenues or obligations of a state, or the emoluments of a state official, or anything connected with the exercise by a state of one of its governmental functions. In other words, while the National Government may tax income from bonds issued by England or France or their cities, it is powerless to tax the income from bonds of Rhode Island or the smallest of its towns. This implied limitation, nowhere categorically expressed but enunciated in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, has not always met with acquiescence from the executive and legislative branches of the Government. In fact, Congress is now engaged in an effort to do away with it, at least in so far as concerns the right to tax the income from state and municipal bonds. To-day, however, it still stands as one of the most striking and unique characteristics of our governmental system. It will be discussed more at length in the next chapter. |
|