PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS

United States Supreme Court Rulings regarding the 16th Amendment
“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . .”  US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”   Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

“The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, as shown by its language and history and by recent decisions of this Court, was not to extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely to remove all occasion otherwise existing for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether derived from one source or another.” Supreme Court Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above.  Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”  Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979) Note: direct taxes are still prohibited by the Constitution unless “apportioned among the several states according to population”.

“The legislative history merely shows…that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916).”  US Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

“If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an “excise” is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an “impost”, or a “duty”. A capitation or other “direct” tax it certainly is not.”
U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (Emphasis added; citations ommitted.)

“[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.”  U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929).

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above.  Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…”
Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled ‘Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws’.

NOW, GUESS WHAT? THE “INCOME TAX” LAWS MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO VIOLATE THESE RULES!

Though the mechanisms by which it does so are a bit difficult to find, the tax law, as written, confines itself carefully and scrupulously to gains resulting from the exercise of federal privilege, just as a federal excise tax must do. It is not by accident or oversight that the “wages” by which the application of the tax to the pay of workers is measured are custom-defined in the law to describe only payments made to federal workers, for instance, or that “trade or business” is defined only as “the performance of the functions of a public office.”

“[The] tax upon gains, profits, and income [is] an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and [] its imposition [is] not, therefore, unconstitutional.” United States Supreme Court, Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880) (as summarized in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 158 U.S. 601, (1895))
“[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise…” A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
“I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement of the gains, profits, or income of _____ _____, of the _____ of _____, in the county of _____, and State of _____, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, or from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1862, both days inclusive, and subject to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States.” The “affirmation” on the first income tax return form.
“The income tax… …is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” … “[The Sixteenth] amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income.” Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943
“The [Sixteenth] Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong.” Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)
“In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is “indirect,” rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.” Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)