Daniel Shaviro (NYU; Google Scholar), Would an Unapportioned U.S. Federal Wealth Tax Be Constitutional, and What Does That Imply?: 

To evaluate the constitutionality of an unapportioned federal wealth tax, and/or of a federal earnings tax provision reaching rich taxpayers’ unrealized positive aspects, one wants an underlying framework for making judgments about authorized claims. Whereas no such framework might be completely specified, at the least to common settlement, this doesn’t assist nihilistically rejecting all comparative judgments about higher versus worse, or extra versus much less convincing, situations of authorized evaluation.

Whereas it seems almost sure that the Supreme Courtroom‘s present right-wing majority would strike down an unapportioned federal wealth tax, the “appropriate” reply to this constitutional query can’t be confirmed to common settlement. I actually would disagree with such a holding by the Courtroom. An vital variable in resolving the problem for oneself is how a lot persevering with precedential weight one ought to give to Pollock v. Farmers’ Mortgage & Belief Co. – a case that itself blatantly disrespected precedent, however that did so greater than a century in the past, and that (however) some argue has already ceased to be good regulation. The precept of respecting precedent each has instrumental worth and has been lengthy (if fitfully) honored throughout the American authorized system, however all agree that its weight isn’t absolute.