Template talk:US constitutional tax law

Apportionment in Amd XIV
Section 2 of the XIV amendment, while not mentioning taxes, affects how apportionment occurs. And since direct taxes must be apportioned in the same manner as representatives, and since Amd XIV directs the apportionment of those representatives by implicitly repealing the Three-Fifths Clause, the section is relevant to U.S. Const. tax law. Please stop removing it. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the connection to constitutional tax law is a bit tertiary. bd2412  T 18:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tertiary as it may be, that doesn't make it not related. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Thomas & Eig found it related sufficiently enough to at least warrant a footnote on Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. See here, page 122, fn 348. (page 66 in PDF page numbering). -- Foofighter20x (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question is, then, how direct should the relationship to the template topic be to justify inclusion in the template. bd2412  T 19:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the target article Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on tax law; readers interested in US Constitutional tax law are not well served by being navigated to the article, since it will add nothing to their understanding of the topic. Unless the article is edited to discuss the impact of the 14th amendment on taxation, with appropriate cites, of course, it shouldn't be in a navigational template for taxation. TJRC (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of Article I§2 clause 3 (apportionment of representatives and taxes) is repealed by Amendment XIV§2, which establishes a new formula for apportionment of representation (and representation only). There is no mention of taxes or apportionment of taxes anywhere in the amendment. As Amendment XIV is not relevant in any way to US Constitutional Tax Law, the article link does not belong on the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite correct. In constitutional law (in any law, really), repeal is only understood to occur where it is explicitly stated. Unless an amendment explicitly states such a repeal, the canons of construction hold that an amendment only supersedes a previous clause or section to the extent that the previous clause conflicts with the new one. I can concede that it's a plausible reading of A-XIV.2 to understand it as having only affected the apportionment part of I.2.iii and not the direct tax part, but it's been almost 150 years that it's been well-understood that the purpose of the section was intended to explicitly restate I.2.iii without the Three-Fifths Clause. Including the part about direct taxes in A-XIV.2 was unnecessary as I.9.iv already addressed how the change made by A-XIV.2 would interact with taxation. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Foofighter20x, I believe Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment completely repealed the Three-Fifths Compromise. To view it otherwise would mean that the Congress that proposed the amendment intended to keep the Compromise partially intake. Why would that Congress want that result? Logic, and the circumstances under which the amendment was proposed, support the belief of the complete repeal of the Compromise. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * what's your take on whether the link to the Fourteenth Amendment article belongs in this template? TJRC (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It belongs, based on its traditional understanding. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? How do you see including the Fourteenth Amendment here as aiding the readers reading on US Constitutional tax law? TJRC (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. Given that the entire 1st sentence of Article Article I§2 clause 3, the rule for apportionment of representatives and direct taxes (the 1st of 2 rules on the levying of taxes) was explicitly repealed by Amendment XIV§2, a new rule for apportionment or representation (and representation only), and that there is no mention of taxes anywhere in it (leaving taxation governed by the 2nd of the original 2 rules), why does XIV belong and how is it's inclusion useful? Drdpw (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, A-XIV.2 didn't explicitly repeal anything. An explicit repeal would look like A.XXI. At best, A-XIV.2 either superseded or only implicitly repealed I.2.iii. Which of the two it was, however, is irrelevant. How the people are counted (and which people, at that) for representation directly bears upon how direct taxes must be apportioned per I.9.iv. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of digging and found that I was mistaken on the explicit/implicit issue. More importantly, while I'm not convinced that it belongs, you've made a good case for why it shouldn't be excluded.  So, until someone want's to have a discssion on "how direct should the relationship to the template topic be to justify inclusion in the template", let's keep it in. Drdpw (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Template organization
When I initially coded the template, historical ordering made sense. But with all the cases now (to the best of my knowledge, it's an exhaustive listing), would it be better to order them by subject matter? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An excellent and indeed an exhaustive listing of cases! I notice that there are a great many cases listed that don't have an article link; is that because there is no article to link to, or it because the template is still a work in progress?  As to your question, I think grouped by subject - provided there's a broad consensus as to what the categories are going to be and the divisions are kept broad & simple - would be a very helpful way of grouping the cases, and ordering them by year of the decision within each grouping.  If the template retains its historical ordering, please consider tinkering with some alternate break-points and/or group names.  A couple of them seem awkward to me.  Perhaps simply label the groups 1789–1858, 1859–1928, 1929–1998, Since 1999 (3 seventy year intervals plus the present) would work. Drdpw (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems too big and too busy to me. Shouldn't this just be a general template listing only the most important cases, and leaving others to specialized templates? bd2412  T 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A valid critique, though I imagine once I get it sorted with what I have in mind, I might get you to come around. Allow me a bit of time... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A word of caution if I may, please take care not to be over-protective of this template. While it may be "your baby" so to speak, it belongs to the community and must be built by consensus –which is different than working to change others' minds so that they see things your way and it isn't built by brushing aside the input of others. Drdpw (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How quick one is to forget:WP:AGF. A little trust, please? See what I do, and then be critical. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Complaints? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This template doesn't seem to follow the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX and WP:Navigation templates at all.
 * "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."  It's not.
 * "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." They don't.
 * "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." There isn't.
 * "Unlinked text should be avoided." This navbox is almost entirely unlinked text.
 * "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" This is not a small list at all; and most entries aren't even articles. In many (most?) cases, the template overwhelms the article in which it's placed.  See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., Hylton v. United States, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co..
 * In short, I don't think this template provides an navigational benefit to readers. Foofighter20x has done a large amount of work in finding a number of cases related to the topic, but clearly a navbox is not the appropriate repository for this work.  This navbox doesn't nav.
 * Perhaps it would be more appropriate to channel this into a list. "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate."  See WP:CLNT and WP:L. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to what I suggested earlier, perhaps this template should be split into several smaller and more targeted templates, which could then be included in specific articles as appropriate to that article. bd2412  T 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, the "black links" (unlinked nonexistent articles) should still be removed; they have no navigational value, and that's the entire idea behind a navbox. TJRC (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are the names of cases for which we should have articles (and I can't imagine any of these that wouldn't be), then we should make redlinks of all of them, so that the articles can eventually be made. bd2412  T 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The test is not whether there should be articles written, but whether there are very likely to be written, including whether anyone will write them. "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." An alleged navigational template that is primarily of redlinks has no navigational value.  It's a to-do list, not a navbox.   TJRC (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the arrangement so that it autocollapses the navbox, and I've used so nesting to enable further collapsing. I can keep going with the nesting if this is in the right direction. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a useful navbox, for the reasons set out above, whether collapsed or not. It doesn't provide substantial navigation.  It's just a collection of titles. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot at removing the non-navigational elements: . TJRC (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Foofighter20x, this is obviously a fairly controversial set of edits you've made, affecting a significant number of live articles. I suggest you take it to your sandbox and revise it to the point you think it's ripe for you to propose replacing it, and then start a fresh discussion here. TJRC (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was happy with it as it was at my last edit (aside from the dearth of case law articles). The reason I added the collapses was to address what you said about how the size of it overwhelmed certain articles. Well, I've at least got it in the history and can return to that and mine it as I get the individual articles going. It's going to take a good while, though. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While it doesn't seem to work as as a navbox, the information you've pulled together would, I believe, make for an excellent List of United States Supreme Court Tax Law Cases page. One column of the sortable table could list each case by name, a second could be the constitutional clause involved, and the third could be the name of the S.C C.J. at the time the decision was rendered (or the year of the decision). Drdpw (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)