text:
Talk:Bay of Pigs

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fabniyon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bnmulvan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Facts. I wonder about facts. This article (currently) says that Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet another source (it doesn't particularly matter where) discusses how the C.I.A. had the plans underway when Kennedy took office, worried that he would cancel it if he knew, and therefore decided to present him with a fait accomplit. He was only notified at the last moment when the invasion needed air support, and chose not to give it.

(Note that current article is reduced to the mealy mouthed "many people say". Many people say that Elephants are resurgent in Africa.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.2.189 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 * That seems unreasonable. Although, Kennedy did say out loud that he would "scatter the agency to the four winds", a bit before he was assassinated.  He must have been mad at them about *something*.  More likely though this is one of those stories that tried to clean up Kennedy by stating he was against anything that later proved unpopular, like Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, when in fact there's no historical evidence he really disapproved of either project, and these claims show up only in the late 60s from friendly biographers.

 * Which is all very nice, but where's the evidence? On the table, it is clear from everything I've seen about the Bay of Pigs that it could easily have gone unreported to the president; it was a small operation done almost entriely within the Agency (no military involvement, etc.).  It happened three months after he was sworn in. Quote:
 * President Kennedy had been in office just three months when the invasion took place. The report argued that he might not have fully grasped the details of the raid, because the CIA did not fully explain them. "Detailed policy authorization for some specific actions was either never fully clarified or only resolved at the 11th hour," it said. "Even the central decision as to whether to employ the strike force was still somewhat in doubt up to the very moment of embarkation."
 * http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ciabay.htm the librarian

On the one hand, if a record of the executive order were available, it would ease my mind to have it on hand to refer to. On the other hand, I don't want to clutter up every article with an infinity of references.

 * Nor should you. That's what talk pages are for.

The whole “Cuban Exile” thing deserves a colour article of its own, since so many of them fled Cuba to flee jail time and are of low status back home.

My primary concern has to do with the re-writing of history by victors. A normal encyclopaedia is heavily influenced by social pressure to produce an unobjectionable work.

 * This one too. Note Talk:Bush League.

The encyclopaedia which describes Jesus Christ as a mythological figure derived from the Sumerian Tumuzu would have a short shelf life in the United States.

 * Or as a Jewish Osiris. Hm.

Microsoft's Encarta, with its regionally differentiated “facts” (e.g. the inventor of the telephone) is representative. While the wikipedia has a more global scope, it could be subject to even more intense normalization pressures.

 * That could be good. But not if most authors are still Americans.
 * Uh, the American version of the invention of the telephone is widely considered to be the false one. And that's not even considering Innocenzo Manzetti.

While the version of the Bay of Pigs presented shows all parties behaving reasonably, it is more likely considering the progress of the disaster that something sinister was actually in motion. I'm thinking an entry like: “Bay of Pigs: conspiracy theories” that considered and debunked them would be useful.the librarian

 * Here's a factual question: were the two ships that landed really code-named "Houston" and "Barbara"?  If so that fingers yet another important figure... and yes there was a George Bush in the CIA at the time.  Two of them.  One was a researcher who never got anywhere near cover ops.  The other?  Guess who...

 * I thought there was a third ship named "Zapata". the librarian

 * The victor was Castro. I don't believe he wrote the article.  This topic could use a lot of work.  The article is far too skimpy, but no matter how much is added, I can't imagine the US will ever look good in it, or the Cuban exiles for that matter.  Anyone who knows anything about land-sea-air invasions could have told them the plan was hopeless. I don't know what you're worried about.  Do the research and add to the article.   Ortolan88

Interestingly, there is a record of a meeting from late January, 1961 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baypig3.htm that shows possibly that the CIA had not yet come clean with him, or perhaps only not with the other departments. Plans for an invasion were "ready", there's no indication of "We've already spent $40million (1960 dollars!) preparing it." the librarian

Location of Discussion
I deleted wholly-unsupported text, and restored the link to Bay of Pigs Invasion. And I believe that that is where the debate over what happened belongs. Simesa 00:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

?
Where did the name of this place come from? Zantaggerung 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JFK was at the Formal Black & White Ball at the White House, an agent appeared to get JFK's signature on an order to authorize the air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion, JFK had a lapse of mentality and waved off the agent. The air support was cancelled and the invasion failed. Is what i have heared. Next day former pres. Eisenhower talked with JFK and they shared the truth about the foggy incedent.

Kennedy's involvement
Kennedy's involvement is not proven. To quote today's Guardian Newspaper (UK): 'Many Cuban exiles blamed the Bay of Pigs fiasco.....on the then US president, John F Kennedy...' Martyn Smith (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
The coords given at the top of the article are way off, they give the location of a spot in the Caribbean south of Cuba. I tried fixing them a few moments ago but I couldn't get rid of the erroneous ones. Tommyt (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Geodata verification tagged.PeterWD (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove tags when the coordinates get fixed, thanks. Kyle McInnes[citation needed] 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bay of Pigs


text:
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (October 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the Sixteenth Amendment to, the United States Constitution, allowing a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified earlier in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913 imposed income taxes that were not apportioned among the states according to each state's population.

Background
Prior to 1895, all income taxes had been considered indirect taxes (not required to be apportioned among the states according to the population of each state). In the controversial 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., however, the Court had overturned longstanding precedent and ruled that while a tax on income from labor was an excise, or indirect tax (which was not required to be apportioned), a tax on income derived from property such as interest, dividends, or rents was or should be treated as a direct tax.

Facts in the Brushaber case
The plaintiff in this case, Frank R. Brushaber, was a shareholder in the defendant Union Pacific Railroad company. The Sixteenth Amendment had recently been passed, and the U.S. Congress had enacted legislation pursuant to the amendment assessing taxes to the wealthiest of income earners, including the railroad company in this case. Brushaber brought a lawsuit against the railroad company for an injunction to stop the company from paying the tax. Brushaber's contention was that statute enacting the tax violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on the government taking property without due process of law and that the statute also violated due process by exempting certain kinds of income. He also argued because the tax was not apportioned among the states according to population, it was unconstitutional. The U.S. government filed a brief supporting the validity of the tax.

Holdings
In an 8–0 decision (Justice James Clark McReynolds did not participate in the decision), the Court held, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population (Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution). The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is constitutional. The Court stated: "...there can be no dispute that there was power by virtue of the Amendment during that period to levy the tax, without apportionment, and so far as the limitations of the Constitution in other respects are concerned, the contention is not open...."

The Court also held that the Revenue Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. The Court stated: "So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon [by Mr. Frank Brushaber], it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution...."

The Court further held that the Revenue Act does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Court stated: "So far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions [by Mr. Frank Brushaber] are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions [by Mr. Brushaber] for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of."

Discussion
In Brushaber the Court noted that even before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the Congress had authority to tax income. If a particular income tax was a direct tax or was treated as a direct tax in the constitutional sense, that tax could be imposed (after Pollock but before the passage of the Amendment) only by apportionment among the states, according to their census populations.

In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

Subsequent interpretation
Tax law professor Boris Bittker and his co-authors have stated:

"As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement (Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the US Constitution) that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states."

No income tax enacted by the US Congress (either before or after the Sixteenth Amendment) has ever been apportioned among the states by population. All income taxes enacted after the Amendment have been treated as excises (they have been imposed with geographic uniformity but have not been required to be apportioned).

Since the income tax may be imposed on income from whatever source and without regard to any apportionment requirement (by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment), an income tax cannot be treated as a direct tax (as income taxes on income from property were so treated in the Pollock case). Essentially, all income taxes after the Sixteenth Amendment are again treated as indirect taxes. Subsequent lower court cases have interpreted the Brushaber decision ("the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion ... this erroneous assumption" ) and the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."

Geographical uniformity
The Court in Brushaber noted that income taxes inherently belonged in the "category" of indirect tax (or excise). The court stated that incomes taxes are indirect excise taxes by reinforcing the Pollock decision:

"As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them. Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise..."

Indeed, that had been the understanding with respect to all income taxes until the Pollock decision. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the need imposed by the Pollock decision to determine whether an income tax in any particular case was required to be apportioned, as the Congress could again (after 1913) tax income from any source without having to apportion the tax according to population.

Property taxes and capitations
Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment or in Brushaber (and the other cases interpreting the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution) changes the general rule that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states by population. For example, if the US Congress were to enact a national property tax (a property tax or other tax by reason of its ownership) or a national capitation (a poll tax or head tax), such taxes would be required to be apportioned.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.