congratulations, you found a grand total of one article linking to an analysis of two lawyers who argue that a wealth tax is constitutional.
gee, it's always so hard to find lawyers on either side of an issue. 
it's actually in interesting read, but johnsen & dellinger's argument rests on the argument that as apportioning a wealth tax to the states based on each state's population (as is the constitution's requirement on direct taxes) would be unfair, it can be ignore.
that is, in order to comply, states with equal population would have to, in the aggregate each pay the same amount to the federal government. so let's say the federal government wanted to make every billionaire pay a billionaire's tax to the federal government. if there are 10 billionaires in one state and 5 billionaires in another state, but both states have the same overall population, then the billionaires in the 5-billionaire state would have to pay twice the tax that the billionaires in the 10-billionaire state would pay, so that the state total was the same.
that would be manifestly unfair, so johnsen & dellinger argue that this means that the constitutional requirement to apportion such taxes based on population can simply be ignored.
that's not a very compelling argument. which is not to say the supreme court has never used such logic (or worse), but it's hardly compelling.
moreover, as you point out, today's court makeup doesn't think like that at all. this is rather far from "originalist" thinking. at a minimum, i would agree with your assessment that today's court would find it unconstitutional, whether out of bias, originalist thinking, or other reasoning.
as for jefferson, i can find no evidence that he ever thought a direct tax on wealth was constitutional. he may have felt it would be a good *policy*, but i can't find anything that suggests he thought it was permitted by the constitution, particularly before the 16th amendment.
as for wanting my bona fides, that's really weak sauce considering that you haven't volunteered yours. moreover, what compels you to even respond on an internet message board if you're going to dismiss arguments out of hand. not interested in my comments if i'm not a constitutional scholar? find, but then, why post anything in response at all? just ignore me if you think my opinion if worthless.
if you really care, i am not a lawyer, but i helped my mom go through law school when i was in high school. i found my own school work a bore so i spent far more time reading he law books and helping her study. in high school and college, i debated competitively, sometimes on constitutional issues. most of my career has been working closely with lawyers. usually not officially on constitutional issues, but constitutional topics do come up in conversation from time to time, particularly if something's in the news. so not licensed, but pretty knowledgeable for a lay person.
and you?
as for declaring victory for yourself, by all means, feel free to think that awarding yourself a victory means something.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
