Replies

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare”. For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. ~ Thomas Jefferson; National Bank opinion, 1791

Roberts instead characterizes the congressional power of taxation as if it were the magical key that unlocks the escape hatch from the Constitution. He tells us so when he explains that an otherwise unconstitutional law is made to be constitutional by the implementation of a tax. Imagine trying to explain that one to James Madison.

Exactly! It looks to me that Roberts has done to I.8.1 what Wickard and Raich did to the Commerce Clause. Comparing Madison and Roberts:

Madison on I.8.1:

A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html

____________________________________________________________

Roberts on I.8.1

Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.

More Jefferson, re: the taxation power: The Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, &c., provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”. I suppose the meaning of this clause to be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited.

Of course, if Thomas Jefferson were Chief Justice, and had four like minds to vote with him, we could haul about 95% of the United States Code out to the dumpster, and the vast majority of the Code of Federal Regulations to boot.

Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor..

He is? For real? He's about AWESOME.

Maybe if you (third party, of course) mentioned his name
a few more times folks might pay attention to "him".

Who?

Next time the Democrats win back majorities like they had in 2009, they could require that we all paint the roofs of our houses white in order to combat the effects of “climate change.”

No they wont -- not after what has happened in the wake of the decision.

What they'll do is going back to expanding deductions. Instead of penalizing everyone for not painting houses white, they'll give a tax credit to those that do paint their houses, while letting the slow increase in wages raise the tax liability of everyone else.

Mathematically there's no difference between this and levying a penalty. But giving deductions sounds a lot better than raising taxes.

How many oppose the tax deduction for interest on mortgages? Those that don't pay big interest on mortgage debt pay more in taxes, don't they? Sounds like the government would like us to borrow more money and penalizes us if we don't. Buying educational services? You'll pay more in taxes if you don't.

Had Roberts ruled that such things were unconstitutional, there would be fury over the increase in taxes paid as deductions were eliminated.

The last thing President Madison did in office was to veto a highway bill that had been sent to him under the “general welfare” clause because he could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed him to use the tax money of one group of Americans to benefit another group of Americans.

Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you an actual patriot, President Madison.