California`s illegitimate 55 electoral college votes!

Just for the record and to get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the state of California has an overwhelming 55 electoral college votes compared to any of these states!

For example, and according to 2007 figures the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 electoral college votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 electoral college votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why is this something for the people of Wyoming and 18 other States to be upset over? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 electoral college votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California. And the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution turns out to be an equal per capita tax. In 2007 if the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger electoral college vote in 2007 which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, and in choosing our next president, California gets to exercise 55 votes, but has not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive voting strength as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding the very intentions for the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that representation is proportionately equal to each State’s contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

There is no presumption the rule of apportionment applies to all taxes. But it was intended to apply to any general tax laid among the States! Let us look at the document intentions of the founders:

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

And if there is any question about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

The very intention for the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was that if Congress could not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically selected article of consumption, preferable articles of luxury as intended by our founders, and a general internal tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress exigencies, the rule of apportionment would apply so each state’s share of a total sum being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. This is also pointed out in several of the State Ratification documents. For example see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

So, as it turns out, the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted was to insure that the people of each state, if a general tax was levied among the states, would be obligated to pay a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress.

Do you agree this is the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted with regard to taxation?

JWK

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.