A sales tax is an indirect tax, so the apportionment rules in the Constitution don't apply.
The Constitution stipulates, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Sales tax is not a 'direct tax'.
Now, please take the time and go back to the top of the thread and read the words of our founding fathers with respect to any general tax laid among the States.
A sales tax is an excise tax, as it is applied to specific goods. There is no apportionment requirement to federal excise taxes. The words 'general tax' are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
This rule of apportionment,which precludes the class warfare game now being played upon us by our folks in Washington, is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents, e.g.. see 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-
Now, let us take a look at the founder’s clear intentions for any general tax laid among the States:
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
Also 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” Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
And, 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 then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment:
“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
Finally, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the intentions of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. This rule is stated as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Herman Cain's national sales tax would deny to the people of those states who pay the lion's share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution!
Our founding fathers understood the importance of tying both representation and taxation by the same standard and they commanded by our Constitution, representation with proportional obligation, or, one vote one dollar if and when Congress ever found it necessary to enter the States and collect a tax directly from the people. And it is this part of the rule of apportionment (one vote one dollar) which pinko progressives hate with a passion because it would discourage the Congressional Delegations of those states with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc., from using their large representation in Congress to recklessly spend money from the federal treasury, and it does this by requiring them to return home with a bill in their hand for their State to pay whenever Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes. Progressives just love their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but when it comes time for that one vote one dollar part of our Constitution to be enforced they run and hide and pretend our Constitution does not mean what our founders intended it to mean.
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.