The People created the colonies and the colonies became States. The States created the centralized government. The States were used as a buffer between the People and the newly created government.
Under the articles of Confederation.
When looking from the purview of the current Constitution, the view changes in significant ways placing a Concurrent jurisdiction in taxation over the individual citizen.
Your desire to have it some other way is nothing more than your wish that it be so.
The reality dejure and infact is otherwise.
Nationwide taxation of the People is NOT an authority of the federal government because it's national powers can only operate on the States.
By definition of the term, a "national" power operates only on individuals.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
In the case of taxation under the Constitution it operates a concurrent jursidiction in parallel with the states that the States may gather the resources necessary to their functioning independant of the national government just as the national government may gather the necessary resourses for its function without interference from the States.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
Your premise that once someone is elected they may pass whatever 'laws' they like is contradictory to a Republican form of government.
You really like constructing strawman arguments don't you.
The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers that the national government may exercises and is thus limited to them. The tenth amendment being a clear summation of that principle.
No one, no matter their office, has the legal authority to legislate money out of someone else's pocket. That's nothing more than legalized theft.
Emotional hyperbole is hardly a useful debating tactic. The facts are that the national powers of taxatation enumerated in the Constitution are clear and unabiguous, and the means selected by the founders as the manner in which the nation's governmental functions are to be financed:
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
The very earliest Supreme Court tax case underscoring the very nature of indirect taxation as being imposed upon the individual.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
This was a writ of Error directed to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia; and upon the return of the record, the following proceedings appeared. An action of debt had been instituted to May Term, 1795, by the attorney of the district, in the name of the United States, against Daniel Hylton, to recover the penalty imposed by the act of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, for not entering, and paying the duty on, a number of carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which he kept for his own use. ... is not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. " "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution." "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
With a clear statements of the proponents of the constituton as well as its opponents as to the scope of those tax laws:
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
Not to mention, the facts on the ground as regards the acts of the "Nation's" (not "Federation's") first President in regards such indirect taxes laid upon the individual uniformly throughout the United States.
George Washington's Proclamation Whiskey Rebellion August 7, 1794:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htmGeorge Washington's address on October 20 1794
to General Lee at Bedford, PA
Washington called up and led states militias into Western Pennsylvania enforcing the Federal tax on private stills owned by individual citizens and farmers in Western Pennsylvania.
United States Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 3rd Session Ch 15, 1791,
page 202, 204 Sec 21-24;Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That upon stills which after the last day of June Next, shall be employed in distilling spirits from materials of the growth or production of the United States, in any other place than a city, taown or village, there shall be paid for the use of the United States, the yearly duty of sixty cents for every gallon, English wine-measure, of the capacity or content of each and every such still, including the head thereof.
Sec. 22. And be it further encted, That the evidence of the employment of the said stills shall be, their being erected in stone, brick or some other manner whereby they shall be in a condition to be worked.
Sec. 23. And be it futher enacted, That the said duties o stills shall be collected under the management of the supervisor in each district, who shall appoint and assing proper officers for the surveys of the said stills and the admeasurement thereof, and the collectio of the duties thereupon; and the said duties shall be paid half yearly wihtin the firest fifteen days of January and July, upon demand of the proprietor or proprietors of each still, at his, her or their dwelling, by the proper officer charged with the survey thereof: And in case of refusal or neglect, to pay , the amount of the duties so refused or neglected to be paid may either be recovered with costs of suit in an actoin of debt in the name of the supervisor of the district, within which such refusal shall happen, for the use of the United States, or may be levied by distress and sale of goods of the person or persons refusing or neglecting to pay, rendering the overplus(if any there be after payment of the said amount and the charges of distress and sale) the the said person or persons.
Madison wrote his report in 1800, well after the Confederation ceased to exist.
-----
By definition of the term, a "national" power operates only on individuals.
You really should read a bit further down.
Federalist #39
On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.
But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
-----
The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers that the national government may exercises and is thus limited to them.
Good.
Webster's Dictionary 1828
DUTY
7. Tax, toll, impost, or customs; excise; any sum of money required by government to be paid on the importation, exportation, or consumption of goods. An impost on land or other real estate, and on the stock of farmers, is not called a duty, but a direct tax.
EXCISE
An inland duty or impost, laid on commodities consumed, or on the retail, which is the last state before consumption
DIRECT
Direct tax, is a tax assess on real estate, as houses and lands.
INDIRECT
5. Indirect tax, is a tax or duty on articles of consumption, as an excise, customs
The Constitution granted the authority to collect taxes on THINGS, such as items imported or exported from the ports of entry, or on consumables UP TO the point of consumption. 'Real property', or what we call 'real estate', is also Constitutional taxation.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will),The taxation of these items is collected by the State with a portion to the Federal city for the purposes of general government. That being the case, where did the power to tax the fruits of our labor come from?
The Constitution says direct taxes must be apportioned via the census, and indirect taxes must be uniform.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) held the whole 1894 federal income tax void.
Are you saying the power was there all along, but no one bothered to exercise it until the 16th Amendment came along?
Logic and reason would dictate a closer examination of that concept. Government could easily decide to bestow a power on itself. That's the danger of letting government be the sole definition of its own limits.
-----
Washington called up and led states militias into Western Pennsylvania enforcing the Federal tax on private stills owned by individual citizens and farmers in Western Pennsylvania.
True...but AFTER he was forced into getting permission to enter the State from its Governor.
Western Pennsylvania rebelled against the Federal excise tax on whiskey in 1794. Never having fully trusted George Washington, Mifflin refused, when asked by President Washington to call out the Pennsylvania militia to enforce this Federal law. Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance.
Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.
***
The FEDERAL government cannot exercise a NATIONAL power...even a power enumerated in the Constitution, WITHOUT the cooperation of the State itself.
Concurrent jurisdiction is a sword that cuts both ways
--------
Let me ask you a two part question-
Of the three different types of 'authority' in play; 1)The Federal government, 2)the States and 3)the People....
Which one do you think is superior, and why?