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?
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?
Hmm looks to me you left out the definion of "tax" as the generic power that is enumerated in Article I Section 8,
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;
with the express requirement that "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
While in Article I Section 9 clause 4 that expressly required capitations (i.e. head and poll taxes) and direct (i.e. Real Estate) taxes be apportion in accord with state census and assessed and collected on a state to state basis by whatever mechanism Congress found appropriate.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Example the early statutes governing the administration of such a direct tax provides good example it applied to Real Estate and the collection of some specific internal duties:
Statutes at Large: Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813
Chapter XVI. An Act for the assesment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties.(a)
Which provided for direct tax collection districts administered by national tax surveyors, responsible for accurate assessment and collection of taxes from individual property owners.
That pretty much leaves any other tax that fits within the general class "taxes" to be allocated according to the nature of the tax, whether or not it be amenable to be assigned as a fixed amount per person (as a capitation is) or as a tax on some other factor best expressed as a percentage of an the revenues of an activity, privilege, exchange, transfer or other transaction amenable to valuation which is more applicable to application by rule of uniformity.
The Constitution says direct taxes must be apportioned via the census, and indirect taxes must be uniform.
Yep as point out above.
Are you saying the power was there all along, but no one bothered to exercise it until the 16th Amendment came along?
Actually, the Courts recognized the power to tax such long before the 16th Amendment came along in its findings concerning the income tax of 1863.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
Underscored in Pollock as regards taxation of businesses, privileges, and employments, and vocations as excises.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
And by stating that very principle in:
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
The FEDERAL government cannot exercise a NATIONAL power...even a power enumerated in the Constitution, WITHOUT the cooperation of the State itself.
LOL,
Constitution for the United States of America:
Statutes at Large: Thirteenth Congress Session. I. Ch. 16. 1813
Chapter XVI. An Act for the assesment and collection of direct taxes and internal duties.(a)
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?
The National government has complementary powers operating in concurrent jurisdiction over the individual within the constraints of enumerate constitutional boundries set for each. Where powers have not been assigned to either state or national government, the personal freedoms and rights of the individual are supreme.
The ultimate point being the way you, I, the People of the United States are going to change the laws and powers of Congress as they are exercised today, will only be through exercise of our vote in selecting our repesentation in exercise of the ballot box and through the Article V amendment process provided under the Constitution.
The alternative in extremis is revolution and the overthrow of the government at hand as was effected by the founders of this nation in throwing of the yoke of the British crown. However replacing it with a Republic as characterised by the Constitution of the United States may be abit problematic under current political conditions, one takes thier chances in such revolutions, few survive the tumult and choas they engender most lead to tyranny and dictatorships for lack of principled leaders willing to give up the reigns of power once they are in hand.
We were lucky in George Washington as our first example of a chief executive, any other and we would have very likey devolved into a monarchy or worse.