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.
Where do I go vote????
If the Founders had meant to give the federal government an unlimited authority to tax, it would have read-
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;but all Taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States;
But it doesn't. It reads:
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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This enumerated power contains two clauses. The second clause is a restrictive clause, which is defined as; A subordinate clause that limits or restricts the meaning of the noun phrase it modifies .
What noun phrase is being modified? TAXES. It RESTRICTS the power designated in the first clause to specific items ONLY....duties, imposts and excises. If it were meant as a total and general power to tax, the word tax would have been repeated in the second clause as well.
The authority to tax income from a 'duty, impost or excise' is not an enumerated power, only the authority to tax the item ITSELF. Nor is the power to tax the People on the fruits of their labor.
-----------
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
The courts can't recognize something that isn't there. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the authority to tax PROFITS, only consumables and real estate.
Accumulation of property is the main goal of a free enterprise system.
-------
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
'Capitation', or head taxes were acquired from the States, not the People. That's why the Founders combined the capitation tax to the same apportionment as representatives by using the Census as the measure.
James Madison, Federalist, no. 54
In one respect the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress, will necessarily depend in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not the cooperation of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their 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 controul and ballance each other; and produce the requisite impartiality.
If what we call 'federal income taxes' were done on the basis of a capitation tax, we would all be either
1)all be paying the same amount (taxed per head), or
2)the People in one State would be paying more than people in another State (based on population)
Nope, that dog still won't hunt.
The Constitution never mentions income in conjunction with taxes, nor is the ability to expand the original intent via the redefining of words.
-----
Giving the ability to determine the extent of the federal powers to a single man....even a Supreme Court Judge, makes us a Nation of Men, not of Laws.
-----
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"
I can't find the authority to reclassify taxes anywhere in the Constitution, only ability to bring to fruition the powers that are already there. Besides, if it INHERENTLY belonged where it already was, why move it?
------
Any power attempting to operate outside the Constitution negates itself. Even Madison noted the ingeniousness of the Constitutional construct in his report:
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
-----
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."
Please stop quoting the Constitution to me as if I were a simpleton.
Anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding? Like these?
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.
***
All the states have similar clauses. Look them up for yourself.
(http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com):
civil law
3: the law established by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction
military law
law enforced by military rather than civil authority
***
The States retained control over the federal government within their own borders. Outside its areas of original jurisdiction, the federal government becomes a 'military authority'.
Its why Governor Mifflin had the legal authority to force President Washington to stop until he was given permission to enter the State and utilize the Governor's State militia in order to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.