Posted on 10/15/2006 2:27:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
Are you logged in?
And then exhume "President" Wilson's and NY US Senator Aldrich's bodies and scatter both thier remains for giving us BOTH Income taxes AND The Us "Federal" Reserve systems.
But .. Section 8 says: The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, ..."
It doesn't specify what type of taxes .. so why does that mean sales taxes don't apply ..??
I will agree the whole section purports to say that such "taxes" would be: "..., to pay the debts and provide for the common defense [military] and general welfare of the United States; ...? But .. I still say - it's not specific enough.
After taxes there is a comma, after which the kinds of taxes are listed as duties, imposts and excises, Even our courts have repeatedly acknowledged taxes being limited to duties, imposts and excises, and of course, direct taxes, the last of which require apportionment.
Regards,
JWK
No it doesn't. Taxes is the first item on a list of items seperated by commas.
The people that wrote our founding documents had a better grip on the English language than that.
But .. can't the word "excise" be classified as a "sales" tax ..??
CyberAnt
I would say that is irrelevant in this respec. Such a tax, as described in H.R. 25, whatever it is called, would be a primary tax by which the states are called upon to fill the national treasury. The intention of the founding fathers was to insure that whenever the states are called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax among them, each state's share would be determined by the Constitutions fair share formula.
One of the most important compromises agreed upon during the framing and ratification of our Constitution was that taxation and representation were tied together.
A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our waters edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the people of the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax, a new rule would apply! The new rule agreed upon by which the people of the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury commanded apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution, to be exercised when Congress Assembled determined how their money was to be spent!
The new rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATES SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
H.R. 25 ensures the enforcement of the rule of apportionment regarding each state's representation in Congress when deciding how to spend federal revenue taken from the states. But when it comes time to paying the tab, H.R. 25 would subjugate our Constitutions fair share formula by which the states are to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, which is also part of the rule of apportionment.
This is what the adoption of the socialist 16th Amendment was all about___ being able to lay and collect a tax calculate from profits and gains wherever profits and gains could be found, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", but at the same time, guaranteeing each states constitutionally guaranteed voting strength in Congress when spending revenue raised in such a manner.
H.R. 25 mimics this Marxist principle ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment.
H.R. 25 would accomplish indirectly that which the Constitution is intended to forbid directly!
Chief Justice Fuller summarizes the founders clear intentions in the following manner: in: POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
"The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.
Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language."
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story
That's rich!!
Let it be noted for the record that this poster is widely recognized throughout many different Internet sites as "The Tax Troll" as he continually posts much the same unvarying nonsense which he had claimed to have presented in actual testimony to the Ways & Means Committee (he has never appeared to testify to that body).
In addition he never makes public the fact that his background is that of a principal in the Tax Protester movement and due to this fact alone anything he proffers is suspect as most who have ever dealt with the TP movement would know.
To provide a good bit of the detail on his "background" all you need to do is read post #244 through #248 on this thread (or even earlier in that thread if you'd like more detail).
Being advised of this, should you desire to believe anything offered by this poster, you're definitely on your own as most supporting the FairTax (and even many of those not supporting it) realize what he is and does - and very few will waste even as much time as I do here.
Talk about a thread that belong in the SBR.
Talk about a thread that belongs in the SBR.
How do you propose to get the huddled masses to work for tax reform when the burden is carried by only half the population? When we have less than half paying in, the ability to get spending reductions or to limit government will certianly be lost.
Talk about a vanity post !
No link to the source of the article, and Google can't find any print or online media outlet called "AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE".
No way to assess the scholarly credentials of the organization much less this particular author.
What a waste of Freepers' time.
Merriam-Websetr's Dictionary of Law defines and excsie tax as follows:
Substituting your own personal opinion for a generally accepted opinion is a poor means of argument.Main Entry: ex·cise Pronunciation: 'ek-"sIz, -"sIs Function: noun 1 : a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity compare INCOME TAX, PROPERTY TAX
Poseur*, where is your web site and what are your qualifications to comment on two subjects about which you apparently have little knowledge: proper English and taxes?
[*
Main Entry: po·seur
Pronunciation: pO-'z&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French
Date: 1872
: a person who pretends to be what he or she is not : an affected or insincere person]
Good post.
UFT Ping.
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.