Posted on 10/15/2006 2:27:58 PM PDT by JOHN W K
A CHALLENGE TO H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] SUPPORTERS
What part of our federal Constitution grants power to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”? I have been told by some proponents of H.R. 25 to read Article 1, Section 8, but, I do not see “sales tax” in the list of specific taxing powers granted in that part of the Constitution. I guess it’s safe to assume at this point in time the promoters of H.R.25 were pretending that a power was granted to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”.
In addition, those who promote H.R. 25 offer nothing as to whether or not H.R. 25 would be considered a direct tax as our founding fathers understood the meaning of the term during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and thus requiring apportionment. Truth is, supporters of H.R. 25 have neglected to state why the tax described in H.R. 25, a tax unquestionably designed as the primary method by which the states would be called upon to fill the national treasury, is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
There is no contention that the tax described in H.R. 25 is not imposed upon any particularly selected article of consumption as the excise tax was historically used by the founders with reference to taxing consumption. Instead, H.R. 25 proposes to tax a specifically defined class of financial transactions within each of the various states, and do so as the primary method to fill the national treasury, and, would allow the iron fist of the federal government to enter the states and lay its hand upon the sale of private property, real and personal, within each of the various states. Question is, did the founding fathers contemplate and intend to delegate this type of taxing power to the new government they were creating, and if so, did they also intend certain restrictions to apply and a specific rule to be followed when and if the tax was laid? The answer to both these questions is a resounding YES!
Chief Justice Fuller summarizes the founder’s 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."
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 water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax upon assessed land value within each of the states, a new rule would apply! The new rule agreed upon by which 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 determine how their money was to be spent.
Under the Articles of Confederation no such rule existed, but during the framing of our existing Constitution the method by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury was a bone of contention and the final compromise reached was “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” , the indisputable intention being an agreement as to how the states may be called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, a primary tax, laid by Congress. The new rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:
States’ population
------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.
Those who support H.R. 25 seem to love enforcing the rule of apportionment to gain their representation in Congress and exercise their vote when deciding how to spend federal revenue taken from the states. But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution’s 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 which gave them their vote in Congress Assembled.
Instead of calculating a tax from “income” . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’ iron fist beyond ‘income” and reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its value, and, do so “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states.
H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the tax burden would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent which was taken from them in a primary tax calculated from a measure of their state’s economic enterprise and success.
H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ 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!
HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.
Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax plan:
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
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 Constitution’s 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 water’s 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 = STATE’S 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 Constitution’s 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 founder’s 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.