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A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge.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