[inquest]

Well, if that's the way the Supremes have ruled, that's the way they ruled. I don't drink at their bar, so I probably don't have much influence over them. But it seems kind of odd to me that they'd have so much solicitude for "state sovereignty" when states are clearly subordinate to the federal government, and where the latter is given an explicit power (taxation).

And as for the bit about the Articles of Confederation and federal vs. national administration, I can certainly see why we needed to move beyond taxing states as entities, but that doesn't mean there was any need to prohibit ourselves from doing so, if we found that that would be a more efficient way of doing things. The main problem with the Confederation was that the state governments knew that Congress had no other option than to deal with them directly, and so that gave them an incentive for blackmail. If Congress has other options as it does now, then that incentive is almost completely gone. The incentive then might be in the opposite direction, as the state governments may find that their constituents would appreciate having to only deal with one system of taxation rather than two.

[ancient_geezer]

. But it seems kind of odd to me that they'd have so much solicitude for "state sovereignty" when states are clearly subordinate to the federal government, and where the latter is given an explicit power (taxation).

No solicitude, the way the Constitution is written with states having their own powers, the national government its set of powers and Concurrent power to tax by the intent of Constitution's authors.

Whether you believe it or not the Courts are bound by the Constitution and do actually try to adhere to the intents of the founders and words of the constitution as they were meant when the Constitution became law of the land. They really do refer to the writings of the founders to establish intent as well as mere letter of law in their determinations.

"Unless an intention to the contary is indicated, words used in a constitution will generally be interpreted in there natural or popular, as distinguished from a technical meaning."
16 Corpus Juris Secundom "Constitution" Sec. 24; (Cites ommited)

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, February 15, 1791

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson: letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322

Hamilton, Federalist #34:

• ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

 

---

I can certainly see why we needed to move beyond taxing states as entities, but that doesn't mean there was any need to prohibit ourselves from doing so, if we found that that would be a more efficient way of doing things.

History shows the attempt to force taxes upon state government to be less than useful, and down right injurous.

 

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

• Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

• "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

OTOH, there is nothing to prohibit the national government from requesting state involvment as an agent, as is done in Linder's proposal for an NRST [H.R.25 ]. It's left up to the individual state's choice as to whether or not they wish it administer the national tax with compensation or leave it to a national agency to do it.

The main problem with the Confederation was that the state governments knew that Congress had no other option than to deal with them directly, and so that gave them an incentive for blackmail. If Congress has other options as it does now, then that incentive is almost completely gone.

The option must be at the election of the state, and not imposed from a "FEDERAL" entity; Otherwise we cease to guarantee the Republic form of government in violation of the Constitution, and become just one big overpowering central authority, that the founders were clearly against.

The incentive then might be in the opposite direction, as the state governments may find that their constituents would appreciate having to only deal with one system of taxation rather than two.

Precisely:

H.R.25
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

The administration is done at the option of the state. One tax, one administeration for the people to deal with when the state agrees that should be the way for them to go to the benefit of their citizens.