Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalVigilance
No, Liberty can't survive the income tax, but, IMHO, a national retail sales tax is unconstitutional as well.

-----

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

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;

The Federalist No. 32
yet I am willing here to allow, in its full extent, the justness of the reasoning which requires that the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.

-----

As GovernmentShrinker said in post #44;

The taxes needed to run the federal government should be collected directly from state governments, with each state’s percentage based on how many members it has in the House of Representatives.

This follows constitutional intent, at least according to Alexander Hamilton:

The Federalist No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States."

-----

The federal government is authorized to lay duties on consumables as the enter or leave the country, but the taxes at these points must be uniform in every State.

This doesn't even mean the federal government actually collects the tax. At the point of entry/exit, the state and federal government have whats called 'concurrent jurisdiction' and the state collects the tax on behalf of the federal government.

----------

Taxes that are collected on real property, or real estate, are considered the income of the State, with a portion forwarded to the federal government by the parties to the Compact.

§ 947. In a general sense, all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, are called taxes, by whatever name they may be known, whether by the name of tribute, tythe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name. In this sense, they are usually divided into two great classes, those, which are direct, and those, which are indirect. Under the former denomination are included taxes on land, or real property, and under the latter, taxes on articles of consumption. The constitution, by giving the power to lay and collect taxes in general terms, doubtless meant to include all sorts of taxes, whether direct or indirect. But, it may be asked, if such was the intention, why were the subsequent words, duties, imposts and excises, added in the clause? Two reasons may be suggested; the first, that it was done to avoid all possibility of doubt in the construction of the clause, since, in common parlance, the word taxes is sometimes applied in contradistinction to duties, imposts, and excises, and, in the delegation of so vital a power, it was desirable to avoid all possible misconception of this sort; and, accordingly, we find, in the very first draft of the constitution, these explanatory words are added. Another reason was, that the constitution prescribed different rules of laying taxes in different cases, and, therefore, it was indispensable to make a discrimination between the classes, to which each rule was meant to apply.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

102 posted on 04/12/2007 10:57:41 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am ~NOT~ an administrative, corporate, legal or public entity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

I’ll have to study your argument further later. Have to head out for a meeting...


105 posted on 04/12/2007 11:02:18 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Laws that infringe on unalienable rights are not laws at all...they are in fact lawless edicts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: MamaTexan
These words should be carefully read...

But, it may be asked, if such was the intention, why were the subsequent words, duties, imposts and excises, added in the clause? Two reasons may be suggested; the first, that it was done to avoid all possibility of doubt in the construction of the clause, since, in common parlance, the word taxes is sometimes applied in contradistinction to duties, imposts, and excises, and, in the delegation of so vital a power, it was desirable to avoid all possible misconception of this sort; and, accordingly, we find, in the very first draft of the constitution, these explanatory words are added.

Well posted!

110 posted on 04/12/2007 11:06:36 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson