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

To: Non-Sequitur
The Constitution does not say that the tariffs cannot be protectionist in nature, nor does it define what protectionist is. All it says is that it must be applied uniformly throughout the country

You've got it backward: The Constitution does not authorize tarrifs that are 'protectionist in nature' unless they fall into one of the mentioned categories:

1. Pay debts.
2. Provide for the common defense and general welfare.

The Whigs (and the Republicans that followed) had no pretentions that the tarriffs they would impose had to do with either of these things. The Constitution musn't just not prohibit something, it must specifically authorize it.

418 posted on 05/16/2003 6:03:20 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies ]


To: Gianni
The Constitution does not authorize tarrifs that are 'protectionist in nature'...

Read the Morill tariff . The legislation provided for the payment of outstanding treasury notes and authorized a loan in addition to fixing tariffs. That seems to meet your definition of the Constitutional purposes of a tariff and disputes your claim that the Republicans made no pretense of it being for any other purpose. Tariffs were implemented first and foremost to fund the government. They had, as an additional purpose, the protection of domestic industries, including the ones in the south, but did not in any way violate the Constitution.

420 posted on 05/16/2003 6:19:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | 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