Presidential candidates agree to trash Constitution!

See: House passes bill to regulate tobacco

WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.

Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday.

The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation." (my emphasis)

________


Well, if you thought either of our two presidential candidates intend to abide by their oath of office to support and defend the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the above is more evidence they are both tyrannical control freaks of the worst kind, and very much part of our Washington Establishment’s control freak crowd. Both Obama and McCain support the above proposed and tyrannical seizure of power and intend to have Congress enter the states and exercise a power not authorized by our written Constitution.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R.1108) states in part:

" b Registration by Owners and Operators- On or before December 31 of each year every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person."

And the question is, by what constitutional authority does Congress have power to enter a state to regulate the manufacture of tobacco products therein and compel a person who manufactures tobacco products in a particular state to register with the federal government?


Of course, our control freak crowd on Capitol Hill will claim such power is found under Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution ___ that Congress has been granted power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

So, let us take a look at the documented intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among [not within] the states. An immediate clue to those intentions is surprisingly discovered in another part of our Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9:

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”(my emphasis)

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers with regard to commerce, which was to insure free trade [movement of goods] among the states.


And, in Federalist Paper No. 42 Madison articulates the very reasons for which the power to regulate commerce ought to be placed under the national legislature‘s powers:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce "among" [not within] the states was primarily intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as those goods passed through its borders. There was never any intention expressed to allow Congress to enter a state to regulate industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use and consumption, or regulate the production processes carried on within the various state borders.


Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight, a co-exercised power with the states in a specific and narrowly defined area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." ____ Article 1, Section 10

The documented truth is, Congress is not authorized by our written Constitution, nor was there any intentions expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, to authorize Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use, or consumption, etc., of any products! As a matter of fact, Congress’s limited powers in this particular area [regulation of commerce among the states] was specifically intended to prevent such interferences of free trade among the states, and which our control freak crowd now attempts to engage in by attaching new meaning to the word "commerce" and then regulating the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products.

Aside from the above documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, there is still more glaring evidence, also found in the wording of our Constitution, to show our control freak crowd is proposing to allow Congress to act tyrannically and without Constitutional authority!

In 1920 Congress was granted power to enter the states to prohibit the “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” see the 18th Amendment. Under section 2, the power to allow Congress to enter the states was intentionally granted by the states to the federal government by the following words:


The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

But this power granted to Congress to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of a product was withdraw by the 21st Amendment and by the following words:


The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


And thus, such regulatory power within the various states evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment!

In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and adopt regulatory policing powers as the people in each state feel is in their own state’s best interests was intentionally taken back and emphasized by section two of the 21st Amendment!

The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?

I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See:WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

One final note with regard to the word “commerce”. As used by our founding fathers during the framing and ratification process it is found to be synonymous with “trade”, and had nothing to do with the regulation of industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried on within the various state borders.

The term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers meant nothing more than the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B, and, Congress was given power to insure the free passage of goods and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through, which I documented above. But just for the readers personal benefit, I will provide the following examples of the word "commerce" being used during the ratification process of our Constitution which gives documented insight to its constitutional meaning.


THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE MASSACHUETTS RATIFING CONVENTION WHEN THE CONVENTION WAS DISCUSSING ART. 1 SEC. 8, PROPOSED POWERS OF CONGRESS AND RAISING REVENUE

Mr. DAWES SPEAKING:


“As to commerce, it is well known that the different states”
PAGE 57:

now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state. This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth. Some nations have no other commerce. The great and flourishing empire of China has but little commerce beyond her own territories; and no country is better circumstanced than we for an exclusive traffic from state to state; yet even in this we are rivalled by foreigners--by those foreigners to whom we are the least indebted. A vessel from Roseway or Halifax finds as hearty a welcome with its fish and whalebone at the southern ports, as though it was built, navigated, and freighted from Salem or Boston. And this must be the case, until we have laws comprehending and embracing alike all the states in the Union.

But it is not only our coasting trade--our whole commerce is going to ruin. Congress has not had power to make even a trade law, which shall confine the importation of foreign goods to the ships of the producing or consuming country”

IN CONTINUING ON THE SUBJECT AND Hon. Mr. BOWDOIN SPEAKING:

PAGE 83

These are some of the consequences, certain and infallible, that will flow from the denial of that power to Congress. Shall we then, we of this state, who are so much interested in this matter, deny them that power -- a power so essential to our political happiness?

But if we attend to our trade, as it is at present, we shall find that the miserable state of it is owing to a like want of power in Congress. Other nations prohibit our vessels from entering their ports, or lay heavy duties on our exports carried thither; and we have no retaliating or regulating power over their vessels and exports, to prevent it. Hence a decrease of our commerce and navigation, and the duties and revenue arising from them. Hence an insufficient demand for the produce of our lands, and the consequent discouragement of agriculture. Hence the inability to pay debts, and particularly taxes, which by that decrease are enhanced. And hence, as the necessary result of all these, the emigration of our inhabitants. If it be asked, How are these evils, and others that might be mentioned, to be remedied? the answer is short -- By giving Congress adequate and proper power. Whether such power be given by the proposed Constitution, it is left with the Conventions from the several states, and with us, who compose one of them, to determine.

Now, where does one get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is synonymous with “industry” or “manufacturing” etc., which would lead to the following absurd conclusion ? ___ that Congress has power

“To regulate industry with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“ which would follow if the assertion were correct. [see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3]

Regards,
JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

CA Marriage case: a documented study in juridical tyranny!

If there was ever a court ruling confirming the contention that our judicial branch of government is violating the very core of our constitutional system’s separation of powers doctrine and “legislating from the bench” and using its office of public trust to impose its whims and fancies as public policy upon the people, that court ruling is without question California’s recent case in which four arrogant justices on California’s high court struck down America’s traditional definition of marriage ___ a definition legally understood in America for countless generations as being a union between one male and one female.


The opinion of the court in this case, In re MARRIAGE CASES, decided May 15th, 2008, authored by Chief Justice C.J. George declares that:


“…retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples.” [page 118]


But the “strict scrutiny” standard relied upon by Justice George happens to be a modern day test invented and nurtured by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower state courts to create a vehicle for justices and judges throughout the united States to semantically subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which our constitutions, state and federal, were adopted, and to allow the court to impose its own whims and fancies and sense of social justice upon the people ___ in effect recreating a system which mimics the English House of Lords which was unrestrained by a written constitution, and which our constitutional system was intentionally designed to forbid!


Keep in mind a “strict scrutiny standard” is not found in the text of the United States Constitution, nor was such a test ever contemplated by our founding fathers to be used by our courts in deciding the constitutionality of a law based upon the court’s opinion as to whether or not the law in question furthered a “state interest sufficiently compelling” to be upheld or struck down on such grounds.


Indeed, under our constitutional system our legislative branch of government ___ the people’s elected legislature ___ is vested with the power to enact law which it, and only it, have determined will promote the general welfare and best interests of the people and the State. Second guessing the wisdom of laws passed by the Legislative branch of government by our courts, which Justice George is quite comfortable in doing, is not the Court’s job under our system and violates the fundamental separation of powers in our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government“, a system of government which is guaranteed to every State in our union by Article 4, Section 4, of our federal Constitution.


The irrefutable fact is our constitutions, state and federal, are the supreme law of the land and there is no provision or legislative intent within the four corners of our constitutional system suggesting the Court may declare a law unconstitutional or constitutional based upon a test which no longer determines the constitutionality of a law, but rather, allows the Court to arbitrarily determine whether a law is, e.g., “reasonable“, or arbitrarily decide that the law in question “does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling,“ or, that a law bears a “rational” relationship to the state's best interests ___ all of which is designed to allow the Court to declare laws which do not fit the Court’s own idea of social justice as being unconstitutional, while laws which may advance the Court’s idea of social justice or advance the personal predilections of members of the court are amazingly found constitutional under these semantic “tests“ invented by the Court to assume a public policy making authority.


The distinction between our constitutional system and its most fundamental rule, which is to enforce the intentions and beliefs under which our constitutions, state and federal, were adopted, as contrasted by a system in which a Court may overturn laws by arbitrarily declaring they do not promote a compelling state interest, is exhibited under Israel’s system of government and a set of laws called the “BASIC LAW” of Israel.


After listing a number of rights which the people of Israel are supposedly entitled to, which are somewhat similar to our federal Bill of Rights, No.8 of the BASIC LAW OF ISRAELdeclares:


“There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required”


And so, those in political power, acting through Israel’s judicial system, may scrutinize a law and uphold it or strike it down by alleging the law “does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling“ to be upheld, which in turn allows a handful of citizens to “interpret” laws to meet their own purposes under the guise of promoting the best interests of the State of Israel.


But in our system, if there is any legitimate scrutinizing to be applied when determining if a law is or is not constitutional, that scrutinizing is to be applied in determining the intentions and beliefs under which a constitution, [each article, section, clause, and amendment] was adopted, as they may be documented from historical records. and then enforcing those intentions and beliefs. To state this rule a different way, let us recall the words of one of our nation’s leading founding fathers:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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.


The fact is, members on the SCOTUS in the 1960’s - 70’s, started to blatantly ignore the narrow and limited intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted and took it upon themselves to use their office of public trust to impose their personal predilections and social reforms upon the entire population of America, and did so by creating the very kinds of test which Justice George used to impose his personal feelings upon the entire population of the State of California


Some of the important cases which document the U.S. Supreme Court’s use of its power to impose its own standards of social justice are:


Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971)

Frontiero vs Richardson Secretary of Defense 411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

Also see, United States vs. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (1996)


It is interesting to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who now sits on the U. S. Supreme Court and was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, was very active in these cases and assisted the Supreme Court in the formulation of the creative test which Justice George used to parse words and semantically subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which California’s Constitution was adopted as he went on to legislate from the bench and impose his personal view of social justice upon the people by tyrannically assuming the legislative powers of government.


Heck, Justice George even recognized he was violating the separation of powers doctrine when he quoted in his opinion “(I)t is the legitimate business of the Legislature to attempt to close the distance between the parallel institutions (marriage and same-sex committed domestic partnerships) as they develop, and to address such concerns.” This very rule, the separation of powers doctrine, was also recently stated by the SCOTUS in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”


Bottom line. The strict scrutiny relied upon by Justice George is an invention of the Court used to impose the Court’s own concept of social justice and semantically subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which our constitutions, state and federal, were adopted.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, [u]as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records,[/u] wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Our constitutional system’s most fundamental rule!

In 1823 Thomas Jefferson wrote:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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.

Indeed, expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution was adopted in order to be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Let us look at some authoritative sources concerning our constitutional system’s most fundamental rule.

Intent of constitution

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Now, with regard to the Federalist Papers and other historical sources from which to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted see vol.16, American Jurisprudence, "Constitutional Law", Par. 130


"The Federalist and other contemporary writings." which are acknowledged sources from which to determine the “intent” of those who framed and ratified the constitution.”

In addition to the above documentation, it is interesting to note a recent Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court of the united States references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to document the legislative intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v LOPEZ 1995, Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

The unfortunate truth is, both of our political party leaderships ignore abiding by our Constitution’s legislative intent as it may be documented from historical records___ there are those who believe in abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and, there are those who wish to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. I align myself with the former who believe in a system governed by the rule of law and abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to..

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

H.R.25 would violate Constitution's rule of apportionment !

BACKGROUND

Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the- board tax to fill the national treasury was agreed upon. The amount to be contributed by each state was to be calculated from each state’s assessed land value and the improvements thereon.

Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:

“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.”

Each state was to make its contribution into the common treasury based upon the value of land within the state, and the value of land included an estimate of the “buildings and improvements thereon”. Taxes calculated from the value of property, real and personal, have always been considered to be direct taxation since the birth of our nation.

During the framing of our Constitution, states with superior wealth objected to allowing a power of taxation being granted which was based upon wealth and would leave them carrying more of the federal tax burden than poorer states. The wealthier Southern States felt that some compensation in their voting strength was necessary if they were to contribute a larger share of the federal tax burden.

Eventually, a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention being, which is contrary to the popular myth that it made Blacks 3/5 of a person, was an agreed upon rule determining each states’ voting strength in Congress Assembled, and also determined each states’ share of a tax to be laid, if imposts, duties [external taxes], and miscellaneous internal excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress`s expenses.


The two rules regarding apportionment, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

State`s Population
_______________ X House Size (435)=STATE’S VOTES IN CONGRESS

population of U.S.



State`s population

-------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

It should also be noted that during the ratification of our Constitution the above stated intentions were again noted on various occasions, e.g.: Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State [*568] will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked that "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255.

After determining a total sum needed and each state’s apportioned share was calculated, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to return to their own state with a bill to extinguish their state’s share of the apportioned tax. Each state`s share was based upon its number of votes in Congress and the various state legislatures and Governors were intended to retain the responsibility of having to meet that financial responsibility in their own chosen way, which would prevent Congress from entering the states, taxing the people directly, and manipulating who shall pay the federal tax burden

Here are two examples of the rule of apportionment being applied by Congress:

Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax.

Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.

Bottom line is, the intended protection was that if imposts, duties [external taxes] and assorted internal excise taxes which Congress was authorized to lay were found insufficient to fill the national treasury, and a general tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress’s exigencies, and especially in a wealth based tax being used as a primary source to fill the national treasury, those states carrying the lion’s share of such a tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress!

This is what federalism is all about, a specific rule for direct taxation and the States retaining the power to meet their burden in their own chosen way! Of course, socialists and the friends of our Washington Establishment’s political plum job empire hate the rule of apportionment as it creates a very real moment of accountability [the various state Governors and Legislatures being burdened with extinguishing deficits created by Congress], and prevents Congress from bribing voters with favorable tax legislation!

Supporters of H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, and the socialists who worked very hard to adopt the 16th Amendment, both have something very much in common ___ the subjugation of the rule of apportionment by which the people of the various states agreed they would contribute into the common treasury if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous excise taxes [inland taxes which included taxes on specific articles of consumption] were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures.

But the difference between the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment and those who now promote the alleged fair tax is this.

The socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment were up front and promoted exactly what they wanted:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But the weasels behind H.R. 25, who are obviously the friends of big government, are not being up front in saying exactly what they want, which is:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes within the various states on the sale of property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Instead of saying exactly what they want, direct access to the people’s property, real and personal, in addition to laying taxes calculated from “incomes”, they hide their evil by calling it the “fairtax“! But when all is said and done, H.R. 25 is the same socialistic type taxing pig we now have but in a different dress and would extend Congress‘s taxing power to property, real and personal.!

The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our FOUNDING FATHER’S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people:

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

Regards,

JWK

H.R.25 DOES NOT END TAXES CALCULATED FROM INCOMES!

1). The alleged fair tax does not repeal all taxes which Congress may calculate from profits, gains salaries, and other “incomes”.


2) The alleged fair tax does not propose to get rid of all taxes which Congress may calculate from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.


3) None of the co-sponsors of H.R. 25, at this point in time, propose to get rid of all taxes which Congress may calculate from profits, gains salaries and other “incomes”.

The architects of H.R. 25 have left a very clever loophole in the language of H.R. 25 allowing Congress to continue calculating taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes“. This of course would also allow a continuance of the existing misery of record keeping under taxes which are now laid upon “incomes“, and such misery would be in addition to the new rules and regulations of the alleged fair tax.

H.R.25 stipulates the following:

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

But, there is no language in H.R. 25 suggesting to repeal all taxes which may be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”! Why is this pertinent and ought to cause alarm? To understand this one must study FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), a case decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment! The Court upheld an excise tax, the corporation tax law of 1909, which was laid upon the privilege of being a Corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from profits and gains realized under the corporate charter granted by government. Although such a tax looks like and quacks like an “income tax”, it is not a generic “income tax” and is not even suggested to be repealed by the language of H.R. 25!

If H.R. 25 were adopted and our socialist Congress needed additional revenue, would they really have difficulty gaining public support to use their “excise” taxing power to enact an excise tax on the “windfall profits” of those evil corporations so the 23 percent sales tax would not have to be increased to fund federal expenditures? Or, how about our socialist Congress laying a windfall profits excise tax on those evil and wealthy scoundrels in America who make millions of dollars a year in profits by bleeding the poor working people, such as was alleged about Leona Helmsley who they sent to jail for an alleged tax fraud, but who actually contributed more in federal taxes than any twenty average working people in New York? Would she be free from the grip of a socialist Congress?

If the architects of H.R. 25 were really sincere and determined about ending taxes calculated from income, then they would have said so in crystal clear language such as:

“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”

But as it turns out, not one of the co-sponsors of H.R.25 have proposed a companion bill to H.R. 25 with specific language proposing a constitutional amendment to forbid Congress from calculating any tax or burden from “profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”, when such wording is absolutely necessary to end the misery now suffered under “income taxation”. What has been proposed is the following:


109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 16

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --
`The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.

But as we have learned from the FLINT CASE, the 16th Amendment was not needed to lay an excise tax calculated from “incomes”. And so, repealing the 16 Amendment with the above stated language, is meaningless!

And what do the architects of H.R. 25 propose within the language of H.R. 25? The language of H.R. 25 merely says that the 16th Amendment “should be repealed”.

But if H.R. 25 were adopted, and 10 or 15 years down the road the 16th Amendment by some remote chance is finally repealed by the above proposed language in H. J. RES. 16, Congress still maintains the power to calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” under its excise taxing powers, and, the SCOTUS has already upheld such a tax in the FLINT CASE mentioned above!

H.R. 25, if adopted and enforced, would expand Congress’s taxing power to reach property, real and personal, with a 23 percent tax, while keeping alive Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.

H.R.25 also appears to be designed to divide the people and distract them from real tax reform such as:

“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”

The above wording would bring us back to our FOUNDING FATHER’S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people.

Regards,

JWK

FOUNDING FATHER'S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

Statement of John William Kurowski
Founder Of The
American Constitutional Research Service
Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives

June 1995

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee:

The subject of tax reform was extensively debated by the Founders of our country. I do not know if other participants in these Hearings have take the time to research the accounts of these historical debates when formulating the suggestions they will present to this Committee, but, having researched the Founders' original tax reform package, I am inclined to believe its fundamental principals are as valid today as when they were put into practice over two hundred years ago.

Our nation's first revenue raising Act was "...in a certain sense a second Declaration of Independence; and by a coincidence which could not have been more striking or more significant, it was approved by President Washington on the fourth day of July, 1789." [See, Twenty Years of Congress, James G. Blaine, 1884, Vol. 1, page 185]

James Madison, in discussing this Act before Congress identified a fundamental principal concerning the power delegated to Congress to lay and collect taxes:

"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be
such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be
oppressive to our constituents."

The Act went on to imposed taxes, not on Congress' constituents, but on specific "goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States", and not one dime was raised under the Act by internal taxation! Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founders, especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreigners to pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil!

Jefferson, in his Second Annual Message (December 15, 1802) states:

"In the department of finance it is with pleasure I inform you
that the receipts of external duties for the last twelve months have
exceeded those of any former year, and that the ratio of increase has
been also greater than usual. This has enabled us to answer all the
regular exigencies of government, to pay from the treasury in one year
upward of eight millions of dollars, principal and interest, of the
public debt, exclusive of upward of one million paid by the sale of bank
stock, and making in the whole a reduction of nearly five millions and a
half of principal; and to have now in the treasury four millions and a
half of dollars, which are in a course of application to a further
discharge of debt and current demands." [emphasis added]

Imagine...all this in consequence of "external duties"!

In Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805, he points out:

"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well
or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to
their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation
which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching
successively every article of produce and property...

"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is
paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to
domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only,
and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it
may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what
mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"
[emphasis added]

Although the national sales tax proposals appear to be somewhat fairer than existing taxation, each would do ill to our nation as they are all based upon internal taxation, which would ultimately increases the cost of goods manufactured on American soil; burden the American Citizen in its collection; and, are to be paid by the "farmer, mechanic, laborer", etc., who will continue to see the intrusion of the "tax-gatherer of the United States" if such a system is adopted!

In view of the undesirable effects of an internal national sales tax, perhaps it is wise to further study the Founder's plan and learn how imposts and duties (external taxation) were successfully used to fill the national treasury, encourage domestic manufacturing and assist in building a strong industrial base.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of
consumption imported, the first revenue raising Act also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act
shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be
imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the
property of a citizen or citizens thereof."

This patriotic and skillful use of external taxation not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, today when I visit the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I am saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the acceptance of thirty pieces of silver.

Yes, there was a day when our national treasury was gladly filled by foreigners paying for the opportunity to do business on American soil. But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those participating in the surrender of America's sovereignty.

A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation is a principal source to fill our national treasury, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign interests!

A Second Source To Fill The Treasury

Having identified imposts and duties (external taxes) as being the
Founder's intended primary source to fill our national treasury, I will now
turn to their intended internal consumption tax plan.

An across the board national sales tax would unquestionably increase the
cost of production on American soil, as previously pointed out. To avoid
this, and other unwanted effects of an across the board national sales tax,
common sense dictates we must exclude from the list of taxable items, tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, services needed to sustain business, and the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses) i.e. all those items which makes labor possible must also be excluded.

In simple language, a consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress and the appropriate amount of tax must be determined for each specific item chose, just as was done in the first revenue Act of our country!

By limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be specifically chosen and the appropriate amount of tax determined by Congress, a self regulating check and balance is imposed upon Congress. If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury! But, if Congress' policies become burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation's labor force inhibit a hearty economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed, the first sign would be in a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury!

Thus, the free market place determines the limit of taxation under the
Founder's internal consumption tax plan, and it establishes a self regulating
gauge beyond the reach of Congress' manipulation!

As Hamilton said, in regard to taxes on consumption, they:

"... may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level
with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by
each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be
regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be
extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may
always be avoided by judicious selection of objects proper for
such impositions ... It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles
of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security
against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be
exceeded without defeating the end proposed that is, an extension
of the revenue." [No. 21 of the Federalist, emphasis added.]

Balancing the Budget

Still one more question remains to be answered: what is to be done if insufficient revenue is raised from external and internal taxes on consumption?

Once again the Founder's plan shines bright above all contemporary suggestions. Careful research into our Nation's early legislative history reveals the Framers did in fact provide Congress with an emergency power to be used if deficits should arise. And the wisdom of the Framer's method, unlike the proposed balanced budget amendment (S.J. RES.1), contains a brilliant mechanism which would abruptly end Congress' current profligate spending habits!

Under the Framer's plan, whenever the monies arising from Congress' normal taxing powers (imposts duties and excises) are found insufficient to fund federal expenditures during a fiscal year, and a deficit is produced by Congress borrowing to finance expenditures, Congress must then use its direct taxing power at the beginning of next fiscal year to raise an amount sufficient to retire this deficit.

Congress is required to follow the rules of apportionment when imposing this tax, and bills each state for a share of the deficit. Each State must contribute a share of the total deficit in proportion to its allotted number of Representatives as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution. The more votes a State exercises in the House, the larger is its share toward extinguishing a deficit . . . representation with proportional obligation!

The chart below is based on a total House membership of 435:

STATE.........NO. OF REPRESENTATIVES.............SHARE OF DEFICIT

NEW YORK.............31.................................31/435's
MARYLAND..............8..................................8/435's
CALIFORNIA...........52.................................52/435's
IDAHO.......................2..................................2/435's
FLORIDA.................23.................................23/435's
etc..............................................................
FOUNDING FATHERS' FAIR SHARE FORMULA

EDITOR'S NOTE: the fair share formula may be expressed as follows:

State`s population

--------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The states are left free to raise their share of the tax in their own way, within a time period set by Congress. But if any state shall neglect to pay its share, then Congress must send forth its officers to assess and levy that state's apportioned share, together with interest thereon.

Legislative History

This method of extinguishing deficits appears in seven of the ratification documents which gave life to the United States Constitution. The first emergency direct tax was imposed in 1798, to extinguish part of the Revolutionary War debt. It was later used during the War of 1812, and also to extinguish deficits during the Civil War.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not repeal or alter Congress' power, or obligation, to impose the emergency direct tax should a deficit arise. The power of Congress to impose a direct tax still exists, and direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court [see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 103, (1916; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); and, Bromely v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929). Also see Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168 A 784/275, which was updated September 26, 1984].

Big Advantages

There is no smoke and mirrors with the 'FAIR-SHARE' method of balancing the budget. The emergency direct tax is required to be imposed whenever Congress closes a fiscal year with a deficit. The structural mechanism which would immediately bring fiscal sanity to Congress is the requirement of having Congress send a bill to the governor of each state, notifying him to remit his state's apportioned share toward extinguishing the deficit created during the year by Congress; the governors and state legislators being left with the burden of having to raise this money, and to send it off to Washington, D.C.

Picture, for a moment, the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [31/435] of the 1995 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!

In addition, because each state's share of the tax burden is determined by a fixed rule, similar to that which determines the House membership size of each state, a barrier is erected preventing the kind of mischief which Congress now practices, i.e., discriminatory tax legislation; pork-barrel favoritism; special interest lobbying, etc.

Bottom Line

The Framers of the Constitution provided a specific method to extinguish anticipated deficits through an emergency direct tax. Hamilton, in No. 36 of The Federalist Papers, reminds us:

"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 number of each State, as described in
the second section of first article [United States Constitution].
An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish a rule,
a circumstance which effectively shuts the door to partiality or
oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have
been provided against with guarded circumspection." (EMPHASIS
ADDED)

The rule of apportionment was written into our constitution to remedy a major defect associated with "democracies", which Madison points out in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers:

"... have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have
ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights
of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths."

And so, the Founding Fathers formed a Constitutional Republic to avoid
the predictable disastrous consequences of democracy.

The intended use of the emergency direct taxing power to extinguish
deficits is not only far superior to any of the proposed balanced budget
amendments being offered . . . it is already part of our Constitution. The
method in text form is as follows:


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Method


"A R T I C L E (?)"


"SECTION 1. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

"SECTION 2. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, Congress shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then notify the Executive of each State of its apportioned share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

"SECTION 3. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by the final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of such property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

************

Conclusion

There are participants at this Hearing, and many political pundits appearing on talk shows across our country, who are far more articulate than I in identifying the glaring defects and dishonest nature of income taxation, whether flat or progressive. Likewise, there is also an abundant supply of those presenting well rehearsed arguments against an across the board national sales tax, and have displayed their rhetorical skills quite admirably. But who, I ask, has made a substantial argument against the Founding Father's original tax reform package?

Perhaps our only problem in regard to tax reform is that we, as a nation, have lost touch with the original intent and wisdom of those who framed and ratified our Constitution...such negligence culminating in our current dilemma.

In closing Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time to thank you and your staff for allowing me this opportunity to present my humble opinion on a subject of such great importance.