Wednesday, May 23, 2007

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


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 Pop.
__________  X  Total number of Reps.  in  House 

U.S. Pop.

State`s Pop.

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

U.S. Pop.

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