Senator Harry Reid’s bribery violates rule of apportionment! (health care reform)
See: GOP attorneys general line up to challenge health care bill
December 31, 2009
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter
It would be nice if these Attorney Generals would first read Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers and Elliot’s Debates before pointing to our Constitution’s provisions and claiming a provision would be violated if the Nelson deal were enforced.
The requirement that all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States is a weak argument against the Nelson deal. The clause in question was intended to apply to taxes imposed upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, insuring a uniformity of these taxes among the States.
The Founder’s argument against the Nelson deal was specifically addressed and debated at length during the Convention of 1787. Our founding fathers intentionally adopted a specific rule to be followed if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures and Congress decided to fund its expenditures using a general tax laid among the states. Under these circumstances each state agreed, by our Constitution, to share in the burden proportionately equal to its number of “representatives”! What a remarkable idea --- representation with proportional obligation! But the Reid/Nelson deal is intentionally designed to relieve one State from its burden, its obligation, which other States will be taxed to fund. As a matter of fact, Senator Reid has struck a number of criminally inspired bribery deals with a number of Senators acquiescing in these deals, to gain their votes to move a piece of legislation forward, and which intentionally relieve particular States from sharing in the burden of taxation as required under the rule of apportionment!
For an example of the rule of apportionment being applied in a general tax among the states see:Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each State’s share of the federal burden.
Also see: Section 7 of the tax of 1813 which provided a provision for the State Governments to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
In addition check out This Act of Congress in June of 1836 when all surplus federal revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was distributed among the States, and the rule of apportionment was observed and applied.
The irrefutable fact is, the very purpose for the rule of apportionment was to create a fixed rule if Congress found imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes insufficient to meet federal expenditures and Congress decided to lay a general tax among the States to finance a federal burden, in which case the rule of apportionment would be strictly applied. These intentions were repeatedly stated during the framing and ratification debates, e.g.:
Mr. George Nicholas: The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil.3 Elliot’s, 243 Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. 3 Elliot’s, 244
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” 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
And see Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And what should loyal Americans, Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers expect from progressive socialists who always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution? Are we to really expect these domestic enemies to also follow the rule requiring one vote one dollar, which is also part of the rule of apportionment and which gave them their one man one vote in Congress?
Our fifth column sympathizing media and government operated public schools have been very effective in obscuring the intentions for which our founding fathers adopted Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3. As a matter of fact, they have even attempted to totally discredit it and our founding fathers by falsely claiming it made Blacks 3/5th of a person. But the bottom line is, the Nelson deal, if carried out as proposed under Harry’s criminally offered bribe, would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted! Let all loyal Americans, especially Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers, unlike our domestic enemies, get our constitutional arguments correct and in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.
Regards,
JWK
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
December 31, 2009
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter
“Led by S.C. attorney general Henry McMaster, at least 13 Republican attorneys general are studying a constitutional challenge to the Senate version of the health care bill, saying it violates tax uniformity and commerce guarantees by treating one state and its citizens differently than the 49 others.”
It would be nice if these Attorney Generals would first read Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers and Elliot’s Debates before pointing to our Constitution’s provisions and claiming a provision would be violated if the Nelson deal were enforced.
The requirement that all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States is a weak argument against the Nelson deal. The clause in question was intended to apply to taxes imposed upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, insuring a uniformity of these taxes among the States.
The Founder’s argument against the Nelson deal was specifically addressed and debated at length during the Convention of 1787. Our founding fathers intentionally adopted a specific rule to be followed if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures and Congress decided to fund its expenditures using a general tax laid among the states. Under these circumstances each state agreed, by our Constitution, to share in the burden proportionately equal to its number of “representatives”! What a remarkable idea --- representation with proportional obligation! But the Reid/Nelson deal is intentionally designed to relieve one State from its burden, its obligation, which other States will be taxed to fund. As a matter of fact, Senator Reid has struck a number of criminally inspired bribery deals with a number of Senators acquiescing in these deals, to gain their votes to move a piece of legislation forward, and which intentionally relieve particular States from sharing in the burden of taxation as required under the rule of apportionment!
For an example of the rule of apportionment being applied in a general tax among the states see:Act laying a direct tax for $3 million August 2, 1813, and each State’s share of the federal burden.
Also see: Section 7 of the tax of 1813 which provided a provision for the State Governments to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.
In addition check out This Act of Congress in June of 1836 when all surplus federal revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was distributed among the States, and the rule of apportionment was observed and applied.
The irrefutable fact is, the very purpose for the rule of apportionment was to create a fixed rule if Congress found imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes insufficient to meet federal expenditures and Congress decided to lay a general tax among the States to finance a federal burden, in which case the rule of apportionment would be strictly applied. These intentions were repeatedly stated during the framing and ratification debates, e.g.:
Mr. George Nicholas: The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil.3 Elliot’s, 243 Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. 3 Elliot’s, 244
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” 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
And see Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And what should loyal Americans, Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers expect from progressive socialists who always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution? Are we to really expect these domestic enemies to also follow the rule requiring one vote one dollar, which is also part of the rule of apportionment and which gave them their one man one vote in Congress?
Our fifth column sympathizing media and government operated public schools have been very effective in obscuring the intentions for which our founding fathers adopted Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3. As a matter of fact, they have even attempted to totally discredit it and our founding fathers by falsely claiming it made Blacks 3/5th of a person. But the bottom line is, the Nelson deal, if carried out as proposed under Harry’s criminally offered bribe, would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted! Let all loyal Americans, especially Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers, unlike our domestic enemies, get our constitutional arguments correct and in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.
Regards,
JWK
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)
posted by johnwk at 9:25 AM
