Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/14/2012 12:38:10 PM PDT by imardmd1
In 1935, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins was fretting about finding a constitutional basis for the Social Security Act.
Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone advised her, "The taxing power, my dear, the taxing power. You can do anything under the taxing power."
Last week, in his ObamaCare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts gave Congress the same advice—just enact regulatory legislation and tack on a financial penalty, as in failure to comply with the individual insurance mandate. So how did the power to tax under the Constitution become unbounded?
(Read the rest at the WSJ page)
============
Dr. Moreno is the William and Berniece Grewcock Professor of Constitutional History at Hillsdale College.
(poster's above emphasis, not the author's)
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Now that Congress can tax us for anything, we should welcome back debtor prisons. :)
President Lincoln signed the first federal income tax into law on 5 August 1861.
The Revenue Act of 1861 imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $800.
On 1 July 1862 Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law which imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on annual incomes over $10,000.
On 30 June 1864 Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1864 which reformed the tax structure with 3 rates.
•5% tax on annual incomes from %600 to $5,000
•7.5% tax on annual incomes from %5,000 to $10,000
•10% tax on incomes above and including $10,000
The income tax was eliminated in 1872.
True, the legislative authority to tax us for buying something, whether to discourage its purchase, to encourage the purchase of other things or for some other purpose, is within the authority of the Congress to imposes taxes. The Congress can also tax us for doing things, such as employing minors, to discourage the practice. The New Deal pretty much saw to that. It's up to our CongressCritters, and to the President through his veto power, to ensure that such taxes are reasonable and imposed for proper purposes. It takes work, but we can change the composition of the Congress and elect a different President; we had better do so.
Until the Roberts Court stated -- expressly and apparently without wincing -- that since the Federal Government can tax the non-purchase of gasoline, which it has never done and for which he provided no support, it can also tax us for not doing other things it had not, as far as I am aware, ever done. Nor did the Congress in enacting ObamaCare purport to do it; new taxes were seen as toxic. I wrote about that here.
If Mr. Moreno's article noted the inactivity vs. activity distinction, perhaps I missed it.
Lincoln was a dirty commie.
I am more & more convinced that congress is soo corrupted by its power to tax that should we hope to pertinently remove that power we will have to remove all exceptions, and demand true uniformity.
Although realistically congresses insatiable need for revenue can only be fed security by a levy upon a 3rd party who must determine how to raise that money. In our case our State governments are the most logical choice for domestic taxation, given their superior sensitivities to the domestic economy.
I am more & more convinced that congress is soo corrupted by its power to tax that should we hope to pertinently remove that power we will have to remove all exceptions, and demand true uniformity.
Although realistically congresses insatiable need for revenue can only be fed security by a levy upon a 3rd party who must determine how to raise that money. In our case our State governments are the most logical choice for domestic taxation, given their superior sensitivities to the domestic economy.
But the most honest system of all is to create individual tax liability accounts for every citizenry of every state, and call that account debt. Then create a uniform system by which that debt is repaid.
“Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the “general welfare” beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be “general” and not transfer payments from one group to another. “
Ahaha It is always transfer payments from one “group” to anther. The federal court as always is willfully blind to any limits to federal power whether they be in the Constitution, or the courts own rules. *rolls eyes*
If Washington was going to tax & spend money on the “general welfare” it wold require giving everyone back exactly what was taken from them.
No point right? That is why the common defense & general welfare clause are meaningless without the forgoing enumerated powers!
* You cannot tax & spend to establish a post office except for the General welfare & common defense.
* You cannot tax & spend money to raise an army except for the COMMON defense!
* You cannot regulate trade among the states and with foreign states except for the GENERAL welfare & common defense!
LOL, now how exactly does THAT work, perfesser?
After all, people are going to think you mean that the 16th Amendment annuled Pollock. But it didn't, and you know it.
For anyone interested, you can't have contradictory laws. If you do, one MUST be struck down. If you appear to, and none are struck down, then they address different things.
What they perfesser aint' tellin, is that Pollock addressed natural persons in their human being capacities, whereas the 16th Amendment addresses corporations. So since they have different subjects for their equally named "income tax," they can both stand, even though they say opposite things.
Roberts drew SHARP attention to this distinction in his ruling. If Americans don't follow it up and learn what it means, it's not his fault.
I can not understand why none of the judges during oral arguments, or in the dissent on NFIB vs. Sebelius explored the granting of approx. 1400 waivers to Obamacare.
Aren’t these waivers a gross violation of either “Due Process” and/or “Equal Protection?”
Who gets waivers from this (now presumed) tax? Under what circumstances? Is it open to all? Do individuals seeking a waiver have equal standing with corporations like McDonalds? Answer these questions, and you can see there is no semblance of equal application of the law.
“
No, it really isn’t. How is having different tax rates on tobacco and liquor vs food and furniture considered uniform throughout the states? Taxing something out of the market isn’t regulating the market. It’s killing the market. Government shouldn’t be giving out subsidies to any industry, or taxing one more than the other. Whether or not it’s ‘for the children’.
In addition, what about this part? No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”
Very good Point Svartalfiar
Judge Thomas once said something very intresting. he said that Federal judges tend not to care so much about the facts or details of any given case as their desired outcomes.
Exploiting more information that goes against your desired outcome is pointless. Chief Injustice John Roberts had more than enough reason to know Obamacare was unconstitutional. He CHOSE to ignore that fact along with all others (like the other 4 leftist injustices) and uphold the act of their appointing employer (The Federal executive & legislative branch) for frankly self-serving reasons.
Thanks for your informative comment!
In addition, what about this part? No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Federally imposed direct taxes have to be uniform; income taxes don't; that's a principal reason the Constitution was amended to authorize income taxes. Mr. Justice Roberts ruled that the "tax" on non-purchase of insurance is an income tax, not a "direct" tax. I don't agree, but so what? He was in the Supreme Court majority; I am not even on the Court. I'm just an old retired attorney living down in the Republic of Panama. The most I can do is write articles attempting to demonstrate the legal absurdity of that sort of stuff, such as the one linked in my earlier comment. Legal stuff is my field of least incompetence; I generally but not always leave it to others to complain about policy matters, except when I write about politics and vote.
Killing the market? Taxing something out of the market isn't regulating the market. It's killing the market. Government shouldn't be giving out subsidies to any industry, or taxing one more than the other. Whether or not it's 'for the children'. I don't care whether its for me, my children, my dogs, Allah or for the Moon God; I don't like it either. Unfortunately, that's what has happened, in spades. If you are interested, here's another on the same subject. Now it's high time to fire some CongressCritters and the President, repeal ObamaCare and try to keep such nonsense from recurring.
What the Court did that's new, and the most offensive to me, in saying that the Feds can tax the non-purchase of something, or the failure to do something. Taxing the non-purchase of insurance, regardless of in which State the insurance is issued, is not taxing insurance exported from any state. It's taxing the failure to buy insurance.
> “This link was received in an email from Hillsdale College. which is always on ***top*** of Constitutional issues.”
I’m not sure Mr. Moreno is on ‘top’ of any Constitutional issues. For example, from his article:
+++The first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to Congress is the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and ***provide for the common defense and general welfare*** of the United States.”+++
Mr. Moreno incorrectly cites the Constitution which is a document where every word was chosen and has meaning.
The Constitution states that it PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. It does not mean that it PROVIDE for the general welfare. PROVIDE and PROMOTE have completely different meanings.
I don't think that's right. IINM, he cited the Taxing Clause of I.8.1 in upholding the mandate, rather than the 16th Amendment.
After a little checking, it is found that Hillsdale College, a premiere institute on matters of the politics of the United States Constitution, is still on top.
I’m not sure Mr. Moreno is on ‘top’ of any Constitutional issues.
It's good that you're not quite sure, because he really is on top of this subject, and expresses himself well. It is his livelihood.
For example, from his article:
+++The first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to Congress is the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and ***provide for the common defense and general welfare*** of the United States.”+++
I bekieve he was exactly correct in the wording and in the intention of this passage.
Mr. Moreno incorrectly cites the Constitution which is a document where every word was chosen and has meaning.
Mr. Moreno neither cites the Constitution incorrectly (as you wish to convey); nor does he make a statement that the Constitution is a document where every word was chosen and has meaning (which your syntax implies despite your intent).
The Constitution states that it PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. It does not mean that it PROVIDE for the general welfare. PROVIDE and PROMOTE have completely different meanings.
For your reference, here is a link to the Official Transcript of the Constitution.
What you have here referred to is the Preamble to the Constitution. That Preamble is as follows:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In correcting your thesis, note that the Preamble is a broad, general statement of the purpose of the document. Hence, regarding the general Welfare, the broadest trem "promote" is used as to the duty of Government to the people. The specific details, such as enumerated powers, the section to which Mr. Moreno refers, are listed in the main body of the document. Of that, "provisioning" is a specific function of "promoting" the general welfare.
In the main body, in page two as engrossed, Article I, we find this:
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power (space) To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
(et cetera)
Now, please note that here "provide" is applied to "the general Welfare," and your suggestion is wrong and presumptuous. If you had perused the document, you would have corrected yourself.
This discussion is made public so that others can go away with the impression that while the purpose of the Constitution is to promote the general Welfare, one purpose of the Congress is using it's power to provide (particularly to procure funds through taxation) for the general Welfare. (I suppose it is the executive branch to collect and distribute them.)
Probably Mr. Moreno would appreciate your public apology for calling his reputation into question?
With sincere respect --
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.