| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle (new link) |
| |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
February
16, 2009 I believe the FairTaxers are inadvertently focusing on the wrong problem when it comes to federal taxation. In their zeal to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and devise a "more efficient" tax system, they have lost sight of the fact that the Constitution, as written by the Founders, strictly limits the federal government's power to tax and spend. The power to tax and spend is not the problem; it is the usurpation of power concerning the power to tax and spend that is the problem. The FairTax, if implemented, will only make this problem worse because, if the plan is successful and generates additional tax revenue, Congress will simply devise new ways to unconstitutionally spend the money and drive the nation further into debt. From a strict Constitutional standpoint, what the FairTaxers are actually saying is: we have devised a more efficient system for the federal government to extract money from the American people to fund programs not authorized by the Constitution. Sorry but I would rather spend my time and resources attempting to right the wrong rather than advancing it. The bottom line is this: there is no constitutional duty placed on the American people to pay federal income taxes or a 23 % national sales tax to fund programs not authorized by the Constitution. Period end of story! That being said, the purpose of this article is four fold. First, show that the federal government is violating the core principle of the Constitution. Second, prove that even if the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment had granted Congress a so-called "new" taxing power, as the FairTaxers believe, the Amendment could not be the constitutional basis for any additional federal spending. Third, expose Congress' violation of the taxing clause of the Constitution (this will be discussed briefly and covered at length in another article). Fourth, show that the constitutional solution to the tax problem is NO tax, not a so-called FairTax. The massive usurpation of power being perpetrated by the federal government has two components. The first embraces the system of limited government established by the Constitution and the separation of power between the States and their federal government. The second is the provision of the Constitution that specifically grants the federal government the power to tax. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government, every power not granted is denied. On numerous occasions, I have watched and listened to a member of Congress attempt to reverse this principle. They hold-up a pocket copy of the Constitution and declare Congress' power is unlimited except in those instances where the Constitution has placed a restraint on their power. Nice try but that is not the system of government established by the Constitution. James Madison, who is recognized as the father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Essay No. 14 that adoption of the proposed constitution would not grant the federal government general legislative authority throughout the United States: "[I]t is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." [See the Tenth Amendment for an affirmation of this principle.] Even Alexander Hamilton, who had advocated a strong central form of government in the Federal Convention of 1787, acknowledged that the Constitution would establish a federal government of limited enumerated powers. In Federalist Essay No. 83 he wrote: "The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress.shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." If the Constitution restricted the powers of the federal government to "limited to certain enumerated objects," then it follows that the power to tax and spend is also "limited to certain enumerated objects." In Federalist Essay No. 45, Madison described the separation of power between the States and their federal government. He also identified the object of the limited or special powers delegated to the federal government: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security." [Note: Madison's stated the power of taxation would be linked, for the most part, to "foreign commerce" i.e., taxes on goods made in other countries and being imported into the United States.] Thomas Jefferson addressed the separation of power between the States and their federal government throughout his political career. In 1816 he wrote: "The best key for the solution of questions of power between our governments is the fact that 'every foreign and federal power is given to the federal government, and to the states every power purely domestic.' * * The federal is, in truth, our foreign government." If the federal government was not granted any general power over domestic affairs because that power was reserved to the States, and the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers, then there can only be one conclusion concerning federal taxation: the federal government is unconstitutionally taxing the American people to fund programs not within the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing a delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the federal government. This means Congress cannot lawfully use its taxing power to circumvent the lack of a constitutional grant of power and obliterate the "limited to certain enumerated objects" doctrine. But that is exactly what Congress has been doing for many years. For example. Members of Congress constantly use the "children" and sob stories from the teacher's unions to expand federal spending for education. Every person I have spoken to concerning this topic believes federal authority over education is one of the constitutional powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. In 1937, on the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787, the federal government published a book by Sol Bloom entitled:" The Story of the Constitution." The question concerning the federal government's constitutional authority over education was asked and answered on page 171: Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education? A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States." Since the Constitution has not been amended to grant the federal government any power over education, the answer to the above question still stands. The federal government, by its own admission, possesses absolutely no constitutional authority over education but that has not stopped Congress from unconstitutionally taxing the American people to fund education within the 50 United States. [Note: When Congress enacts laws concerning education, they are simply terms and conditions for accepting the funding because the federal government has no legislative authority over education. In other words, Congress is using its taxing power to acquire a level of legislative power denied to the federal government by the Constitution.] As shown above, we have a usurpation of power problem: not a Sixteenth Amendment problem. At the conclusion of The FairTax and The Sixteenth Amendment, I stated I would "prove that even if the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment had granted Congress a new taxing power, as the FairTaxers believe, the Amendment could not be the constitutional basis for any additional federal spending." Contrary to assertions by the FairTaxers, Congress' power to impose ALL taxes, irrespective of what you call them, is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. This Clause grant Congress 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." The above clause is unique because it not only grants Congress a power, the power to tax, but it also places several qualifications on that power. It should be noted that constitutionally, Congress cannot invoke its taxing power unless the proposed expenditure first passes the "limited to certain enumerated objects" doctrine. Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, Congress can only impose taxes, including income taxes, which fall under the umbrella of the word "taxes," for 3 purposes. First, to "pay the debts...of the United States." Second, to "provide for the common Defense...of the United States." Third, to "provide for the general welfare of the United States." Every tax Congress imposes MUST fall under one of these categories. It CANNOT impose taxes for any other purpose. Thus, the taxing clause itself places another restraint on Congress' power to tax. An income tax is simply the name of a type tax that can be imposed to "pay the debts...of the United States" - "provide for the common Defense...of the United States" - and "provide.for the general welfare of the United States." If 100 different income tax amendments were added to the Constitution they would be meaningless as long as these qualifications on the power to tax remained in place. There is a simple way to prove this assertion is correct. Go back to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and insert the words "Sixteenth Amendment income taxes" after the word "taxes." Now read the Clause again and ask yourself a question. Would the addition of "Sixteenth Amendment income taxes" expand the limited purposes of taxation or would they remain exactly the same? I entitled this article "FairTax or No Tax" because if the Constitution were being followed, there would be no constitutional need for the American people to pay any type of federal income tax. If the reader will look on page 91 of the 2008 1040 Income Tax Booklet, you will find some pie graphs under the title: "Major Categories of Federal Income and Outlays for Fiscal Year 2008." Here is a breakdown of these charts: INCOME * (All 4 of these taxes fall in the class of indirect excise taxes because they are taxes measured by income.) OUTLAYS On the Income side, you will note that 75% of the taxes (Personal income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment and other retirement taxes) are taken from the paychecks and businesses of the American people. On the Outlays side, only 25% of the spending (National defense, veterans, foreign affairs, law enforcement and general government) falls INSIDE of the "limited to certain enumerated objects" doctrine and those numbers are suspect because of unconstitutional foreign aid expenditures and unconstitutionally expanded law enforcement and general government expenses. If we had a Congress that would comply with the "limited to certain enumerated objects" doctrine, the constitutional separation of powers between the States and their federal government doctrine, and the clause that grants the federal government the power to tax, there would be no need for the American people to pay any form of income taxes to the federal government. Thus, the constitutional solution to the problem is NO tax, not a so-called FairTax. End of article note: If the "limited to certain enumerated objects" doctrine is one of the core principles of the Constitution and it applies to ALL of the powers granted to the federal government, including taxation, and the taxing clause also restricts Congress' power, how has that body circumvented these principles to tax the American people for programs not within the constitutional sphere of powers delegated to the federal government? The answer is: the federal government simply ignored the constitutional limitations and granted itself the authority to determine the extent of its taxing power through its political appointees in the federal judiciary. To back-up this usurpation of power, the federal government uses force and the threat of force to compel obedience to its unconstitutional dictates. Thus, as stated previously, we have a usurpation of power problem: not a Sixteenth Amendment problem. This usurpation of power flows from the provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that grants Congress the power: "To lay and collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States." This provision is known as "The General Welfare Clause." It is this provision, not the Sixteenth Amendment that is primarily responsible for the income and employment taxes being extracted from the American people. For an overview of the history and controversy surrounding this Clause, see: "The Federal Government is using the General Welfare Clause to Steal your Money." In the
next and final article: "The General Welfare Clause is the Enemy
not the Sixteenth Amendment," I am going to expand the debate on
the General Welfare Clause and prove that the federal government has totally
perverted the Founders intent concerning this Clause. This will include
an alternative to the FairTax proposal to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Your
comments and feedback are welcome!
Some other, related reading: The Flawed Second Amendment Debate The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court
Now Available! See Editor's review here. "The Bill
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights" $10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax. P.S.C.S. Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [at] yahoo.com
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
Please see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer. Archives The 2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3l A Question For The Supreme Court The Second Amendment Question before the Supreme Court is Constitutionally Flawed and Dangerous It's Time To Break Out The Torches And Pitchforks! Constitution to Hillary, Obama and McCain Congress Makes the Laws not the President Do the American People really want Liberty and Constitutional Government? The Real ID Act proves the Federal Government is Not the All Powerful Oz There is no Legal Requirement for an American Citizen to have a Social Security Number The American People have become Servants to Government Employees A Republic, if you can Keep It Is Obama Ineligible to be President? The Game Changing Play John McCain and the Republicans Need to Win the Election Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Qualifications to be President Dismissed just as Predicted A Tenth Amendment Commission is not the Answer There Is a "New" Declaration of Independence, Mr. President The FairTax and The Sixteenth Amendment The Federal Government is using the General Welfare Clause to Steal your Money Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
|
|||||||||
 |
|
