johnwk
12-26-2009, 02:42 PM
SEE: Top SC prosecutor, others probing health care deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203690.html)
“Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.”
May violate the United States Constitution? I strongly urge Attorney General Greg Abbott to take a few hours and read Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 which reveals an important reason why the “Nebraska compromise” is blatantly un-constitutional.
Aside from the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 proposing to violating our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and violate Article V of our Constitution under which the people have not given their consent via the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof to tax for, spend on, regulate and legislate into law the allowable choices the people of each particular State may make regarding their health care needs, the legislation also proposes to violate the very reasons and intentions under which our founding fathers adopted the rule of apportionment which declares that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States”
Keep in mind the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is sated as follows:
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.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Those who take the time to study the debates during the framing of our Constitution will find the rule of apportionment was an very important compromise struck which ended an impasse during the Convention. One part of the compromise established a fixed rule determining each State’s share in financing a federal burden should Congress find it necessary to tax the people of the various states rather than raising the needed revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes. The other part of the compromise also established a fixed rule, and it determined each State’s number of “representatives”. Both rules in their application are based upon a formula involving each State’s population size, which is the very reason for which our decennial census is about to take place!
The two rules considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:
CONSTITUTION’S FAIR SHARE FORMULAS
State`s Population
__________________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s number of Representatives
population of U.S.
State`s population
---------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF FEDERAL BURDEN
Total U.S. Population
According to news reports Senator Ben Nelson complained that the proposed expansion of Medicaid to those earning below 133% of the federal poverty level would place a financially unacceptable burden upon his State. Currently, Medicaid expenses in each state are partially paid from taxes raised by the state and partially paid from the federal treasury. Under dirty Harry’s bribe, engaged in to buy Senator Nelson’s vote, the taxpayers of 49 States would pay 100% of the federal burden to finance Nebraska’s new Medicaid recipients, in addition to paying for their own new Medicaid recipients.
This is exactly what the rule of apportionment was put into the Constitution to preclude and is summarized as follows by our very own Supreme Court!
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. _____ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601
Of course, what the Supreme Court has stated regarding the rule of apportionment is harmony with the documented intentions of our founding fathers 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; Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
In addition, we also find how the rule of apportionment was strictly observed even when disbursing surplus revenue from the federal treasury to the States, see: Act of Congress, June 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment applied.
Under the Nelson bribe the People of Texas are asked to ignore the rule of apportionment and bear a federal burden which the people of Nebraska are intentionally exempted from not to mention that the people of 48 other States are also asked to ignore the rule of apportionment and bear Nebraska’s share of a federal burden created under the proposed “Nebraska compromise”. And yet, neither the Governors nor the people of 49 States who would disproportionately bear the federal burden created under dirty Harry’s deal have given their consent via Article V of our Constitution allowing the rule of apportionment to be ignored under the so called “Nebraska compromise”, which in fact is a compromise made beyond the four corners of our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted.
It should also be noted that the 16th Amendment to our Constitution in no way altered the rule of apportionment! In fact, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled to be constitutional in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). In this case the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from income without apportionment among the States and did so before the 16th amendment was even adopted. This of course indicates that the 16th Amendment, when adopted, granted no new power of taxation to Congress! Indeed, the Court later confirms that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916). The Court states in crystal clear language:
"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment [u]conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."
Bottom line is, the dirty Harry deal proposes to not only violate our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, it also proposes to ignore our Constitution’s protection afforded under Article 5 which requires consent of the people prior to the exercise of new powers by Congress. And, these violations are in addition to the Dirty Harry deal proposing to ignore our Constitution’s rule of apportionment in order to have the people of Texas finance a federal burden which the people of Nebraska would be intentionally exempted from.
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
“Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.”
May violate the United States Constitution? I strongly urge Attorney General Greg Abbott to take a few hours and read Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 which reveals an important reason why the “Nebraska compromise” is blatantly un-constitutional.
Aside from the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 proposing to violating our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and violate Article V of our Constitution under which the people have not given their consent via the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof to tax for, spend on, regulate and legislate into law the allowable choices the people of each particular State may make regarding their health care needs, the legislation also proposes to violate the very reasons and intentions under which our founding fathers adopted the rule of apportionment which declares that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States”
Keep in mind the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is sated as follows:
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.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Those who take the time to study the debates during the framing of our Constitution will find the rule of apportionment was an very important compromise struck which ended an impasse during the Convention. One part of the compromise established a fixed rule determining each State’s share in financing a federal burden should Congress find it necessary to tax the people of the various states rather than raising the needed revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes. The other part of the compromise also established a fixed rule, and it determined each State’s number of “representatives”. Both rules in their application are based upon a formula involving each State’s population size, which is the very reason for which our decennial census is about to take place!
The two rules considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows:
CONSTITUTION’S FAIR SHARE FORMULAS
State`s Population
__________________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s number of Representatives
population of U.S.
State`s population
---------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF FEDERAL BURDEN
Total U.S. Population
According to news reports Senator Ben Nelson complained that the proposed expansion of Medicaid to those earning below 133% of the federal poverty level would place a financially unacceptable burden upon his State. Currently, Medicaid expenses in each state are partially paid from taxes raised by the state and partially paid from the federal treasury. Under dirty Harry’s bribe, engaged in to buy Senator Nelson’s vote, the taxpayers of 49 States would pay 100% of the federal burden to finance Nebraska’s new Medicaid recipients, in addition to paying for their own new Medicaid recipients.
This is exactly what the rule of apportionment was put into the Constitution to preclude and is summarized as follows by our very own Supreme Court!
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. _____ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601
Of course, what the Supreme Court has stated regarding the rule of apportionment is harmony with the documented intentions of our founding fathers 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; Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
In addition, we also find how the rule of apportionment was strictly observed even when disbursing surplus revenue from the federal treasury to the States, see: Act of Congress, June 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment applied.
Under the Nelson bribe the People of Texas are asked to ignore the rule of apportionment and bear a federal burden which the people of Nebraska are intentionally exempted from not to mention that the people of 48 other States are also asked to ignore the rule of apportionment and bear Nebraska’s share of a federal burden created under the proposed “Nebraska compromise”. And yet, neither the Governors nor the people of 49 States who would disproportionately bear the federal burden created under dirty Harry’s deal have given their consent via Article V of our Constitution allowing the rule of apportionment to be ignored under the so called “Nebraska compromise”, which in fact is a compromise made beyond the four corners of our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted.
It should also be noted that the 16th Amendment to our Constitution in no way altered the rule of apportionment! In fact, the 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled to be constitutional in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). In this case the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from income without apportionment among the States and did so before the 16th amendment was even adopted. This of course indicates that the 16th Amendment, when adopted, granted no new power of taxation to Congress! Indeed, the Court later confirms that the 16 Amendment granted no new power of taxation in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916). The Court states in crystal clear language:
"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment [u]conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."
Bottom line is, the dirty Harry deal proposes to not only violate our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, it also proposes to ignore our Constitution’s protection afforded under Article 5 which requires consent of the people prior to the exercise of new powers by Congress. And, these violations are in addition to the Dirty Harry deal proposing to ignore our Constitution’s rule of apportionment in order to have the people of Texas finance a federal burden which the people of Nebraska would be intentionally exempted from.
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story