johnwk
01-18-2010, 10:57 PM
As usual, our progressive sympathizing media has once again geared up to convince everyone on American soil, and especially those living in “urban centers and high-poverty areas“, why it is important to be counted in the 2010 census ___ “we want a bigger piece of the pie,” Bazurto said, “and we can’t get it if they don’t count us right.” SEE: 2010 census undercount could cost state federal funding (http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_116231013.html)
CNHI News Service
April 26, 2009 11:10 pm
— WASHINGTON — “Maryland could get shortchanged on its share of $3 trillion in federal funding over the next decade if officials can’t prevent undercounting of residents in the 2010 census.
The Census Bureau designated parts of Prince George’s, Montgomery and Frederick counties, as well as Baltimore City, as extremely “hard-to-count” areas in the upcoming decennial census. Undercounting Marylanders could have long-term consequences for the state, since census results affect the distribution of federal funds for things like health care, education programs and public transit.”
As you can see, the above article asserts the idea of the census is to get “a bigger piece of the pie”! But is that really the case? Did our founding fathers when framing the Constitution, and the people of the various States when ratifying the Constitution, intend to have a census every ten years to determine the size of “the pie” the people get? Hopefully Tea Party participants, unlike the leadership of our existing political parties and our un-American news media, will embrace the truth and the historical facts concerning the reasons for which our founding fathers mandated a census every ten years.
The part of our Constitution establishing a census is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and begins with the following words: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States …” The apportionment is based upon the size of each state’s population and the provision goes on to mandate a census to be conducted every ten years to accommodate the varying of population sizes among the states during the passage of time and is to be used for the apportionment of direct taxes and representatives.
Now, let us review a little history to determine the intentions for which this provision was put into our Constitution and which our progressive media ignores every ten years when the census is conducted.
Under the Articles of Confederation which were in force during the framing and ratification of our existing Constitution, the national treasury was intended to be filled by a general tax among the states. Each state agreed to contributed an apportioned share of the common treasury’s revenue calculated from the assessed value of property, real and personal, within the respective states.
During the framing of our existing Constitution the filling of the common treasury in this manner became a bone of contention. Delegates from States with superior wealth objected to having to carry an unequal share of the tax burden and argued wealth was not a proper object for the federal government to use in calculating each State’s share of a general tax which fell directly upon the people in their state and their property. Deciding upon rules which fixed each States representation and each state‘s share of a federal tax burden created an impasse during the Convention, e.g., on July 2nd (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_702.asp)of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”
Eventually a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which fell directly upon the people and their property.
The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to a general tax among the States and to each state’s number of allotted representatives in Congress.
State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Representatives
population of U.S.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population
The founder’s intentions become very clear when one takes the time to read the historical record, especially when it comes to a general tax among the States, e.g.
Mr. George Nicholas says during the ratification debates: 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
The intended protection was to establish a fixed rule if imposts duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were insufficient to meet federal expenditures and a general tax was to be laid among the states to meet Congress’ expenditures which fell directly upon the people and their property. Those states carrying the lion’s share of this particular tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution, a rule which in fact determines the “piece of the pie” each state is to contribute into the federal treasury.
Now, there is a grain of truth about the census determining a State’s piece of the pie. But that piece of the pie came when their was a surplus in the federal treasury and said surplus was returned to the States. For an example of the rule of apportionment being applied in this manner see the Act of Congress in June of 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 distributed among the states, and a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
For an example of the rule of apportionment being used to determine the people’s responsibility for each state in creating “the pie” see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and check out each state’s share of contributing to the “pie”.
Bottom line is, next time you hear a sniveling progressive and lover of big government babbling about the rich must pay their “fair share” with regard to federal taxation which reaches the people’s pockets and their property, remind them that the fair share formula is written into our Constitution and requires . . . representation with proportional obligation, which is quite different from the thinking of ACORN and Martha Bazurto, director of the Latino Federation of Greater Washington.
JWK
“As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”___BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
CNHI News Service
April 26, 2009 11:10 pm
— WASHINGTON — “Maryland could get shortchanged on its share of $3 trillion in federal funding over the next decade if officials can’t prevent undercounting of residents in the 2010 census.
The Census Bureau designated parts of Prince George’s, Montgomery and Frederick counties, as well as Baltimore City, as extremely “hard-to-count” areas in the upcoming decennial census. Undercounting Marylanders could have long-term consequences for the state, since census results affect the distribution of federal funds for things like health care, education programs and public transit.”
As you can see, the above article asserts the idea of the census is to get “a bigger piece of the pie”! But is that really the case? Did our founding fathers when framing the Constitution, and the people of the various States when ratifying the Constitution, intend to have a census every ten years to determine the size of “the pie” the people get? Hopefully Tea Party participants, unlike the leadership of our existing political parties and our un-American news media, will embrace the truth and the historical facts concerning the reasons for which our founding fathers mandated a census every ten years.
The part of our Constitution establishing a census is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and begins with the following words: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States …” The apportionment is based upon the size of each state’s population and the provision goes on to mandate a census to be conducted every ten years to accommodate the varying of population sizes among the states during the passage of time and is to be used for the apportionment of direct taxes and representatives.
Now, let us review a little history to determine the intentions for which this provision was put into our Constitution and which our progressive media ignores every ten years when the census is conducted.
Under the Articles of Confederation which were in force during the framing and ratification of our existing Constitution, the national treasury was intended to be filled by a general tax among the states. Each state agreed to contributed an apportioned share of the common treasury’s revenue calculated from the assessed value of property, real and personal, within the respective states.
During the framing of our existing Constitution the filling of the common treasury in this manner became a bone of contention. Delegates from States with superior wealth objected to having to carry an unequal share of the tax burden and argued wealth was not a proper object for the federal government to use in calculating each State’s share of a general tax which fell directly upon the people in their state and their property. Deciding upon rules which fixed each States representation and each state‘s share of a federal tax burden created an impasse during the Convention, e.g., on July 2nd (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_702.asp)of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”
Eventually a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3]“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which fell directly upon the people and their property.
The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to a general tax among the States and to each state’s number of allotted representatives in Congress.
State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Representatives
population of U.S.
State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF GENERAL TAX
Total U.S. Population
The founder’s intentions become very clear when one takes the time to read the historical record, especially when it comes to a general tax among the States, e.g.
Mr. George Nicholas says during the ratification debates: 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
The intended protection was to establish a fixed rule if imposts duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were insufficient to meet federal expenditures and a general tax was to be laid among the states to meet Congress’ expenditures which fell directly upon the people and their property. Those states carrying the lion’s share of this particular tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution, a rule which in fact determines the “piece of the pie” each state is to contribute into the federal treasury.
Now, there is a grain of truth about the census determining a State’s piece of the pie. But that piece of the pie came when their was a surplus in the federal treasury and said surplus was returned to the States. For an example of the rule of apportionment being applied in this manner see the Act of Congress in June of 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 distributed among the states, and a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
For an example of the rule of apportionment being used to determine the people’s responsibility for each state in creating “the pie” see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) August 2, 1813, and check out each state’s share of contributing to the “pie”.
Bottom line is, next time you hear a sniveling progressive and lover of big government babbling about the rich must pay their “fair share” with regard to federal taxation which reaches the people’s pockets and their property, remind them that the fair share formula is written into our Constitution and requires . . . representation with proportional obligation, which is quite different from the thinking of ACORN and Martha Bazurto, director of the Latino Federation of Greater Washington.
JWK
“As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”___BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)