PDA

View Full Version : Mike Huckabee Founding fathers confirm Huckabee`s ``fairtax`` (H.R. 25) is unconstitutional!




johnwk
03-24-2011, 06:48 AM
.

SEE: Huckabee offers to debate Democrat candidates on the “Fair Tax“ (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,602003,00.html)

“Here’s my offer. I offer to debate any of the Democrat candidates who dare on the Fair Tax. Before one of them accepts, I hope they will at least take the time to know what the heck they’re talking about. I’ll welcome the debate but I would not want to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”


It seems to be fashionable these days for Republicans who run for political office, such as Mike Huckabee, to latch onto ideas which although are popular in some political circles and promoted as advancing the best interests of the American people, are found to be anything but in the people’s best interests, and would not only violate our written Constitution, but likewise ignore our founding fathers intentions. This is certainly the case with Huckabee`s promotion of the “fairtax” which, if adopted and enforced would violate the most fundamental rule of constitutional law!

That rule is stated 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

And, let us not forget what the noteworthy Chancellor Kent eloquently states:

“The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the constitution, is absolutely null and void.”__Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

So, what are the founder's documented intentions regarding any general tax laid among the states?

During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of how each State would be represented in Congress became a matter of heated debate and deciding upon rules which fixed each State’s representation created an impasse during the Convention. 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” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan for how the States would be represented in Congress. Then, on THURSDAY July 5th 1787, IN CONVENTION (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_705.asp), Madision’s Notes records the following:

Mr. GERRY delivered in from the Committee appointed on Monday last the following Report.

"The Committee to whom was referred the 8th. Resol. of the Report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the 7th. as has not been decided on, submit the following Report: That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote."

This proposal sparked some of the most important debates of the Convention regarding representation and the manner in which the federal treasury would be filled. Those who now complain of our federal government’s excesses and unjust taxation, ought to read these debates which eventually led to the great compromise of the Convention under which taxation and representation were thoughtfully tied by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by the various State population sizes!


On July 12 of the Convention, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp) and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

This compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention with these words was the creation of two rules: one to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress, the other rule determined each State's share of a tax 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 was to be exacted from the people and their property.

The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:


State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.



State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population


Now, let us look at our founders expressed intentions, stated during the ratification debates, confirming that any general tax laid among the states must be apportioned:


“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” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


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 Mr. PENDLETON says:

The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion 3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)


H.R.25 proposes a general tax to be laid among the states that would deny to the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury under the tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, and as such, is contrary to the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and is therefore absolutely null and void.

Why is the rule of apportionment so important when applied to any general tax laid among the states? It acts as a defense against progressives, as distinguished from hard working taxpayers, especially in large populated states who have great influence in Congress and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, progressives voters in these states are delinquent in contributing their one dollar for one vote which is also part of the rule of apportionment!

So what should Tea Party activists and patriotic Americans be supporting as tax reform? A return to our Constitution`s Original Tax Plan (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) and the rule of apportionment, as our founders intended it to operate, and this can be accomplished by demanding the following 32 words to be added to our Constitution:

“The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money”


In closing, Mike Huckabee needs to publicly answer a fundamental question concerning his “fairtax”.

If H.R.25 were adopted, and, if the 16th Amendment were repealed as proposed in H.J.RES.16 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.16:..) which is referred to as “companion legislation”, would Congress still maintain the authority to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes as was done under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909, while also laying and collecting the new 23 percent tax upon the sale of newly manufactured property and, the new 23 percent tax upon the sale of property which working people have in their labor which is proposed under the “fairtax”?


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