PDA

View Full Version : Yale law professors, Ackerman and Alstott pervert Constitution to tax ‘wealth’




johnwk
09-22-2011, 01:24 PM
SEE: Why (and how) to tax the super-rich (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ackerman-wealth-tax-20110920,0,7752814.story)

By Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott
September 20, 2011


In the article our professors say ”We propose a 2% annual wealth tax on households owning more than $7.2 million in net assets.” They later continue with:

”In the United States, anti-tax zealots will try to use the Constitution to cut off debate about a wealth tax before it begins. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress plenary power to impose any and all "taxes, duties, imposts and excises," but it contains a special limitation on "capitation and other direct taxes." Under this little-known proviso, such taxes may be imposed only if they are apportioned among the states according to their population. This provision was part of a compromise with the slave-holding South, and its intention was to prevent the North from imposing a "head tax" on slaves because this could not be apportioned equally among the population of all the states.”




Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott in their article falsely claim that Article 1, Section 8 “contains a special limitation on "capitation and other direct taxes." . That limitation and wording is actually found in Article 1, Section 9 [not Section 8], Clause 4, which reads No Capitation or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken

Our two professors also claim the provision mentioning "capitation and other direct taxes" was part of a “compromise with the slave-holding South, and its intention was to prevent the North from imposing a "head tax" on slaves…”

But the truth is, that part of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 which deals with each State’s allotted number of Representatives, was part of the “Great Compromise” of the Convention, and imposed a penalty upon those States in which slavery was allowed, denying them full representation in Congress according to their population size. And, that part of the same provision which deals with “direct taxes” is also part of the Great Compromise, and was specifically intended to establish a fixed rule in the event that imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet the “Publick Exigencies“ and Congress found it necessary to enter the States and tax the people directly.

The irrefutable fact is, the legislative intent of the Great Compromise in summary was to tie direct taxation and representation by the same standard … each State’s population size, and it ended the wealth based tax practiced under the Articles of Confederation by which each State was to pay in proportion to the value of its assessed land value.

Contrary to what our professors say, there is no provision in our federal Constitution that was intended to prevent a “head” or “capitation” tax on slaves. As a matter of historical fact, ten years after the ratification of our Constitution, and by the Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53, a direct apportioned tax was imposed upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves! Also see: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, allowing a 10 dollar tax per person.

And so, our professors who yap about “anti-tax zealots”, ought to at least get their facts straight before leveling such charges about those who simply want the documented intentions and beliefs of our Constitution enforced, and not perverted by progressives law professors, including one such professor named Obama.

But getting back to the rule of apportionment as applied to any direct tax laid among the States, and its legislative intent we find the following intentions expressed in several of the State Ratification documents:



Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition- SEE:Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

Additionally, here are some other quotes of our founding fathers expressing the legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be apportioned and why!


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)


And see:
“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. 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 if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, 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)

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


Bottom line is, a wealth based tax as proposed by our two progressive and anointed law professors, Ackerman and Alstott, would violate the rule of apportionment in that the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share under the tax would not be guaranteed their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

johnwk
09-22-2011, 06:18 PM
I’m surprised no one has commented on the distortions and misrepresentations which law professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott made with regard to our Constitution and taxation.


JWK

johnwk
09-24-2011, 08:05 AM
After listening to our Republican presidential candidates, it becomes obvious that not one is willing to confront Obama’s idea of “fair-share” as it relates to taxation and our Constitution.


Why is it that not one of our Republican candidates, each of which continually informs us of their respect for our Constitution, is willing to defend or even mention our Constitution’s fair-share formula which tied representation and taxation by the same standard?


FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES


State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.


FAIR SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX

State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.


And, I am still wondering why not one of our “conservative” talk show hosts makes an attempt to defend, or even talk about our Constitution’s original tax plan, and in particular its rule of apportionment. Has Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or Herman Cain ever outlined our Constitution’s original tax plan and its intended method to extinguish annual deficits? But they do promote tax reform [flat tax, fair tax, national sales tax, etc.] each of which benefits big government, and which our founding fathers would never have agreed to. Something stinks like a fish,




JWK



“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)

Voluntary Man
09-24-2011, 09:05 AM
of course, all of the hosts you mention work for the corporate media-opoly. they would all rather lick than bite the hands that feed them -- and they are fed so well.

it shouldn't surprise anyone, that "constitutional scholars" demonstrate such ignorance of the constitution; it's an ignorance born of contempt and apathy ; they couldn't care less what it actually says or means, because they see it as an obstacle to their goals, goals which include it's destruction.

Children spend 12 years in government controlled indoctrination centers, learning that their Constitution is irrelevant ; if it were important, they certainly would've studied it in all that time. Most are so turned off by what their trainers called "education," that they never open another book, and conduct all of their (unwitting) continuing education through the their telescreens, where the talking heads keep them updated on the correct popular view-points, which they obediently adopt.

johnwk
09-24-2011, 01:25 PM
of course, all of the hosts you mention work for the corporate media-opoly. they would all rather lick than bite the hands that feed them -- and they are fed so well.



What you state above could very well be correct since the talk show hosts I mention constantly complain about the "income tax" and “class warfare”, both of which the rule of apportionment addresses! The rule of apportionment precludes one of the major defects of “democracy” under which 51 percent of the people may use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It also precludes the class warfare game when taxes are laid directly upon the people.

However, my conclusion about our "conservative" talk show hosts is a bit different than yours. I think they are simply playing the “good-cop” in the “good-cop bad-cop” routine which our Washington Establishment has learned to play to perfection to keep the Republican/Democrat leadership in power regardless of how the people vote.

There are two primary tools of oppression which our founding fathers specifically addressed, neither which our Republicans running for the presidency will mention.

1. The rule of apportionment to be applied if and when Congress lays any general tax among the States, and:


2. The founder’s specific intentions to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender for all debt public and private, which in fact would create a money monopoly and literally compel people to accept worthless script in payment of debt!

SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp)

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.



[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.


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

Voluntary Man
09-24-2011, 08:41 PM
I agree with your assessment of the establishment's game (good cop vs bad cop), as well as everything else you've stated. It's the Hegelian Dialectic applied to the American party system, as Quigley observed in 'Tragedy and Hope.'

If feudal lords had possessed the foresight to offer their serfs a free "education," the resulting obedience and complacency would've obliterated the industrial age. Even now, mankind is marching backward, blindly, and passively into a post-industrial global feudalism.

Education has been replaced with behavior and attitude training, accomplished through early indoctrination, repetition, and peer pressure, and virtually no one has either noticed or complained.



What you state above could very well be correct since the talk show hosts I mention constantly complain about the "income tax" and “class warfare”, both of which the rule of apportionment addresses! The rule of apportionment precludes one of the major defects of “democracy” under which 51 percent of the people may use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It also precludes the class warfare game when taxes are laid directly upon the people.

However, my conclusion about our "conservative" talk show hosts is a bit different than yours. I think they are simply playing the “good-cop” in the “good-cop bad-cop” routine which our Washington Establishment has learned to play to perfection to keep the Republican/Democrat leadership in power regardless of how the people vote.

There are two primary tools of oppression which our founding fathers specifically addressed, neither which our Republicans running for the presidency will mention.

1. The rule of apportionment to be applied if and when Congress lays any general tax among the States, and:


2. The founder’s specific intentions to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender for all debt public and private, which in fact would create a money monopoly and literally compel people to accept worthless script in payment of debt!

SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp)

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.



[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.


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