johnwk
10-01-2011, 07:49 AM
I can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new tax, a national consumption tax which would tax every necessity of life, in addition to keeping corporate taxes and taxes on the working person’s wage.
I also can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new general tax among the States [Herman’s national sales tax] to feed the beast in Washington, and ignoring the rule of apportioning that tax among the States as required by our founding fathers clear intentions and was to protect against an evil of democracy.
The rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted by our founders to cure a vicious evil of democracy. The evil being, when 51 percent of the people in a “democracy” use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. Unfortunately we now have a situation in America under which 45 percent of the nation’s voting population pay no income tax and yet, they were instrumental in putting Obama in the White House!
Our founders saw this very kind of evil [representation in Congress without a proportional financial obligation] and to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s share of a total sum being raised, the formula being:
FAIR SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.
This rule of apportionment, which precludes the class warfare game now being played upon us by our folks in Washington, is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents, e.g.. see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)
“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-”
While the rule of apportioning would still be applied to representation under Herman’s new national sales tax, i.e.,
FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
Herman ignores applying the rule of apportionment to his new tax and in so doing would deny the People of those States who pay the lion’s share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the financial contribution.
Now, let us take a look at the founder’s clear intentions for any general tax laid among the States:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“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
Also 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, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And, 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‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment:
“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
So, for those who are loyal defenders of our Constitution, shouldn’t Herman Cain be asked the following question during Atlanta’s coming debate?
“Mr. Cain,
In the implementation of your 999 plan proposing to tax incomes and tax the wages which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, you want an addition tax to feed the beast in Washington, a national sales tax.
Why have you not required your national sales tax to be apportioned among the States, as intended by our founder’s, and was intended to protect our nation from a vicious evil of democracy?”
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
I also can’t imagine a true patriot proposing a new general tax among the States [Herman’s national sales tax] to feed the beast in Washington, and ignoring the rule of apportioning that tax among the States as required by our founding fathers clear intentions and was to protect against an evil of democracy.
The rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted by our founders to cure a vicious evil of democracy. The evil being, when 51 percent of the people in a “democracy” use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. Unfortunately we now have a situation in America under which 45 percent of the nation’s voting population pay no income tax and yet, they were instrumental in putting Obama in the White House!
Our founders saw this very kind of evil [representation in Congress without a proportional financial obligation] and to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s share of a total sum being raised, the formula being:
FAIR SHARE OF ANY DIRECT TAX AMONG THE STATES
State`s Pop.
_________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
U.S. pop.
This rule of apportionment, which precludes the class warfare game now being played upon us by our folks in Washington, is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents, e.g.. see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)
“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-”
While the rule of apportioning would still be applied to representation under Herman’s new national sales tax, i.e.,
FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES
State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.
U.S. pop.
Herman ignores applying the rule of apportionment to his new tax and in so doing would deny the People of those States who pay the lion’s share under it their representation in Congress proportionately equal to the financial contribution.
Now, let us take a look at the founder’s clear intentions for any general tax laid among the States:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“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
Also 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, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And, 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‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil of democracy being corrected by the rule of apportionment:
“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
So, for those who are loyal defenders of our Constitution, shouldn’t Herman Cain be asked the following question during Atlanta’s coming debate?
“Mr. Cain,
In the implementation of your 999 plan proposing to tax incomes and tax the wages which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, you want an addition tax to feed the beast in Washington, a national sales tax.
Why have you not required your national sales tax to be apportioned among the States, as intended by our founder’s, and was intended to protect our nation from a vicious evil of democracy?”
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