President Trump gives up on tax reform and embraces income tax manipulation

[Zippyjuan]

So how big do you think the Federal Government will become if your program was to pass?

[johnwk]

The primary fantasy mentioned in these posts is the notion that people will be willing to elect representatives to cut federal spending down to $150 billion (assuming that's the correct figure for imposts, duties, and excises other than income taxes). If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.


Give it a break!

[johnwk]

Stop with the BS!


A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. Are you really suggesting every local news outlet in the State will not report their State's Congressional Delegation has brought home a bill which will deplete the state's treasury which is funded by state tax payers?


JWK

The states don't have the money in their treasuries to transfer to the Federal Government. They will have to raise taxes on their taxpayers to get it. And they will blame the faceless Federal Government for having to do so. And then urge their representatives to kill the tax plan.

You didn't answer the question asked.

Additionally, my statement is factually correct! A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. How the money gets there is an entirely different subject. Stop conflating different subjects.

[johnwk]

So how big do you think the Federal Government will become if your program was to pass?

Are you and Sonny bedroom mates? The both of you have a lot in common, especially trolling this forum.

JWK

[johnwk]

It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"

And the people will not rise up against an "extortion racket"?

Your absurd comment indicates you realize you and Sonny have lost the debate and so, you resort to absurdities.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

You didn't answer the question asked.

Additionally, my statement is factually correct! A state will in fact have to transfer its apportioned share from its state's treasury, into the treasury of the united states. How the money gets there is an entirely different subject. Stop conflating different subjects.

Actually how it gets to the state treasury and then onto the US Treasury does matter. It won't really change things for the taxpayer if they pay income tax to the state which sends their check to Washington or if the taxpayer pays income tax to Washington. It is still coming out of their pocket and going to the exact same place. You are pretending that the taxes magically disappear.

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea? Just a rough estimate. Ten percent? 50%?

How does that property lien thing work? Can the Federal Government seize property if the state fails to forward the checks?

[Danke]

It becomes an extortion racket to force the states to pay for what the Federal Government does. Rather than issuing debt they just send the bills on to the states and say "here, you pay for it!"

That is exactly the original intent. Easier for a group of men (the states) to fight against tyranny of the federal gov. vs. an individual.

[Danke]

Actually how it gets to the state treasury and then onto the US Treasury does matter. It won't really change things for the taxpayer if they pay income tax to the state which sends their check to Washington or if the taxpayer pays income tax to Washington. It is still coming out of their pocket and going to the exact same place. You are pretending that the taxes magically disappear.

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea? Just a rough estimate. Ten percent? 50%?

How does that property lien thing work? Can the Federal Government seize property if the state fails to forward the checks?

States will owe a bill , but they can pay it by any means their electorate chooses. Doesn’t have to be an “income tax.”

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

[Zippyjuan]

States will owe a bill , but they can pay it by any means their electorate chooses. Doesn’t have to be an “income tax.”

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Speaking of unanswered questions:

For someone who constantly dodges questions--you sure ask a lot of them. How about you starting answering some?

[Danke]

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

Does not add a middle man, States already have revenue offices to collect taxes.

The fed eliminates a lot of those jobs, now only 50 states to collect from. Just a bill they send to the States. The states may have to add a few jobs, true. Just depends how they choose to collect.

[johnwk]

Speaking of unanswered questions:

SO how much would you expect the size of government to go down due to your idea?

My idea? You still can't admit it's our founding fathers idea. Can you?


Here is the evidence you are full of bull-crapski:


FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Public Exigencies; nor then, Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of suck 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-

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA:

Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition-

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS:

Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost & Excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy & pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way & manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, & in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess & levy such State's proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND:

8th. In cases of direct taxes, Congress shall first make requisitions on the several states to assess, levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions, in such way and manner, as the legislatures of the several states shall judge best; and in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time prescribed in such requisition.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:

III. When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the executive power of each state, of the quota of such State, according to the census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised: And if the legislature of any state shall pass a law, which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected in such state.

FROM THE RATIFICATION DOCUMENT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA:

Third, When Congress shall lay direct taxes or excises, they shall immediately inform the Executive power of each State of the quota of such state according to the Census herein directed, which is proposed to be thereby raised; And if the Legislature of any State shall pass a law which shall be effectual for raising such quota at the time required by Congress, the taxes and excises laid by Congress shall not be collected, in such State.


The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.

Stop making crap up!



JWK


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

[johnwk]

True. It could be sales or property tax. But the taxpayer is still paying. Taxes didn't go away. The proposal just adds a middle man of the states to collect money for the State.

Still making crap up. What the apportioned tax does is as follows. When imposts, duties and excise taxes [indirect taxes] are found insufficient to fund Congress' appetite, each States Congressional Delegation must come home with a bill in hand to pay for their excessive eating, and this adds a very real moment of accountability when they are forced to justify their outrageous spending to their Governor and State Legislature, and why they can't live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.


Stop making crap up!

JWK

[johnwk]

That is exactly the original intent. Easier for a group of men (the states) to fight against tyranny of the federal gov. vs. an individual.

BINGO! And that is why our Congress critters fear with a passion any discussion of real tax reform which is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment and a return to our Constitution's original tax plan which would end the communist / socialist inspired income tax.


JWK

[Sonny Tufts]

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.

I'm not the only one:

And the people will not rise up against an "extortion racket"?

The only difference is that I'm not naïve enough to believe that the people will be willing to give up all the government programs necessary to pare the budget down to $150 billion.

[Sonny Tufts]

And they can also choose not to pay what is demanded. If enough of them do this...

That's what happened under the Articles of Confederation, leading to its failure.

[Superfluous Man]

You wrote "If you think the voters . . . "

You appear to be the only one who knows what voters think.


Give it a break!

Come on though. You can't possibly disagree with him. He said:

If you think the voters would stand for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, defense, and countless other programs, you're either delusional or a complete idiot.

That's a pretty unassailable truth right there.

[Sonny Tufts]

The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.

The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.

[Danke]

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NorthCarolinaLiberty again

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution. Our resident tax lawyer and extreme progressive has no interest in liberty or learning anything here, but rather to simply post contrary views for the sake of being contrary.

Actually, it's the position that when the Constitution is unambiguous about something all one needs to do is read its plain language. It's quite clear that the Framers put only three restrictions on the federal taxing power and that they left it up to Congress to determine, subject to these restrictions, when, how, and what to tax.

And you're still clueless about my interest in liberty, among a host of other things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Actually, it's the position...

Actually, it's your position.

...when the Constitution is unambiguous about something...

Progressives like to invoke a lot of ambiguity where this is none or very little.

And you're still clueless about my interest in liberty,...

I've asked you about it, but you never shared it. Anyway, I already know. Care to share it with others?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
The fact is, our founders intended Congress to raise its revenue from indirect taxes, but provided for emergencies with an apportioned direct tax to extinguish deficits should they occur.

The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

The fact remains, my post is factually correct, and, I have provided sufficient documentation to confirm the stated intentions of the founders, and those who ratified the Constitution. was that the apportioned direct tax was to be used to deal with deficits arising from imposts, duties and excise taxes, and, in case of emergencies. See POST NUMBER 102

Now, let us review what the most fundamental rule of constitution construction is, which is summarize 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.

So, as it turns out, your assertion that legislative intent has no bearing on the use of the apportioned direct tax is nothing more than your personal and sophomoric OPINION!

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our very own Supreme Court confirms the absolute supremacy of legislative intent and abiding by it:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


Now, if you believe we ought to alter the intended purpose and operation of the apportioned direct tax found in our Constitution, let me refer you to Article V, which our wise founding fathers put into the Constitution to accommodate for such alterations and/or changing times. But keep in mind my friend, that provision requires consent of the people as outlined in its text.


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[Zippyjuan]

Let's go back and look at the actual words in the Constitution concerning taxes- ignoring for now the 16th Amendment.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Noting the coma after the word "taxes" meaning that taxes are not restricted to only duties, imposts, and excises. Taxes can be in ADDITION to those. It does not say all taxes must be uniform throughout the United States, only that Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform. One state cannot have a higher tariff than another. It gives Congress the power to determine what those taxes should be.

[Sonny Tufts]

My goodness. Now you are pretending our Constitution is that of a rubber ruler, allowed to be stretched and distorted in order to make it mean whatever one wishes it to mean.

To the contrary, I view the language of the Constitution just as it's written. You're the one who wants to stretch it by inserting a restriction in the document that isn't there.

What you don't realize is that I agree with you that direct taxes should not be used in lieu of indirect taxes. But the plain fact is that there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from imposing a direct tax in the first instance. If you think there should be such a prohibition, I refer you to Article V, which you have doubtless already considered given your proposal of an amendment that you think would impose such a prohibition (but as drafted, it won't).

Incidentally, I haven't checked all of the provisions of the ratification documents you cited, but it appears that several (and I strongly suspect that all of them) are taken from proposed amendments to the Constitution that the ratifying states wished to have the initial Congress consider. In other words, they have nothing to do with the proper interpretation of language of the Constitution, but are from wish lists that have no legal effect whatsoever, something the people proposing them obviously realized or else they wouldn't have proposed them as amendments.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
The Founders were dealing with a country of 3.6 million people and 892,000 square miles. Today the country has 325 million people and 3.8 million square miles. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Founders' intent would remain static no matter the change in circumstances.

More to the point, the Founders didn't hardwire this intent into the Constitution -- they didn't restrict Congress to using direct taxes only in cases of emergencies. In fact, the Constitution contains only three explicit limits on the federal taxing power: direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be geographically uniform, and Congress can't tax exports.

Yes, another thinly veiled proponent of the living & breathing approach to the constitution.

I think it's abundantly clear that Sonny, as is the case with our sewer rats in Washington, despises having a written constitution, with its documented legislative intent available, which gives context to its text. They prefer having a constitution which is susceptible to their interpretation, and their whims and fancies, so they may impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and "social justice".




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[Sonny Tufts]

I think it's abundantly clear that Sonny, as is the case with our sewer rats in Washington, despise having a written constitution, with its documented legislative intent available, which gives context to its text.

I've already demonstrated that your "documented legislative intent" is a lie. Or didn't you realize that what you cited in the ratification documents has nothing to do with how the original written Constitution was to be interpreted?

Stop making this stuff up!

[johnwk]

I've already demonstrated that your "documented legislative intent" is a lie. Or didn't you realize that what you cited in the ratification documents has nothing to do with how the original written Constitution was to be interpreted?

Stop making this stuff up!

The only one attempting to make stuff up is you. You have demonstrated your own opinion, which is unsubstantiated by the words of those who framed our Constitution, nor are they confirmed by those who ratified it.



Whether you like it or not, and with regard to direct taxation, the ratification documents are irrefutable evidence as to the intentions of those who approved the Constitution.


Now, go back to Constitutional construction 101 and the supremacy of legislative intent and learn the rules of constitutional construction.


Incidentally, "No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

SO, WHAT WAS THE INTENTIONS OF THE RATIFING STATES WITH REGARD TO DIRECT TAXATION?

Here are a few examples regarding the intended use of direct taxation.


From the Massachusetts ratifying debates:

"Some gentlemen have said, that Congress may draw their revenue wholly by direct taxes; but they cannot be induced so to do; it is easier for them to have resort to the impost and excise; but as it will not do to overburden the impost, (because that would promote smuggling, and be dangerous to the revenue,) therefore Congress should have the power of applying, in extraordinary cases, to direct taxation." Elliot, 2, 42

"The first revenue will be raised from the impost, to which there is no objection, the next from the excise; and if these are not sufficient, direct taxes must be laid." Elliot 2, 57

"That Congress, however, will not apply to the power of direct taxation, unless in cases of emergency, is plain." Elliot 2, 60

"Mr. S., that we are attacked by a foreign enemy; that in this dilemma our treasury was exhausted, our credit gone, our enemy on our borders, and that there was no possible method of raising impost or excise; in this case, the only remedy would be a direct tax." Elliot 2, 61

From the Virginia ratification debates

"But the power of laying direct taxes is objected to.: if a sufficient revenue be not otherwise raised, recurrence must be had to direct taxation; gentleman admit this, but insist on the propriety of first applying to the state legislatures." Elliot, 3, 40

"Let us consider the most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxation is most generally objected to. With respect to the exigencies of government, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing for them will be adopted. When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people. To consult the conveniences of the people will cost them nothing, and in many respects will be advantageous to them. Direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes." Elliots, 3, 95


Once again you are proven to panhandle opinions which are not in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be 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)

[Sonny Tufts]

Whether you like it or not, and with regard to direct taxation, the ratification documents are irrefutable evidence as to the intentions of those who approved the Constitution.


Now, go back to Constitutional construction 101 and the supremacy of legislative intent and learn the rules of constitutional construction.


Incidentally, "No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

What you are still unwilling to face is the documented fact that none of the proposals regarding direct taxation contained in the ratification documents was ever enacted into law as part of the Constitution. "Legislative intent" applies only to something that gets enacted. "Constitutional construction" applies only to something that's actually in the Constitution. Neither of these applies to the proposals you cited.

Good grief, you might as well argue that Congress can't enact a capitation tax (even though the Constitution implicitly says it can) just because at least one of the ratification documents proposed such a prohibition as an amendment.

Actions speak louder than words. The fact that none of the direct tax proposals was enacted should tell you something, but you're like Tommy -- deaf, dumb, and blind.

[johnwk]

What you are still unwilling to face is the documented fact that none of the proposals regarding direct taxation contained in the ratification documents was ever enacted into law as part of the Constitution. "Legislative intent" applies only to something that gets enacted.

The power to lay and collect an apportioned direct tax is in our Constitution! But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion. Now, let us take a look at some authoritative sources which confirm you are full of bull-crapski when it comes to the supremacy of “legislative intent”.

One of the rules of our Constitution [Amendment Seven] is to follow the rules of "common law", which means adhering to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, which includes direct taxes.

And one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws, which includes our Constitution, is to enforce its “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be 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.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


And where is our Constitution’s legislative intent to be found? It is found by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, e.g., Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Hamilton’s Notes, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates, etc., are some of the sources used to document the legislative intent of our Constitution.

Now, go back to POST NUMBER 118 which contains sufficient documentation, of those who ratified the Constitution, and establishes when the apportioned tax was intended to be used, and then get back to me.

JWK

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. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.