A CHALLENGE TO H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] SUPPORTERS !

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

A CHALLENGE TO H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] SUPPORTERS

What part of our federal Constitution grants power to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”? I have been told by some proponents of H.R. 25 to read Article 1, Section 8, but, I do not see “sales tax” in the list of specific taxing powers granted in that part of the Constitution. I guess it’s safe to assume at this point in time the promoters of H.R.25 were pretending that a power was granted to Congress to lay and collect a “sales tax”.

In addition, those who promote H.R. 25 offer nothing as to whether or not H.R. 25 would be considered a direct tax as our founding fathers understood the meaning of the term during the framing and ratification of our Constitution, and thus requiring apportionment. Truth is, supporters of H.R. 25 have neglected to state why the tax described in H.R. 25, a tax unquestionably designed as the primary method by which the states would be called upon to fill the national treasury, is in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

There is no contention that the tax described in H.R. 25 is not imposed upon any particularly selected article of consumption as the excise tax was historically used by the founders with reference to taxing consumption. Instead, H.R. 25 proposes to tax a specifically defined class of financial transactions within each of the various states, and do so as the primary method to fill the national treasury, and, would allow the iron fist of the federal government to enter the states and lay its hand upon the sale of private property, real and personal, within each of the various states. Question is, did the founding fathers contemplate and intend to delegate this type of taxing power to the new government they were creating, and if so, did they also intend certain restrictions to apply and a specific rule to be followed when and if the tax was laid? The answer to both these questions is a resounding YES!

Chief Justice Fuller summarizes the founder’s clear intentions in the following manner: in POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

"The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. Those who made it knew that the power to tax involved the power to destroy, and that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, 'the only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.' 4 Wheat. 428. And they retained this security by providing that direct taxation and representation in [158 U.S. 601, 622] the lower house of congress should be adjusted on the same measure.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language."

A review of historical documents giving birth to our Constitution reveals our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge. But if the need should arise and Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation via a wealth based tax upon assessed land value within each of the states, a new rule would apply! The new rule agreed upon by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury commanded apportionment of the tax in such a manner that those states paying the lions share of the federal tax burden would be compensated by a proportionate vote in Congress equal to their contribution, to be exercised when Congress Assembled determine how their money was to be spent.

Under the Articles of Confederation no such rule existed, but during the framing of our existing Constitution the method by which the states could be called upon to fill the national treasury was a bone of contention and the final compromise reached was “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” , the indisputable intention being an agreement as to how the states may be called upon to fill the national treasury in a general tax, a primary tax, laid by Congress. The new rule, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows:

States’ population

------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

State`s Population

_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress

population of U.S.

Those who support H.R. 25 seem to love enforcing the rule of apportionment to gain their representation in Congress and exercise their vote when deciding how to spend federal revenue taken from the states. But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution’s fair share formula by which the states are to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, which is also part of the rule of apportionment which gave them their vote in Congress Assembled.

Instead of calculating a tax from “income” . . . without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration", the architects of H.R. 25 are attempting to extend Congress’ iron fist beyond ‘income” and reach property, real and personal, with a new federal tax calculated from its value, and, do so “without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration“, even though such a tax [a tax calculated from the value of property] has been struck down by the SCOTUS as being a direct tax and requiring apportionment if laid among the states.

H.R. 25 would subtly defeat this protection and undermine federalism along with state’s rights in that the states contributing the largest share of the tax burden would not receive their constitutionally guaranteed proportionate vote equal to their contribution when it is determined how their money is spent which was taken from them in a primary tax calculated from a measure of their state’s economic enterprise and success.

H.R. 25 is the same socialist tax pig we now have, disguised in a different dress, but still mimics a Marxist principle of present income taxation ___ from each state according to its economic ability, to be spent by a socialist majority in Congress___ exactly what our Constitution was designed to protect against by the rule of apportionment!

HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution’s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury.

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution bringing us back to our Constitution's original tax plan:

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

John William Kurowski, Founde

American Constitutional Research Service

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [the H.R. 25 tax] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]