# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  The Constitutional Convention Did Not Exceed Its Power

## My First Name Is Paul

http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06/...onal%e2%80%9d/

----------


## fisharmor

I really don't care if a bunch of elitists follow any particular rules  when they decide to come up with a more efficient way to rob and  brutalize strangers.

----------


## My First Name Is Paul

That was not the intent of the founding generation, if that is what you are implying.

----------


## fisharmor

> That was not the intent of the  founding generation, if that is what you are implying.


I didn't intend to be sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day growing a spare tire, either.
I didn't intend to run my hand over a table saw 17 years ago and forever lose the ability to play guitar.
These things happened nonetheless... and if I had a little more forethought back then, neither would have happened.

----------


## Keith and stuff

That article is laughable. If the Constitution was valid, it would have been approved via the approved process where all of the states approved it at once.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06/...onal%e2%80%9d/


lolz.  Bad arguments are bad.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo145.html
*Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle*etc, etc.  Gotta love how the neo-Hamiltonians to this day try to justify what happened way back when. lolz

----------


## My First Name Is Paul

Apparently nobody cares to read the article. What separates Natelson from those you quote is that he more than just an historian, he is a researcher and has done considerable research on the original Constitution. His conclusions are based in the law of the time, which, among other things, held that the public assigned powers to the government and and elected officials as agents acting on their behalf, just as with a power of attorney, a much more commonly emeployed legal instrument back then.

If you were to actually read the article I linked, you would find the arguments of the anarchists at LRC to be not even remotely addressing the arguments of Natelson (who, in fact, has contributed to LRC in the past).

Just because future generations chose not to follow the law as the founding generation created it does not mean the law was created with malicious intent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

The Constitution was a power grab, and I'd prefer the Articles.

At the same time, you've got to remember scale.  The Constitution expanded a tiny government into a small government.  Right now we have a massive government.  What we have now was not the constitutional intent.

----------


## My First Name Is Paul

Natelson's article does not argue if what was done was a power grab, if some part of society benefited more than others, or if there was some underlying conspiracy. What he argues is that the process used to create and adopt the Constitution was within the law of the day.

----------


## osan

> http://constitution.i2i.org/2013/06/...onal%e2%80%9d/


Horrible article.  Speaks in a voice accepting of the tacit presumptions of authority to act.  Gigantic, monumental, colossal, catastrophic, utter FAIL.

----------


## My First Name Is Paul

> Horrible article.  Speaks in a voice accepting of the tacit presumptions of authority to act.  Gigantic, monumental, colossal, catastrophic, utter FAIL.


Care to elaborate?

----------


## Occam's Banana

My understanding (which may be incorrect or incomplete - someone please correct me if so) is that delegates to the convention that created the Constitution had explicitly and only been empowered to work up some amendments to the Articles of Confederation (and nothing else) - and that any such amendments produced by the convention would later be adopted into the Articles only if each was unanimously approved by the states individually.

Thus, I suppose that it is not impossible that someone (such as Natelson) could reasonably try to use this as a basis for asserting the "legality" of the Constitutional Convention (and its production of the Constitution) - especially given the subsequent adoption of the Constitution by all 13 states.

But whether the process that set aside the Articles of Confederation _in toto_ and erected the Constitution _ex nihilo_ was "legal" or not (in whatever sense) is ultimately neither here nor there. The best criticisms of the Constitution as an usurpation are not dependent upon the putative "illegality" of the Constitutional Convention and its product (though some "anti-Constitutionalists" might try to make it so). Even if Natelson _et alias_ could show beyond any doubt that the Constitutional _fait accompli_ was entirely "legal," the most substantive and important objections to it would still stand unrefuted (indeed, they would remain even unaddressed).

Many of the Federalists (especially the Hamiltonians) who were primarily responsible for the creating the Constitution (and/or for promoting its subsequent adoption) were motivated by the fact that the Articles of Confederation simply (and rightly) did not give them the authority, ability or power to do the things they so badly wanted to do (such as establish a central bank, among many other things).

 Anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry recognized that they were up to no good (which is why Henry famously declared that he "smelled a rat" upon hearing of the Constitutional Convention). They were absolutely right. The Articles of Confederation were (or at least came much closer to) what the Constitution pretends to be.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians.  James Madison (The President, not the poster) wrote the thing, and he was a strict constructionist.  Which means that the constitution was intended to be strictly constructed, since that is what the writer said was supposed to be done with it.  That liberals and their predecessors, the Hamiltonians, created the whole "Living Constitution" crap really just isn't Mr. Madison's fault.

I'll grant you, I'd rather the AoC over the constitution.  The constitution is a limited government document, but allows a little bigger than what I would like.  I don't know exactly what the AoC contained, but I know it was less, and less is pretty much better.  That said, the original intent of the constitution  was not for unlimited government.  Nor was unlimited government ever instituted under the constitution (The constitution itself was pretty much ignored by Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, and pretty much everyone during and after the Progressive Era possibly exempting Coolidge.)  [Analysis is likely incomplete, and exempts Presidents that only violated the constitution to relatively small degrees, like Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion or Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase].

The bottom line is, thugs with guns can ignore words written in ink.  That's it.  Its not really the constitution's fault.

Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today?  I don't think so.

----------


## osan

> Care to elaborate?


I spent the day plowing in 90+* weather.  Then up on the roof for repairs.  I am tired, I stink like the Mongol horde, and my parts hurt, so no I don't.

All you need to do is engage in some proper critical analysis of the article.  You can do it on a line-by-line basis and uncover all manner of fail in that article.  Once you get into the groove the flaws jump out at you.  If you are not trained or experienced in this sort of thing, I suggest you learn because it is really important to know how.

Seriously, that article is so poorly reasoned, you should have no trouble at all demolishing it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians.  James Madison (The President, not the poster) wrote the thing, and he was a strict constructionist.  Which means that the constitution was intended to be strictly constructed, since that is what the writer said was supposed to be done with it.  That liberals and their predecessors, the Hamiltonians, created the whole "Living Constitution" crap really just isn't Mr. Madison's fault.
> 
> I'll grant you, I'd rather the AoC over the constitution.  The constitution is a limited government document, but allows a little bigger than what I would like.  I don't know exactly what the AoC contained, but I know it was less, and less is pretty much better.  That said, the original intent of the constitution  was not for unlimited government.  Nor was unlimited government ever instituted under the constitution (The constitution itself was pretty much ignored by Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, and pretty much everyone during and after the Progressive Era possibly exempting Coolidge.)  [Analysis is likely incomplete, and exempts Presidents that only violated the constitution to relatively small degrees, like Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion or Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase].
> 
> The bottom line is, thugs with guns can ignore words written in ink.  That's it.  Its not really the constitution's fault.
> 
> Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today?  I don't think so.


You think the Louisiana Purchase was a "small degree"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You think the Louisiana Purchase was a "small degree"?


Maybe I'm biased since I like Jefferson as a Founder.   But compared to anything that was done by Jackson, Lincoln, or the Progressive Presidents... yeah...

Millions of dollars wasted isn't "Small" but it is comparatively so.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Remember that not all of the Federalists were Hamiltonians. [...]


This is correct. That's why I was careful to preface my earlier remarks with "Many of the Federalists (especially Hamiltonians) [...]"

And Thomas Jefferson (certainly no Hamiltonian he) was pro-Constitution. (I guess we can't all be perfect ... )




> Do you really think anyone at the constitutional convention, heck, even Hamilton, would support the monstrosity we have today?  I don't think so.


I think Hamilton would $#@! his drawers in excitement over and approval of the monstrosity we have today. I truly and sincerely do ...

----------


## robert68

The state conventions arranged by the federalists to vote on ratification was simply extralegal. Among other things, the paragraph from the article below is collectivist delusion and fiction: 



> 	The ratification procedure was crafted so that the Constitution would never come until effect unless it represented the will of a majority of the American electorate. The Framers did this in two ways: (1) Ratification or rejection would come not from state politicians, but from conventions directly elected by the voters for the sole purpose of considering the Constitution, and (2) the Constitution would not go into effect unless conventions in nine states agreed.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe I'm biased since I like Jefferson as a Founder.   But compared to anything that was done by Jackson, Lincoln, or the Progressive Presidents... yeah...
> 
> Millions of dollars wasted isn't "Small" but it is comparatively so.


It's not just millions of dollars wasted. It's a major step in creating the hierarchy of federal government sovereign over states.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not just millions of dollars wasted. It's a major step in creating the hierarchy of federal government sovereign over states.


This^^

----------


## osan

> Maybe I'm biased since I like Jefferson as a Founder.   But compared to anything that was done by Jackson, Lincoln, or the Progressive Presidents... yeah...
> 
> Millions of dollars wasted isn't "Small" but it is comparatively so.



Jefferson was a great man and a $#@!ty president.  In fact, Jefferson should be the poster boy for murderously limited governance.  A good man, a great man, became president and failed to live by his own principles. I can understand why he did what he did.  Had I been president at that time I, too, would have been sore tempted to do the same and I consider myself to be highly principled in the ways relevant.

If the great men cannot control their impulses to world building, how could we expect anything better from the likes of Bammy, Bush, Clinton, and so on?

Seriously, someone should write about this because it is sort of important to the topic.

----------


## Weston White

The process only required YEA votes from nine-states, not all thirteen.

Article X [Committee of States]: "_The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, ..._"

----------


## robert68

> The process only required YEA votes from nine-states, not all thirteen.
> 
> Article X [Committee of States]: "_The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, ..._"



"Committee of the States":




> A Committee of the States was an arm of the United States government, under the Articles of Confederation. The Committee consisted of one member from each state, and carried out the functions of government while the Congress of the Confederation was in recess.[1]
> ...
> The Council was modeled after the various administrative committees set up during the American Revolutionary War. Instead the Second Continental Congress changed it to A Committee of the States *with limited management powers only when Congress was not in session.[2]*
> 
> The Committee was set up in 1784 on the proposal of Thomas Jefferson, then a congressman from Virginia. The Committee "quarrelled very soon, split into two parties, [and] abandoned their post."[3] *This was the only time that the Committee was formed and general had a lack of a quorum and did not carry out their administrative tasks.*[2]



The part below from the AoC is what's relevant to the thread's subject matter, and the parts in bold never took place:




> XIII.
> 
> Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; *nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
> ... 
> *

----------


## Weston White

That does not really apply though they were not seeking to alter, that is to amend it; as ultimately they decided it best to repeal it, favoring the idea of a constitutional republic (if states opted not to take part in the revisionary process, then the only reasonable end result is for those non-participating states to lose their voice thereafter). There is nothing bad at all about our U.S. Constitution. It is based upon solid maxims that emanated from the Age of Enlightenment. What is bad is that the entire resulting philosophy is being—and has been—ignored, in large part, over the course of the last century.

Yet the point stands: A supermajority of states were in favor of dissolving the confederacy, which is very reasonable in either case.

“..., or any nine of them,” “shall be authorized to execute, … the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, ...”

----------


## robert68

You’re reading into Article X of the AoC something totally non existent, and blowing off what Article XIII of the AoC clearly states that contradicts your assertions. You’re also blowing of the fact the "States" never voted on ratification of the US Constitution: conventions (or bodies) set up by proponents of the Constitution are what voted on its adoption. 

The adoption of the US Constitution was a significant concentration of power over what existed. That you consider it a reflection of “enlightenment” doesn’t distinguish you from most supporters of a stronger federal government, past and present.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The Constitution was an illegal, anti-libertarian coup.  The Federalists were scumbags.  The article is wrong-headed to defend it and them.

Any questions?

----------


## Woods

> The Constitution was a power grab, and I'd prefer the Articles.


Would you describe yourself then as a Confederate?

----------


## mczerone

"The Constitutional Convention Did Not Exceed Its Power"

I read the article. It's just legal arguing; there's word games that can be made with the documents then existing that could support either side.

Here's the basic fact:

The Constitutional Convention had no more Powers, no more Rights, than the sum of the rights of the individuals present and those principles who duly assigned them as their agents.

None of them were my agent, thus have no right to sign a document on my behalf.

Care to rebut? Care to prove why they have powers over me, even though I haven't consented?

----------


## tommyrp12

The constitution is a trust and anyone with a oath to it is a trustee, they act on behalf of "The People" which are the signers and their posterity. Their is no "common consent" to  grant authority to govern anyone or to conjure up laws that in reality only apply to the trustee's. Especially in a world were people are born equal.

----------


## Danke

> The constitution is a trust and anyone with a oath to it is a trustee, they act on behalf of "The People" which are the signers and their posterity. Their is no "common consent" to  grant authority to govern anyone or to conjure up laws that in reality only apply to the trustee's. Especially in a world were people are born equal.


Way beyond most of the intellect here. Many still thing the income tax applies to them in the private sector.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Many still thing the income tax applies to them in the private sector.


And it does.  The argument that it applies only to income derived from activity involving a "federal privilege" has no basis in law and has been consistently rejected by the courts.

----------


## mczerone

> And it does.  The argument that it applies only to income derived from activity involving a "federal privilege" has no basis in law and has been consistently rejected by the courts.


I agree - but let's not pretend that this is some logically derived position based on natural rights and justice.

You have an obligation to pay because they have guns, will use guns, and have popular support in using them against people who refuse to pay.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I agree - but let's not pretend that this is some logically derived position based on natural rights and justice.
> 
> You have an obligation to pay because they have guns, will use guns, and have popular support in using them against people who refuse to pay.


That's true.  But all laws, not just tax laws, are backed up by force or the threat of force.

----------


## mczerone

> That's true.  But all laws, not just tax laws, are backed up by force or the threat of force.


All STATE laws, that is.

----------


## Danke

> And it does.  The argument that it applies only to income derived from activity involving a "federal privilege" has no basis in law and has been consistently rejected by the courts.


No, just the opposite.

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] a s  s u c h . I t  i s  a n  e x c i s e  t a x  w i t h  r e s p e c t  to certain activities and* privileges* which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2 580;

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> No, just the opposite.
> 
> The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] a s  s u c h . I t  i s  a n  e x c i s e  t a x  w i t h  r e s p e c t  to certain activities and* privileges* which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2 580;


Hubbard was a former mid-level drafting attorney who didn't know much about the theoretical aspects of the income tax.  For a fuller discussion of why he was so mistaken, please see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges

While privileges can serve as the basis for federal excise taxes, it isn't necessary for there to be a privilege before they apply.  For example, the Supreme Court has long held that income earned from illegal activities such as embezzlement and extortion is taxable, yet it's obvious that such activities are not privileged in any way.

The courts have consistently rejected taxpayers' claims that their private-sector earnings aren't taxable because there's no "privilege" involved.  The argument is so frivolous that many who have made it have been fined for wasting the courts' time with such drivel.




> Turning first to their basic contention, indeed the one on which all the others rest, that the relation of domestic employment does not come within Art. 1, Section 8, and is therefore immune from the imposition of federal taxes and burdens, we find ourselves in no doubt that appellants are neither historically nor etymologically correct in their claim in substance that excises are limited to taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupation and upon corporate privileges only. It is true that taxes of the kind referred to are excise taxes but it is also true, as was held in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, that the excises which Congress has power to impose are not limited to vocations or activities which may be prohibited altogether or to those which are the outcome of a franchise, but extend to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. The term ‘excise’ is and was before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution a term of very wide meaning.  Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954).
> 
> [Hamzik] contends only that he does not have a tax liability and subsequent deficiency because all federal income taxes are ‘indirect taxes’ and the Commissioner has not produced the statutes defining the ‘revenue taxable activity’ that would make Hamzik subject to or liable for any tax under Title 26. The tax court properly rejected Hamzik’s arguments as frivolous.  Hamzik v. Commissioner, 25 Fed. Appx. 911, KTC 2001-589 (9th Cir. 2001), (affirming the decision of the Tax Court and imposing sanctions of $250 for bringing a frivolous appeal). 
> 
> Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.  Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).
> 
> All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.  United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).
> 
> Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens. In addition, as described above, plaintiff’s wages and gambling earnings are clearly within the I.R.C.’s definition of ‘income,’ and are properly subject to taxation.  Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)
> ...


In sum, no one in the history of the country has ever avoided federal income tax by arguing that income from private-sector, non-privileged activity isn't subject to the income tax.  That is not and never has been the law.

----------


## Danke

> Hubbard was a former mid-level drafting attorney who didn't know much about the theoretical aspects of the income tax.  For a fuller discussion of why he was so mistaken, please see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges
> 
> While privileges can serve as the basis for federal excise taxes, it isn't necessary for there to be a privilege before they apply.  For example, the Supreme Court has long held that income earned from illegal activities such as embezzlement and extortion is taxable, yet it's obvious that such activities are not privileged in any way.
> 
> The courts have consistently rejected taxpayers' claims that their private-sector earnings aren't taxable because there's no "privilege" involved.  The argument is so frivolous that many who have made it have been fined for wasting the courts' time with such drivel.
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, no one in the history of the country has ever avoided federal income tax by arguing that income from private-sector, non-privileged activity isn't subject to the income tax.  That is not and never has been the law.


It is activity also.  If the income tax was all encompassing, why can't the IRS tax a man in China being paid in FRNs?

The terms "excise tax" and "privilege tax" are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably." American Airways v . Wall ace 57 F.2d 877, 880 (Dist. Ct., M.D . Ten n ., 1937); .. .the requirement to pay such [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege." United States *Supreme Court*, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S . 107 (1911)

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It is activity also.  If the income tax was all encompassing, why can't the IRS tax a man in China being paid in FRNs?


The activity is the receipt of income.  Being paid in FRN's is irrelevant.  If someone is paid in beer, cigarettes, wine, automobiles, or any other kind of property, it's still income.  The reason a Chinese working in China isn't taxed is that Section 872 of the Internal Revenue Code excludes his pay from gross income.




> The terms "excise tax" and "privilege tax" are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably." American Airways v . Wall ace 57 F.2d 877, 880 (Dist. Ct., M.D . Ten n ., 1937); .. .the requirement to pay such [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege." United States *Supreme Court*, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S . 107 (1911)


It looks as though you have cut and pasted from some crackpot's website, very likely Lost Horizons or someone who copied from that site.  The quote "the requirement to pay such [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege." is not from the Flint decision.  The actual quote is as follows:




> The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable. (emphasis added)


You can read the decision here:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=220&invol=107  The correct quote is on pages 151-152. 

The tax in Flint was not an income tax.  It was a tax that applied only to corporations, and it was an excise on the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity.  The Court was saying that such taxes (i.e., those imposed in connection with corporate privileges) involve privilege.  The quote was deliberately altered by the scammer who runs Lost Horizons to make it seem as if the Supreme Court was saying that all excise taxes involve privilege, which they clearly don't (e.g., the gift tax is an excise, but there's obviously no privilege involved in making a gift).

If you really believe the income tax has to involve a privilege, what privilege is involved in extortion or embezzlement, the income from which is taxable?  And if the tax involves an activity, what activity other than the receipt of income is necessary to trigger the tax?

----------


## Danke

Come on over to "crackpot" sites and post your theories.  LOL.  This site many consider crackpot too.

What “Income ” Means , And Why United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883); ”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private propety- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”  United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 2 36 U.S . 1 (1915); ...the essence of all of which is underscored here: 'Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, up on the possession and enjoyments of rights; in direct taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.' United States Supreme Court, Knowlton v. Moor e, 1 78 U.S . 41 (1900 ), quoting the long-standing official French definitions as helpfully illustrative of the distinctions drawn in the United States Constitution .

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Come on over to "crackpot" sites and post your theories.  LOL.  This site many consider crackpot too.
> 
> What “Income ” Means , And Why United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883); ”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private propety- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”.  United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 2 36 U.S . 1 (1915); ...the essence of all of which is underscored here: 'Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, up on the possession and enjoyments of rights; in direct taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.' United States Supreme Court, Knowlton v. Moor e, 1 78 U.S . 41 (1900 ), quoting the long-standing official French definitions as helpfully illustrative of the distinctions drawn in the United States Constitution


You really should stop cutting and pasting from crackpots.  I've seen 'em all, and they're all bogus.  The Butcher's Union quote was from a concurring opinion of a single Justice, not from the majority opinion.  Moreover, the case was an antitrust case that didn't involve taxes at all.  Coppage also didn't involve taxes; it was a case that struck down a state law that banned yellow-dog contracts.  In addition. it's no longer good law.  Although Knowlton's dictum is correctly quoted, it's not an accurate statement of the law of direct taxes.  As most recently affirmed in the decision upholding the Individual Mandate in Obamacare, the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and property taxes.  Taxes on the exercise of economic rights re subject to indirect taxes:




> The meaning of the phrase "direct taxes" and the historical background of the constitutional requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this Court, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515, that no useful purpose would be served by renewing the discussion here. Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine.  While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax [the gift tax] is of the latter class.
> Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136 (1929) (emphasis added)

----------


## Matt Collins

Lysander Spooner: "The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it..."

----------


## Danke

> As most recently affirmed in the decision upholding the Individual Mandate in Obamacare, the only direct taxes under the Constitution are capitations and property taxes.  Taxes on the exercise of economic rights re subject to indirect taxes:


We have establish that the income tax is an indirect tax.  No arguments there.  But why can't an excise tax be levied on everyone?  Well, it can't.  The federal government has limited jurisdiction.  That is the key.

----------


## osan

> Lysander Spooner: "The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it..."


Thread winner.

/thread.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> We have establish that the income tax is an indirect tax.  No arguments there.  But why can't an excise tax be levied on everyone?  Well, it can't.  The federal government has limited jurisdiction.  That is the key.


Where do you see this in the Constitution?  Aside from the requirement of geographical uniformity what other limits are there?

----------

