Comment: The Limitation as to What taxes could be collected for

(See in situ)


The Limitation as to What taxes could be collected for

The limitation as to What taxes could be collected for, was discussed in the Ratifying Conventions;

In the case of the "Welfare Clause", and in response to George Mason indicating that the term "General Welfare" would be perverted to it's (the Constitution's) "destruction", the limitation as to the power is clearly established:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Read The Day Convention In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

George Mason: "...Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government,and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "GENERAL WELFARE", and under their "OWN" CONSTRUCTION, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the "ten miles square", when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not "extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and "WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare "of the Union", I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to "ALL" powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

>>>>>Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "PERVERTED TO IT'S DESTRUCTION".

--- "... In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to "any power Congress may please". "

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses.

He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the "PUBLIC DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE"; >that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, "NOT" to "the "GENERAL POWER OF LEGISLATION" (APP: A VERY IMPORTANT LIMITATION), but to the >PARTICULAR POWER> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "COMMON DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise AS MUCH (APP: ONLY) MONEY as would pay the "DEBTS" and provide for the "COMMON DEFENCE", "IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL well-regulated communities (State or County or Community), determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers,the "JUDICIARY" "WILL" declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE" it "VOID". Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence.

"THE POWER" of providing for the "GENERAL DEFENCE" only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts,

But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. "THIS WAS MISREPRESENTED".

If I understand it right, "NO" "NEW" power can be exercised...."

What is clear when reading this, is that the legislative could not "create or legislate new debt" outside the limited delegated powers; And this is what is so critical about the fact established in the "Ratifying Conventions" (That define the meaning of the words in the Constitution) when they establish that the states nor federal representatives could not use the ratifying or amendment process to grant the federal government powers outside the DELEGATED powers.

The Ratifying and Amendment process was meant to make changes to limit misuse of powers WITHIN the limited and defined DELEGATED powers;

The Ratifying and Amendment process was NEVER MEANT to ARROGATE POWER UPON the federal government "OUTSIDE" the ORIGINAL LIMITS set by the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT.

To hammer this home, the founders made this limitation clear during this same day convention:

Mr. HENRY replied that, "...if Congress were vested with supreme power of legislation, paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described might happen; for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers. This construction was warranted, in his opinion, by the addition of the word "DEPARTMENT", at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any DEPARTMENT or officer of the government.

Mr. (EDMUND) PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,

(N)OR to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN) "MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the "UNION AT LARGE". (APP: THINK ABOUT THAT!)

But it gives them power over the LOCAL (ONLY) police of "THE PLACE", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within "THAT DISTRICT".

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be. WHAT, THEN, IS THE POWER?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate THERE, in order to preserve {440} serve the police "OF THE PLACE" (ONLY) and their "OWN" personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.

(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation "WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF THAT DISTRICT".

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the "MOMENT" it would go without "THAT PLACE"; for their exclusive (SUPREME) power is "CONFINED" to THAT DISTRICT. Were they to pass such a law,it would be "NUGATORY"; and EVERY MEMBER of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.This exclusive power is "LIMITED TO THAT PLACE SOLELY", for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. ..."...

"...The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "CANNOT be EXERCISED, OR INTERPOSED", without the "application of the STATE ITSELF". This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "FAIR CONSTRUCTION".

With respect to the necessity of the "TEN MILES SQUARE" being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,

I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the "PLAIN LANGUAGE" of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

Now lets review a few things where the federal legislature has exceeded these limitations and used the "general power" (expressly prohibited) under the "Welfare Clause" to legislate "DEBT":

Can they create the "Welfare bureaucracy", no. Social Security, no. These are all "regulations" that "EFFECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNION AT LARGE"; Environmental regulations, Mandates, ... all exceed the limitation. College loans? no.

How about governing "police" outside the the 10 miles square? Clearly as stated by the Founders above, the federal legislative HAS BEEN GIVEN "NO SUCH AUTHORITY". FBI, CIA, ICE, ATF, etc.

ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL

HOW ABOUT INCOME TAX? NO. as the income tax (including a FLAT TAX or a FAIRTAX for those who would ask) is an arrogated power that changes the limited DELEGATED power of "ENUMERATED" taxation, into UNLIMITED, UNENUMERATED taxation which is a HUGE STEP PAST THE DELEGATED POWERS.

And "EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED".

Stay WITHIN the DELEGATED powers, and there would be no debt.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Also now on Facebook with Choice Articles and Videos:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.