The power to tax is the power to destroy.

General Buck Turgidson said:
The decision doesn't give the Congress any powers as the federal government's power to tax was not at issue. The decision acknowledges that the Constitution gives the Congress the unlimited power to tax. The only restrictions in the Constitution on the power to tax are contained in the general welfare clause.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

Here is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 31:

As the duties of superintending the national defense and of securing the public peace against foreign or domestic violence involve a provision for casualties and dangers to which no possible limits can be assigned, the power of making that provision ought to know no other bounds than the exigencies of the nation and the resources of the community.

As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies.
As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes.

The lack of limits, I think, suggests that the federal government indeed has the power to tax anything that moves. And anything that doesn't move.
Click to expand...

I perplexes me how some people think this country can be run without revenue...
 
For those following at home. Here's the last sentence of Federalist No. 31, which Yurt claims does not support the argument that the federal government has an unlimited power to tax:

Upon this ground, which is evidently the true one, it will not be difficult to obviate the objections which have been made to an indefinite power of taxation in the United States.
Click to expand...

Lolers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_31.html
 
More Federalist 31:

A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.

As the duties of superintending the national defense and of securing the public peace against foreign or domestic violence involve a provision for casualties and dangers to which no possible limits can be assigned, the power of making that provision ought to know no other bounds than the exigencies of the nation and the resources of the community.

As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies.

As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes.
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
still can't find the quote huh. so you have to be snide. the opinion was in the link dumbass.

you're a liar.
Click to expand...


You quoted the syllabus in full and linked to it, not to the opinion. Of course I can't find a quote from the opinion in the syllabus.
 
Here's Justice Marshall:

In the course of the argument, the Federalist has been quoted, and the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed. The subject of those numbers from which passages have been cited is the unlimited power of taxation which is vested in the General Government.
Click to expand...
 
of the dishonest hack leaves out the whole quote:

The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fulness and clearness. It is

that an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (the Government [p434] of the Union) might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former (the Government of the States) of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it; the National Government might, at any time, abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretence of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity for doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues; and thus, all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State Governments.
 
Yurt said:
of the dishonest hack leaves out the whole quote:

The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fulness and clearness. It is

that an indefinite power of taxation in the latter (the Government [p434] of the Union) might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former (the Government of the States) of the means of providing for their own necessities, and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the National Legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it; the National Government might, at any time, abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretence of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity for doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues; and thus, all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State Governments.
Click to expand...


He's just restating an argument against the unlimited power of the federal government to tax. He's not adopting it or accepting it. He's merely acknowledging it and then goes on to reject it as a basis for arguing that the states have the same unlimited taxation powers:

But the two cases are not on the same reason. The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the States, and the States themselves, are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power.
Click to expand...

I quoted the relevant portion: the part where Justice Marshall acknowledged the federal government's unlimited power to tax as I asserted in my very first post.
 
you're misconstruing his words dung. if the power is unlimited, why does he refer to the powers limitation in article 1 section 9?
 
Yurt said:
you're misconstruing his words dung. if the power is unlimited, why does he refer to the powers limitation in article 1 section 9?
Click to expand...

I'm not misconstruing anything. Quote the part you are referring to.

Better yet, just accept that the resident judge at FOXNews is a dumbass.
 
Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced?
Click to expand...

you're using his words discussing what others said as if he actually said it. that is misconstruing his words. further, it is merely dicta.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ROFL

I love how both libs and cons can both love and hate judge Napolitano based solely upon his position on any given situation.
Click to expand...

This is what's funny about FOX.

They only hire has-beens, shamed politicians, or folks fired from other networks with a grudge. Fair and balanced, my ass!
 
"Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities." - James Madison, Federalist no. 20
 
KissingCommies said:
"Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities." - James Madison, Federalist no. 20
Click to expand...

do you believe the power to tax is unlimited?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top