Look at what they said in Antifederalist No. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1).

The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.

While so much focus is put on the Federalist Papers, johnwk would probably find some value in the Anti-Federalist Papers. But you see, I don’t look at these “founding fathers” as gods. And I don’t take membership in a political party. So I can read both sides of the argument . I won’t say I’d want a nation ruled by the Antifederalists, but on the judiciary I wish somebody had taken them more seriously.

By the way, you can’t cherry pick court findings that you happen to agree with while you deride the ones you don’t like. You have a tenuous grasp of our Constitutional process if you don’t understand that the courts are the final arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional – NOT YOU!

You have a view that you “feel” is the original intent of the founders. I’ve shown you that others who “feel” the exact same way disagree with you on the Fair Tax.

The bottom line is this. You feel the words of the founders are gospel and to you they are a form of deity. I base my views on what actually will work for the given conditions within the provided set of rules. I feel, yes “feel” the Constitution can be and has been appropriately amended regarding taxation and you do not. The appropriate authoritative bodies already have agreed with me and not you. Which is why the current tax system still exists. I “feel” the Fair Tax is better plus Constitutional and have supported those feelings with facts you’ve chosen to claim do not exists. While you “feel” otherwise and have stated your reasons for your position. To me your view is not rooted in current real world economics, but your view of what “the founders said”. While their positions on the matter were based on the real world economics of 200+ years ago.

You are repeating yourself and I would only end up repeating myself, because there is nothing more to be added to this discussion. So johnwk, farewell. I’m cutting you off at this point because I will not spend any more time on what has become a circular debate.

“Not only have me and Brian already mentioned why we feel your proposed plan would not work, plenty of others have told you as well. Maybe you missed it . . . No I’m not a member of that part or any other. However just as you feel the Fair Tax does not reflect the founders’ intent, plenty of others feel just the opposite.”

Your continued references to Brian are funny to say the least. Just for your information he appears to stalk me around the internet and left an adolescent comment on my web page which had nothing to do with discussing the issue of tax reform. In addition, he also asserted he was interested in discussing tax reform in a “frank and productive” manner. I invited him to such a discussion at The Sierra Times, A message to fair tax rally participants!

He did show up on page four of the discussion under the screen name aurburn305, and one of his pals, boortzland, also joined the discussion a couple of days ahead of Brian. To date, both have been quick to offer a wide variety of opinions, but neither have refuted any of my well documented presentations.

You seem to have the same thing in common with brian and boortzland, a lot of assertions, opinions, and “feelings”.

Well, feelings are irrelevant in a discussion about the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. What is relevant is providing documentation confirming the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. You see, one of the most fundamental rules of our constitutional system is to abide by the intentions and beliefs of those who framed and ratified our constitution as they may be documented from the historical record. Those in America who ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and pretend the Constitution may mean whatever the “feel” it should mean, are domestic enemies of our system of government because they ignore one of its most fundamental rules___ carrying out the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was ratified as they may be documented from the historical record.

I have provided irrefutable documentation in Republican tax reform attacks federalism,free market, and promotes democracy! that H.R. 25 violates the agreed upon rule by which the various states, under the Constitution, agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury. Our founding fathers agreed to change the rule from a tax based upon wealth, to a general tax among the states which tied representation and taxation together. Each state agreed to pay a general tax based upon its voting strength which would insure that those states paying the lions share of the tax burden to fund the Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government, would likewise have a proportional voice in how their money would be spent.

H.R. 25 ignores this important rule. H.R. 25, just as income taxation [ a Marxist type of tax], seeks to intentionally calculate the amount of tax to be paid from wealth, property and financial success ___ a political philosophy advocating from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states as the founding fathers intended and the various states agreed by their ratification of our Constitution.

Why do you promote a plan which would, just as income taxation now does, undermine and subjugate our founding fathers rule for a general tax among the states?

Seems to me if you are a sincere supporter of our Constitution, you would, at the very least, demand a provision to be attached to H.R. 25 requiring the rule of apportionment to be observed when laying the tax among the states. And, without such a rule being applied to the tax, you could not support H.R. 25 as it violates this important rule.

Regards,

JWK

“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” _____Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

You claim that your concept is the “founders tax system” and you may be a member of the Constitution Party, that agrees with you. However, the America First Party promotes the “founder’s tax system”, agrees with your idea about tariffs, but they also support the Fair Tax, which they say reflects the founders’ intent. See their position here.

No I’m not a member of that part or any other. However just as you feel the Fair Tax does not reflect the founders’ intent, plenty of others feel just the opposite.

You’ve cited some case law regarding the 16th Amendment, but you failed to cite the final outcome, which is that in the end the current tax system has been ruled to be legal and Constitutional.

The framer’s view on taxation was formulated in a totally different world from what exists today. Now, the Fair Tax would work best for the nation that is the world’s business leader. It would encourage more companies to be here instead of in other nations. This is good for America’s economy. The Constitution Party’s view and probably your own is that taxing businesses is appropriate, but that discourages growth in a time where companies can easily establish themselves in other nations. Your idea was once a good one, but unfortunately today’s realities prevent it from being the best plan now.

I think the Constitution Party promotes some good Conservative values, but I disagree with you on taxation.

You suggest the founder’s plan in not workable in today’s world, but, do not provide any specific provisions of the founder’s plan and a rational as to why those provision(s) would not work in today’s world.

You pretend the family consumption allowance is a “rebate“, but for those who do not work for a living, such as stay at home welfare moms and thugs who steal other people’s money, it is not a “rebate” because they do not contribute into the common treasury__ that is, they do not contribute unless you consider spending money stolen from someone else, or paying a tax from a welfare check is contributing into the common treasury from which a “rebate” is then returned.

The $400 plus per month family consumption allowance entitlement check would in fact make an overwhelming portion of our population quite dependent upon government for their subsistence because the average wage earner earns about $37,000 per year.

As to current taxation being constitutional or not, there is no provision in our Constitution allowing “direct taxes” to be laid without apportionment. Taxes on property are direct taxes and must be apportioned among the states by the rule of apportionment. Excise taxes, such as the Corporate excise tax of 1909, laid upon the privilege of being a corporation and calculated from profits, gains, and other “income” are indirect taxes and do not require apportionment as was upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

But the 16th Amendment most certainly did not nullify the apportionment clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the states! For example, see:
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
in which the Court states, well after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and in crystal clear language: “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

Likewise, the Court stated the same in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920) Here, the Court discusses the 16th Amendment and also defines the definition of the word income as it appears in the 16th Amendment and goes on to emphasize something else concerning the 16th Amendment:

“A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

The tax described in H.R. 25 is not within the definition of an excise tax as the founding fathers understood and applied such a tax. The tax described in H.R. 25 is a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury laid upon property and requires an apportionment….it is the very kind of general tax discussed during the Convention during which time the rule of apportionment was agreed to and then again agreed to by the ratification of the Constitution.

You seem to be overjoyed that “everyone is talking about” H.R. 25 including ordinary working people, as if that is confirmation it will benefit America’s domestic businesses industries and labor. But everyone was also talking about the 16th Amendment prior to its adoption, including the friends of big government and socialists who lied to small business owners and working people as to what the 16th Amendment would accomplish. Apparently the same group of people have not learned from their historical mistakes.

As to who supports the founding father’ plan and the apportioned tax among the states? I suggest you read Constitution Party National Platform

Regards,

JWK

“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen 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).

Your plan is not workable in the modern world. The Fair Tax with the rebate is. The rebate is not an amount that would give someone enough to live off without working. So I think your comparisons to welfare and social security are a bit off base.

You claim the current income tax “violates our Constitution”. See the 16 Amendment. It is IN OUR CONSTITUTION, so it does not violate it. And the Fair Tax would not violate it either. This is why the ability to amend the constitution exists. So that things like systems of taxation could be modified as needed.

If your plan is so great and workable in the modern world, how come you can’t seem to find anyone with an ounce of respectability to endorse it today? Where is your endorsement from Cato? Where are the rallies to promote your plan? Where are the lines of people to support you? Where are the tax scholars backing you? While everyone is talking about the Fair Tax, even we ordinary citizens are ignoring your idea. johnwk, everyone and I mean everyone is ignoring you. Because we all know your plan is no good.

You really are trolling boards promoting your plan and being rejected at every turn. Because no other doors are open to you, other than Internet boards anyone can register to comment on.

That should tell you something.

Now I’m accused of “fear mongering speculation” because I point to the $600 BILLION entitlement which H.R. 25 would create [its family consumption allowance] ___ an entitlement which would create a voting constituency more powerful than our nation’s retirees who are now on social security and dependant upon a monthly government check for their subsistence. And you pretend our socialists in Congress will not use your family consumption allowance to keep themselves in power? You assert such a logical conclusion is speculation?

Seems to me our socialist pal, Senator Kennedy, was just giving the speech I offered above last week when attempting to have the socialist minimum wage increased. No speculation here pal.

Tell me, were we not warned in the Federalist papers that a control over a man’s subsistence amounts to a control over their will? And you want to extend federal subsistence to every household in America via your family consumption allowance?

It’s amazing how you have enter the conversation above by first attacking me as a “tax troll”, using valuable bandwidth to assault my character, and went on to make irrelevant comments about my web page, rather than offering well thought out rebuttals to my objections to H.R. 25.

In addition, contrary to your above suggestion, I do not propose a “plan”, but rather, I support a return to our founding father’s original tax reform plan which is defended by historical facts. For example, the Founder’s Plan worked so well that by the close of the year 1835, the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

As I previously pointed out, H.R. 25 would subjugate one of the most important compromises agreed upon during the Convention of 1787 ___ the rule of apportionment. Just like present “income taxation” subjugates that rule, H.R. 25 would likewise subjugate the agreed upon rule which was intended to guarantee that each of the various states, when called upon to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury, would contribute in proportion to their voting strength in Congress Assembled___ a rule which socialists and the friends of big government fear with a passion because the rule guarantees that the states contributing the largest share into the federal treasury, would likewise have the largest say-so in how their money would be spent!

Those interested in pursuing the words of our founding fathers during the Convention with regard to the rule by which the states agreed to contribute in a general tax to fill the national treasury may want to read Republican tax reform attacks federalism,free market, and promotes democracy!, or, they may go directly to Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787 and click on the dates mentioned in the above cited article.

The bottom line is, the above historical record documents how the rule by which the various states agreed to contribute into the common treasury under the Articles of Confederation was changed from a tax based upon wealth, to a tax which tied representation and taxation together, and, the documentation exposes H.R. 25 for what it really is___ a clever variation of taxation calculated from wealth, property and financial success as practiced under the Articles of Confederation___ a political philosophy advocating, from each state according to its ability, rather than an equal per capita tax apportioned among the states.

Regards,

JWK
ACRS

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?” —Justice Story

You bet the record is clear . . .H.R. 25 would violate our existing Constitution, just like the socialist income tax now violates our Constitution!

OK, John, when you are trying to argue your point it is best to not look like a crazy person. The income tax, however despicable it may be, has been upheld as constitutional time and time again. If it is unconstitutional then why does it still exist? Certainly you as a tax payer (I assume you are at least honest) would have legal standing to challenge it in court. For further, and much more articulate, legal rebuttals to your wacky claims one could follow this thread on Quatloos.

Why will the JWK tax plan not fly? For starters it is predicated on the notion that we forget the past 200+ years of history and change in our society. Whether you like it or not, we are part of the global economy and have entered into LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL treaties to establish increasingly open trade policies. Your plan would unravel all of that and make the U.S. a trading pariah. Other countries would create retaliatory taxes against our exports, which hurts American manufacturers. The entire rest of the world would flourish under open trade policies while the U.S. would be left behind. Great plan!

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to call the JWK tax plan the “Founding Fathers” tax plan. You have very carefully based your notion of their intended tax plan on a small percentage of the Founders. If that were really their intended plan then why didn’t they codify it somehow? I’ll answer that for you: BECAUSE IT WASN’T THEIR PLAN! You have every right to peddle your own woefully unsupported tax plan, but at least call it the JWK plan or the “Left Behind Tax Reform Plan” because that is where America will be if you had your way: left behind.

All your talk about Kennedy and the ACLU is nothing put fear mongering speculation. If we who support the Fair Tax are successful, then we’ll certainly have enough political leverage to hold off abuse of the rebate.

Have a look at the Cato Institute’s analysis of the Fair Tax. Their analysis is something you need to read. In summary, after they give pages of detail, they say this of the rebate.

We believe that such a rebate mechanism is sensible on both political and equity grounds.