So “cruel and unusual punishments” only applies to thumbscrews, and a sixteen word clause that uses “excessive” twice is silent on porportionality? I think if you ask Epstein for a sandwich and step on it you’re going to get a flat sandwich.
So Congress is given a hatful of powers in Article 1, but they can only use the taxes collected under those powers for “general welfare?” This “general welfare” does not include things like helping people wiped out by a disaster. Under Epstein’s interpretation, Congress couldn’t pay for post offices and post roads (a power granted in Article 1, Section 8) because that’s not part of the list in the first clause.
Here’s the real problem – the Constitution really doesn’t say a lot about what kind of government we shall have. It’s a rulebook for deciding who gets to make those decisions and how. Now that there are 300 million Americans jetting across the continent, those decisions are liable to be fundamentally different then those made when 2 million of us were riding on horseback along the eastern seaboard.
If you really want to twist into a pretzel like Justice Roberts. As the law is constitutional solely because the ‘fine’ is construed as a ‘tax’…then the ‘tax’ only applies if you’re breaking the law…which doesn’t make a lick of sense.
I contend that any federal tax not in support (directly or indirectly) of an enumerated power is a violation of the constitution. Declaring that the federal power to tax is without limit enables an end run around the limits of the constitution.
The general welfare clause, along with most of the Constitution, was broken in the first place as it isn’t talking about individuals, it’s talking about states. Even before judicial meddling, so long as a federal tax was shown to benefit all the states, generally, it was considered constitutional. It didn’t matter if it was a confiscatory tax which was extracted from only some individuals (say, land owners) and given to others, so long as it was given to the states “equally”. This, essentially, meant federal taxes became a means by which the states could collude to nullify the ability of individuals to move to a state with lower taxes. The result was predictable: less state taxes, more federal taxes and the resultant concentration of power.
So “cruel and unusual punishments” only applies to thumbscrews, and a sixteen word clause that uses “excessive” twice is silent on porportionality? I think if you ask Epstein for a sandwich and step on it you’re going to get a flat sandwich.
So Congress is given a hatful of powers in Article 1, but they can only use the taxes collected under those powers for “general welfare?” This “general welfare” does not include things like helping people wiped out by a disaster. Under Epstein’s interpretation, Congress couldn’t pay for post offices and post roads (a power granted in Article 1, Section 8) because that’s not part of the list in the first clause.
Here’s the real problem – the Constitution really doesn’t say a lot about what kind of government we shall have. It’s a rulebook for deciding who gets to make those decisions and how. Now that there are 300 million Americans jetting across the continent, those decisions are liable to be fundamentally different then those made when 2 million of us were riding on horseback along the eastern seaboard.
If you really want to twist into a pretzel like Justice Roberts. As the law is constitutional solely because the ‘fine’ is construed as a ‘tax’…then the ‘tax’ only applies if you’re breaking the law…which doesn’t make a lick of sense.
I contend that any federal tax not in support (directly or indirectly) of an enumerated power is a violation of the constitution. Declaring that the federal power to tax is without limit enables an end run around the limits of the constitution.
The general welfare clause, along with most of the Constitution, was broken in the first place as it isn’t talking about individuals, it’s talking about states. Even before judicial meddling, so long as a federal tax was shown to benefit all the states, generally, it was considered constitutional. It didn’t matter if it was a confiscatory tax which was extracted from only some individuals (say, land owners) and given to others, so long as it was given to the states “equally”. This, essentially, meant federal taxes became a means by which the states could collude to nullify the ability of individuals to move to a state with lower taxes. The result was predictable: less state taxes, more federal taxes and the resultant concentration of power.
But not to worry, liberty-fetishizing doomsayers!
http://www.thelookingspoon.com/com-jfbconnect-menu-overview/tls-originals-satire/5053-if-you-re-afraid-that-america-is-too-big-to-fail-then-these-are-the-guys-for-you.html
As Instapundit has been saying since Obama took office: “This country is in the best of hands.”
Nailed it again Trent. This should be the focus of fixing the problem but it will not be of course.