This is a debatable theory, altough popular with people who sympathize with the principle itself. Anyway it is hotly debated.
In short, the state is nothing but a gigantic institutionalized fuedal landlord.
Well but why is this so shocking? Everyone who’s in favor of State authority argues the “If you don’t like it, you can leave” line, which clearly suggests that you live in the State’s country, and you must therefore abide by the terms and conditions. If this is a surprise to people, it can only be because they’ve never thought about it before.
There are severe restrictions on all forms of direct taxation in the Constitution. Why do you think Congress had to pass an entire amendment to effectively tax income?
Before the 16th Amendment collecting income taxes was nearly impossible.
Exactly.
The Supreme Court exists for a reason.
This isn’t debatable theory. The Constitution was created as a list of enumerated powers. The Virginia Convention further clarified the issue when it stated that everything in the Constitution is explicit - there’s nothing implicit or “living” about it.
Well it’s actually kind of funny, given how many people think the US/West is anti-communist.
-Jon
There was no restriction on income tax on wages. Only income tax on interest, capital gains and the like had to be apportioned, but you are right.
Well, there was nothing in the Constitution that said those were the only powers. Anyway ever heard of implied powers? The necessary and proper clause?
It was deliberately made vague for later continuous expansion.
Necessary and proper only refers to the ability of Congress to carry out its enumerated powers.
Yes, like to provide for the General Welfare.
That’s not an enumerated power. Preambles carry no legal weight.
Hehe, preamble? That is how Article 1 Section 8 begins.
It’s still not an enumerated power. It’s explaining the reason for the ability to levy taxes and duties.
And no: general welfare does not mean social security and other communist wealth transfer schemes.
Well, how do you know that? It nowhere said that it is not. The taxing power is plenary so there are Social Security and Medicare taxes. Why not spend it then? For the General Welfare.
I know it because that’s what the text is. It’s called “dissecting and diagramming a sentence”.
Okay, to provide for means to secure, to guarantee, sometimes used as to pay for. I have reading comprehension skills too.
And yet that’s merely a reason, not an enumerated power.
It seems like a power enumerated to me, as in
“The Congress shall have Power To provide for the general Welfare of the United States”.
It’s not an enumerated power.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
May I ask what part of “shall have power.. to.. provide for” do you not understand? Or where do I get it wrong?
May I ask what part of “subordinate clause” you do not understand?
Seems like you try to interpret something into the Constitution that explicitly is just not there.