The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission
Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”
They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question.
But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden!
The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54
And in the state ratification debates we find:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
Our Supreme Court has, over the years, acted in concert with socialists and communists to ensure that States get their apportioned share of Representatives, while intentionally destroying the protection requiring these very states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden. Keep in mind that constitutional rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned has never been repealed, and has been so stated by the court:
In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:
"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax, but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.
And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:
“The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”
The fact is, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.
So, and with regard to the census question, the more important task is to once again tie representation and taxation to each state’s population size, as intended by our founders.
Finally, for those who do support our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and especially support the protection intended to be afforded by apportioning both representatives and direct taxes, is it not time to demand our Constitution be following and Representation with a proportional financial obligation be observed, which would end our socialist/communist states’ lover affair with “free” government cheese?
JWK
”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]
