That’s my question for the Democrats, the Republicans, the Independents, the Libertarians, and all others in politics today. Which is truly your objective regarding the Constitution, protecting and defending or shredding and rescinding? I am not interested in the rhetoric of politicians because too frequently their words and deeds do not properly or logically align. Therefore, I ask every politician to respect the American people and tell us the truth, if that is possible considering your Political DNA.
There are a million things we could address to illustrate why that question needs to be asked, but let’s address one item and if time and space permit others. Nancy Pelosi has argued that “Impeaching Trump” was worth losing the House of Representatives over. I do not believe she believes that will happen to them but wanted to sound like a defender of the Republic.
In my view, she was attempting to appear to the voters as one being deeply concerned about the Constitution and Rule of Law. However, she and the Democrats have trampled on those principles and that document so extensively her assertions are laughable. Her assertions are so ludicrous (how much they care) that no rational human being should take her seriously. She and they are hoping to sway enough voters to their side of the electoral ledger to win in 2020 not out of genuine concern for the Constitution, America, or the Rule of Law. It is still about Power and Reversing an Election they did not like of a candidate they detest.
But Impeachment is not the topic I wish to use to address and attempt to articulate my concerns over. I want to address the attitude of politicians of all stripes regarding our Republic and our Constitution. Each of them took an oath to ‘Protect and Defend’ that document. Yet, some of those taking that oath is openly in opposition to it and want it ignored, shredded, or rescinded. I state that based on their own words and the agendas they are advancing. If you respect and honor the American Constitution, why pursue agendas that are in direct contradiction of it?
Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both hinging their campaigns, in a great measure, on what is called a “Wealth Tax.” They are both wealthy and know that they will escape the crunch of any taxes they impose but that is not my issue. They are seeking to engender sympathy for their cause by preying on and playing on the jealousy, envy, greed, and anger of those not wealthy. They are hoping to endear themselves to those who do not have a mountain of cash and fan the flames of the thirst for punishing the rich and making them pay.
I have long wondered if a “Federal Wealth Tax” is constitutional. Since, I believe that many of the taxes imposed including the ‘income tax’ is not, I’m sure that you know where I stand on that issue. Let me walkthrough, as best I can or as briefly as I can, their proposals and try to bring Constitutional Light on the matter allowing you to make your own decision.
Senator Warren the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has advanced a proposal and plan to impose a 2% tax on individuals worth more than $50 Million, and 3% on Billionaires. Before you argue that is not much, let’s dig a little deeper. Is it Constitutional? It doesn’t matter if it is a low percentage, above and beyond what they already pay in taxes, if it is not Constitutional then it is not Constitutional! End of Story! Two prominent law scholars wrote letters stating that their legal view is that it violates the Constitution to seek to create what is being called the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.”
Senator Bernie Sanders the ‘Independent’ from Vermont has tried to coerce economists to back his plan that advanced a 1% tax on married couples worth $32 Million. His tax plan included a progression to 8% on wealth over $10 Billion. Again, you may say, “But that is not a large percentage on such wealth.” But, is it Constitutional?
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to impose direct taxes under the rule of apportionment. That was to ensure impartial federal treatment of states by requiring the government to levy taxes in a manner that affords an equal amount collected in each state. Does this do that? That authority to tax originated in the ‘compromise’ between the slave-holding states and the non-slave holding states. This was designed to prevent the North from imposing a ‘head tax’ on slaves because that could not be apportioned equally across all states.
The 16th Amendment opens the door to what is viewed as a bypass of the apportionment requirement. That means that Congress, under that view, would no longer have to ensure equal treatment if the direct tax is an “Income Tax.” Nice way to rescind the Constitution and violate the Intent of our predecessors, but that’s where we are.
But is a ‘Wealth Tax’ an ‘Income Tax’? That’s where the rub comes for many legal scholars. It would appear that in most cases it would be a ‘direct tax’ not an ‘income tax’ and require apportionment, making it Unconstitutional. It has been suggested that Congress will attempt to side-step the Constitution and the apportionment required by writing the law in such a manner as to make this an income tax. How? They will add a provision in the current tax code to “tax assumed fixed annual return from the measurement of household wealth.” Assumed? More legal mumbo jumbo to confuse and allow them to shred the Constitution.
If this transpired before the Democrats could pack the Supreme Court, it would likely be a 5-4 vote with Chief Justice John Roberts being the deciding vote. Do you trust him? I do not!
If we recall the Obamacare debacle and how the Supreme Court lead by Roberts imposed a ‘tax’ on citizens without following the apportionment, you see the danger. They relied heavily on the 1796 (Hylton v. United States) decision that ultimately found a tax on carriages was not a direct tax and therefore did not violate the Constitution. Under that hypothetical tax, the tax rate in the State of Virginia would have to be 10 times higher than that in the State of New York because New York had 10 times more carriages per capita than Virginia. They took the stance that any tax that is not reasonably apportioned is not a direct tax. How’s that for virtually rewriting the Constitution to whatever you want it to be?
A law professor from the University of Texas, Calvin Johnson argues in favor of the “Ultra-Wealth Tax” of Sanders and Warren. He has stated, “Apportionment is part of a rational scheme to apportion taxes to reach wealth, and if the apportionment does not function that way, its range ends and the tax is not ‘direct tax’.”
Wow, I guess that means, go ahead Congress and Supreme Court shred and rescind the Constitution because what you are attempting to do cannot be enacted in equal apportionment. That opens the door for the imposition of any tax they desire and allows them to confiscate our money and after that who knows what. I not only oppose the Plan because it is wrong, unconstitutional, violates the intent of our Founders and predecessors, but it will damage our economy and cause more money to leave our shores rather than fill the federal coffers. Please reject the Leftists in November 2020.
May God bless you and God bless America!