<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

Blog Summary (in part): Apportionment among the states was chosen by the Framers as the most equatable way to preserve the Republic, collect taxes, and a few other things. Many people today argue that apportionment was the Framers “foul-up in the core of the Constitution”. A better understanding of The Founding Fathers time and the entire Constitution proves otherwise. Below I will attempt to lay out their case, and at the same time show that the 16^th and 17^th Amendments ought to be repealed (a very, very long read, but a must to understand RIGHTS YOU HAVE LOST).

APPORTION: to divide and share out according to a plan; especially to make a proportionate division or distribution of

APPORTIONMENT: an act or result of apportioning; especially the apportioning of representatives or taxes among the states according to United States law – Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Republic:

As noted by Benjamin Franklin, after exiting the Constitutional Convention, America is a “Republic, if you can keep it.” There were debates at great length during the Convention as to how a representative form of government could be fairly accomplished. The smaller states (by population) were worried that they would have no voice in national policies. The larger states were worried that too much voice would be given to the smaller states. The Founders reached a compromise known as the Connecticut Compromise. The legislative branch would be a bicameral system (two houses), whereby each state would elect members to the House of Representatives proportionate to the population in the respective states and the Senate would consist of equal representation among all the states. One must remember at this time in history the House represented the rights of the People, while the Senate represented the rights of the States. Currently, each Representative represents approximately 650,000 people. Apportionment is used to decide how many seats each state is awarded in the House. Therefore, in theory, every individual in America has the same amount of representation in Congress. The House bends to the will of the People.

The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted in 1913, changed the way Senators were elected. Until this time, Senators were “selected” (voted on or appointed) by either the State Legislature or the Governors, dependent upon individual state laws. They were chosen to represent their individual state, as well as the States as a whole. However, with the adoption of the 17^th Amendment, Senators are now elected at-large by the voters in each state, effectually giving more representation to the People and none to the States. The Senate is supposed to bend to the will of the States, but now it bends to the will of the People who elect them.

Every eighth grader learns about checks and balances in Civics class. The bicameral system, with equal representation for the People and equal representation for the States, was one of these precious checks and balances. However, I submit to you, it is most likely unknown to most teachers, much less taught in school. No new law should be passed unless it is both good for the People and the States. But alas, most people no longer care if the federal government puts unnecessary burden and cost on the state and local governments (indirect cost), only how much the federal income tax (direct cost) they will have to pay.

Taxes:

Here is where most debates are focused around. But first a little history. Again, every eighth grade student in Civics class learns the Revolutionary War cry, “No taxation without representation”. Notice the saying didn’t stop at “No taxation”. Americans were not opposed to taxation, rather they were against not having a say in how they were taxed. During the colonial period, the American colonies were not represented in the British parliament. Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies without regard to how it affected the colonists. Parliament also limited who the colonies could import from (only England by 1770) and who they could export to. Clearly the colonies best interests were not at heart as far as parliament was concerned. King George also retaliated with taxes on common goods for opposition against the crown and parliament. In short, taxes became oppressive and led to the Revolution. This kind of oppressive taxation had been going on for at least a quarter of a century.

Directly following the War of Independence, under the Articles of Confederation, the Contential Congress gave the power to tax to the States. Because the people were afraid of oppressive government, the power to tax was expressly kept out of the hands of the new government which was reminiscent of parliament. Of course this led to funding problems at the national level and so a Constitutional Convention was held to give power to tax to the federal government. However, the Founders new the people would be weary of this new federal power, so they purposely limited the ability to directly tax the people, a point that is mostly over looked by people today.

The following clauses are from the Constitution in the original form:

Article I, Sec. 3

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

Article I, Sec. 8:1

The Congress shall have the power

1. 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

Article I, Sec. 9:4-6:

4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

A synopsis of the above Articles: Congress has authority to collect taxes through all known methods. All indirect taxes (imports, exports, sales taxes), federally speaking, must be the same rate in all the states. As such, the states were forbidden to do the same. All direct taxes (poll tax, property tax, income tax {income is property}) must be equal for every person.

Most every Founding Father considered a direct tax on the people as a last resort for national emergencies or in times of war, and then only for the limited duration of said emergency. Pages and pages of documents back up this position. The Sixteenth Amendment renamed the income tax as neither a direct nor indirect tax. The income tax is not equal to everyone (same rate) either directly or indirectly. If it were an indirect tax, each state would have the same tax rate. However, people in states with large populations would be paying less taxes individually than that of states with small populations. If it were a direct tax, every individual would pay the same rate no matter which state they live in. Again, prior to the 16^th Amendment, the Constitution granted Congress the power to collect taxes on incomes, the people just didn’t stand for it except in emergencies.

The House of Representatives, by design, is elected every two years. This means they are the most accountable the people. It is a relatively short time before they can be voted out, if necessary. As such, all spending/revenue bills must originate in the House. Thereby, in theory, spending ought to be limited to legitimate business granted to Congress by the Constitution. In the first one hundred years of our nation, a direct tax was levied only a few times: 1789 to pay off the Revolutionary War debt, 1812 to pay for the War of 1812, and throughout the 1860’s to pay for the Civil War. Imagine no short falls in the budget!

Let us examine how government used to work and how the 16^th and 17^th Amendments, both adopted at the same time, are directly connected. Prior to these Amendments, a budget was proposed and passed based on forecasted revenues from imports and exports. If there were a shortfall at the end of the year, the people were left to pick up the tab through a new tax passed by Congress. According to apportionment, each state was assigned a percentage of the debt relative to the percentage of its Representatives in the House. The state in turn would collect the tax from its population. It was left up to the states individually how and what was to be taxed. Here is where the Senators come in. Some states are naturally poorer than others. Some states have higher costs to its citizens, ie. State and local taxes or certain fees. The Senators were to look out for their own states in these regards. However, once a tax was passed, the Senators responsibility was to go and inform their respective governors how much their state owed the federal government. More checks and balances to keep from having unnecessary spending. If the tax was considered too high, the governors and State Assemblies were very likely to be ousted at the next election. The Senators were probably not going to get reappointed and the federal Representatives were probably trying to stay away from people with ropes.

Now with the passage of the 16^th and 17^th Amendments, there is much less accountability in our system of government. There is a perceived unlimited revenue resource in the income tax. Senators now have a different constituency, that is the people. Imagine today if Senators Durbin and Obama were to go to Governor Blagojevich and say Illinois residents are responsible for roughly 4.25% of the $10 trillion deficit! So if my math is correct, that would be 32000 from every resident in Illinois on top of state and local taxes! Blago would not stand for it and neither would we. History and tradition shows us that the Founding Fathers only wanted to tax the people as a last resort. Again, they purposely set up several hoops that had to be jumped through in order to pass a new tax, when they did pass a tax it was usually a temporary one with a sunset clause. The people would only stand for a tax if it had a necessary purpose.

Other Cases:

Another case for apportionment is how we elect our President, the Electoral College. Each state is assigned a number of electors equal to its apportioned House seats plus its two Senate seats. Again, this goes back to the discussion on protecting the Republic. Essentially, the Electoral College gives small states a voice in who is elected President. This goes back to the Connecticut Compromise. Please see where I have blogged about the National Popular Vote in the past.

The last case that I can think of at this time for apportionment and restoration of the 17^th Amendment is war. Another history lesson first. Because of British use of armed forces to force payment of taxes, the Founders were weary of a standing armies. So they wrote into the Constitution a plan to have no standing army, but well regulated militias controlled by the states. This was a check against the tyranny at the federal level. When Congress saw fit to declare war, the state militias would be organized into a national army and the President became their Commander-in-Chief. During peace time, the governors of the states were the Commanders-in-Chief of their states respective militia. Not until after WWI did America have what is considered a standing army.

The states with larger populations had the larger make-up of the national army (all men 17 to 45, or a paid replacement were obligated to be a militia member). With apportionment, it made it more difficult to convince one state to send other states sons to be killed. Those states with the greater risk had a larger voice. War was the last measure for the Founding generation. There were other conflicts prior to the Civil War that other Constitutional measures were used, but that’s for another discussion.

Senators also played a vital role. Prior to the 17^th Amendment, a Senator had to seek permission from their governor before they could vote in favor of a war. If for some reason a state could not afford to have its men off to war, or a state found another reason for the country should not to be engaged in a war, the governor would ask the Senators to vote against it. Senators were looking out for the interest of the states.

Summary:

Because people have become lethargic in understanding the Constitution, we have lost many rights we once enjoyed. We have almost no semblance of our Republic left, out of control taxes, and little if any protection from tyranny. With the lose of our Republic, so goes the voice of the little people. Anyone who is not a politician (or lining the pockets of a politician) is the little guy. Apportionment and states’ rights were a few of several things in the Constitution that was to protect our Republic. It was purposely written into the Constitution to limit the federal governments ability to spend, and therefore raise taxes. However, apportionment was a fair way if the need were to arise. It both protected the people and the states from unnecessary taxation. Senators roles prior to the 17^th Amendment was to provide an extra layer of protection and accountability against tyrannical government. Now, with a standing army, federalized National Guards, no militias, and the 17^th Amendment it is too easy to go to war, raise taxes, they are helping to pave the way to tyranny.

P.S. This blog stems from a conversation that took place with I Do Not Know Me at the most recent blogger bash, and he was mathematically correct for those who were listening in.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 at 1:30 am and is filed under Constitutional Issues, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.