ACTION

federalism (3)

Where is Federalism in Online Sales Tax Debate?

Posted by Jack Inglewood on August 24, 2012 at 1:58pm

Most congressional observers believe Congress will address the issue of empowering states to collect sales tax on the purchases of goods bought on the Internet.  The issue is not typical of other tax issues as it finds conservatives like Steve King (R-Iowa), Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and others supporting the states ability to collect their sales taxes for online purchases.  A strong argument can be made that they have embraced the conservative position.

 

Make no mistake about it; there is deep division about this issue.  Mom-and-pop small businesses hate the disparity that was created when the Supreme Court ruled that businesses needed a "nexus" within a state for sales taxes to be collected.  That ruling allowed companies like Amazon to avoid sales taxes while small business are forced to collect them.  They argue that the decision, especially in a poor economy, creates economic incentives that hurt their bottom line.  Why should consumers shop in more expensive local stores when shopping online creates built-in no sales tax savings?

Others argue that allowing states to collect sales taxes for Internet purchases is tantamount to a tax increase.  As opponents have noted, America's budget problems are not revenue problems but spending problems.  Government's bring in enough revenue but can't get their spending in control. 

There is tacit acknowledgement of this argument as many supporters of the "Marketplace Equity Act" are governors who are struggling to balance their state budgets.  Billions of dollars in sales are made every year online that have escaped the reaches of the state tax collectors. 

But there is a bigger issue at stake -- federalism.

Allowing online merchants to charge, collect and remit sales taxes based on their physical location would level the playing field with Main Street small businesses and, perhaps most importantly, restore federalism to the issue.  The government should treat merchants equally.  It should not be making it harder for small businesses to compete.  In addition, the federal government should not bar states from enforcing their laws as long as they don't interfere with interstate commerce.

In some ways this is a complicated issue.  But in others it's clear that fairness and federalism should play a role in the final deliberations.   

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Obama's Power-Grabbing Repeately Violates 10th Amendment

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 24, 2010 at 2:24am



Patriotism: a High-Demand Commitment

Part II: Guaranteeing Our Freedoms

Audacity of Presidential Power-Grabbing

Abhorent to Nation’s Founders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/01/meaning-of-federalism/

http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

In the first installment of this series on constitutional-conservativism
(http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/19/obama,_mainstream_media_label_tea_party_insurgents.thtml) we looked at freedom, per se. Rajjpuut continues with a close look at personal and state freedoms as discussed in the all-important 10th Amendment, sometimes known as the “Federalism Amendment.”

Barack Obama is the national nightmare that some supporters of the Articles of Confederation and other anti-constitutionalists back at the nation’s founding strenuously condemned. Seemingly ignoring all seventeen of the allotted powers (enforcing our borders; standing up to our nation’s traditional enemies; obeying the uniform laws of bankrupties; and keeping treaties with our friends are all powers which Barack Obama has not chosen to exercise according to the folks in Arizona; South Korea; certified creditors of GM in Indiana; and allies in Poland to name just a few instances), Obama has made himself a picnic in abusing the constitution by advancing powers NOT granted by the Constitution. Many thought that Franklin Delano Roosevelt grossly overstepped the bounds of federalism with the 40 new agencies his administrations created. Barack Obama created almost 390 new agencies just in one law: Obamacare.

The powers of the federal government are listed in Article I, Section 8. They are available for anyone to read and simple to understand. More importantly, these powers

A. follow a simple, predictable pattern and

B. Much discussion was also made of which powers the federal government definitely did not have and should not have.

In its obvious general outline of powers for the federal government which amount to the 17 specific powers allowed, the Constitution provides for a government which protects the nation’s borders and defends against foreign invasion by maintaining an efficient army and navy; deals with custom and tariff matters; conducts foreign relations including war and treaties; settles disputes among the states and facilitates trade and intercourse among the American people and states and with the peoples and states within sovereign foreign nations.

Before looking at the powers the founding fathers refused to grant to the federal government, it’s crucial to understand that in a federal system such as ours the efforts over the entire two hundred plus years of the nation’s existence to turn the states into “departments or extensions” within the federal government . . . that is, into mere “administrative units” of the national govermnet is the greatest single threat to our nation’s survival as the founders foresaw and planned for it. Recent “States Rights” discussions (that is, up until the contemporary furor in Arizona over that state’s immigration laws and the 21 State “rebellion” against Obamacare directiives for the states that would literally bankrupt every state both calling for a new appreciation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) arguments were as insipid as the notion that people wishing upon stars might somehow influence the cosmos to somehow influence our fates. Lyndon Johnson’s expansion of the “Welfare State” is the prime example of this insidious trend both in Welfare itself and in Medicaid especially . . . the states were turned into administrative arms of the federal government’s policies. Nixon’s policies of “federalistically” turning over large grants of federal monies to the states has undoubted great practical value, but only confuses the issue . . . why is that money in the federal hands in the first place?

Federalism, and specifically the 10th Amendment, is the single greatest system ever devised for the protection of individual and state liberties and for providing counter-balance to over-reaching by the federal entities. Powerful centralized government is the threat to our listed freedoms and to freedom of action. That is, because we don’t have LISTED LIBERTIES for the individual or the states . . . but they are free to do whatever is not listed as criminal . . . we have true liberty. Confusion about the limits of federal government must be cleared up and must be always aligned with the intents of the founding fathers if this blessed state of liberty is to prevail. All powers NOT listed in the Constitution are specifically reserved for the states and individual citizens.

And just how far has the nation strayed from this wise path? Virtually no one today understands the breadth of discussion, consideration and debate that ensued once it was popularly agreed that the Articles of Confederation were too weak. During the argument going on over possible adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution’s advocates also enumerated powers the federal government absolutely would not have. The Bill of Rights was, one answer to critics. The most Republican document in the world still stands us in good stead 223 years after its creation. But the biggest protection, the thing that satisfied virtually all the Constitution’s detractors was the addition to the Bill of Rights of the last of the original Amendments: the 10th Amendment. The federal government would NOT be granted the potential for unlimited power but severely limited in power and abuse potential and all powers NOT specifically enumerated for the federal government would be reserved to the individual states and to individual citizens.

In addition, moreover, the Constitution’s proponents publicly told the people some of the important subjects which fell within the states’ exclusive jurisdiction - and outside the federal government’s control in a variety of speeches, newspaper articles, letters, and pamphlets. Chief among these proponents were, of course Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Other names of note include:

James Wilson (convention delegate and chief proponent in Pennsylvania), Edmund Pendleton (chancellor of Virginia and chairman of his state’s ratifying convention), James Iredell (North Carolina judge, pro-Constitution floor leader at his state’s ratifying convention and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Maryland Congressman Alexander Contee Hanson, Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant (a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), Alexander White (Virginia lawyer, ratifier, and later U.S. Senator), prominent businessman Tench Coxel and John Marshall (ratifier and later U.S. Chief Justice).

Here are some of the powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere:

  • governance of religion
  • training the militia and appointing militia officers
  • control over local government
  • most crimes
  • state justice systems
  • family affairs
  • real property titles and conveyances
  • wills and inheritance
  • the promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights
  • control of personal property outside of commerce
  • governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states
  • education
  • services for the poor and unfortunate
  • licensing of taverns
  • roads other than post roads
  • ferries and bridges
  • regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.

The vast majority of these areas have been encroached upon by the federal government already. For example, the national endowment for the arts and other such organization is not a federal matter; involvement in the welfare state is forbidden; as is educational involvement; interstate highways; income taxes; inheritance taxes; family affairs; the national guard as we know it; control of personal property; and a hundred other areas where the federal government has crossed the line drawn by the 10th Amendment.

Right now our National Debt is approaching $14 TRillion; more shockingly our national obligation for Government Spending Boondoggles and Government Interference Boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs such as Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid) has reached $109 TRillion . . . all this problem debt was created in areas where the Constitution forbid the federal government to tread. The lifeblood of the nation has been poisoned by this wanton and total ignorance and denial of the 10th Amendment. Most Americans not only don’t understand the provisions of the 10th Amendment, but because of the welfare state and the gross entitlement sentiment many citizens would also feel threatened by the loss of federal government involvement. The problems are exacerbated when its realized that these programs were all created as set asides and that congress never obeyed its own laws and set the money aside for these programs. Here, then lies the root cause of our present fiscal unaccountability and the potential for danger from the Obama administration’s headlong power grab . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Supreme Court Likely to Reject Obamacare, But Far Better Way Exists

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on March 30, 2010 at 9:19am

Ol’ Rajjpuut says it’s not a question of “IF,” but rather “WHEN” the U.S. Supreme Court calls Obamacare unconstitutional and sends it back to congress for a do-over. Right now ten states, led by Virginia which is suing on two separate fronts, have filed suit against the federal government for Obamacare miscues. At the same time a total of at least 38 states other than Virginia are seeking to pass recommended model state legislation so that they can have their ducks in order to challenge the federal government against Obamacare.

One weakness, Rajjpuut sees, is that some of the states are talking about Commerce Act challenges rather than direct Constitutional challenges or challenging on both issues. This is a major mistake. The court has always been reluctant to screw around with the Constitution but might very well jump at a chance to modify the Commerce Act. Since bankruptcy of all 50 states is at stake, Rajjpuut suggests every bullet be fired and instantaneous reloading take place.

As it stands the provisions of Obamacare that force individual states to take over a much augmented Medicaid and a very much augmented state role in paying for Medicaid are almost certain to bankrupt all 50 of the states with the possible exception of Texas (which has special doctor-friendly and insurance-friendly laws in place) by 2020 or 2022 at the latest. This much you already know if you’re a loyal reader of Rajjpuut’s Folly here or at TownHall.com . . . Listening to Fox News the other night was quite enlightening . . . .

The United States is not some single monlithic entity called “America” but rather a federal system of government with the national government holding some important dominion over 50 semi-autonomous states. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is sort of like a protective armor designed to negate much of the potentially most objectionable power grabs that the national government (acting upon the states and upon the individual citizens) might attempt. Perhaps the least appreciated and little understood of all the Bill of Rights’ ten amendments is the 10th and last amendment which limits the power of the national government just to assume powers willy-nilly a la Obama and his czars and Obamacare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Amendment

The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The main reason the states will have a powerful case arguing against the provisions of Obamacare that will bankrupt them is that like so much of what Barak Obama has done his so-called “reforms” under Obamacare are merely commandeering the state legislature’s role in every one of the 50 states for federal purposes which always in the past the Supreme Court has labeled “unconstitutional.” In a nutshell the key question is this: “Should the U.S. Government be allowed to pass laws and programs and force the states to pay for them?” If you wanted a stronger form of the question, “Can the federal government be allowed to pass laws, then force the states to pay for them and bankrupt the states?”

This question about the U.S. Congress regulating state governments has been asked many times and always the answer has been a resounding, “NO!” In Obamacare, as the law now exists, Congress has told the states to modify their health care regulation; they must surrender some areas of health care regulations; and they must spend state taxpayer money in the exact manner that the U.S. Congress is telling them to spend it. The U.S. Congress is removing all self-determination and discretion from the state governments in the health care arena.

According to Fox News senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Judge and author of the book “Lies the Government Told You,” Andrew P. Napolitano, the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the health care industry and healthcare insurance makes the new sweeping federal legislation “all the more problematic” continuing to say, “Barak Obama is one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations. I believe we are run by a one-party system in this country called the ‘big-government party.' " The judge went on to delineate a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branceh that likes welfare and taxes and deficits and assaulting commercial liberties. " President Obama stands squarely with the most leftist portion of the Democratic branch.”
Many people today, believe that the differences between today's ordinary American citizens and their government is much larger than the 18th Century differences between Great Britain and the colonists . . . which is another way of saying what the judge has emphasized here. And the reasons for this? In Rajjpuut's view, the communistic leanings of Barak Obama added to the already entrenched view of the Congress that they constitute a privileged special interest group not beholden to the ordinary voter -- this has made the electorate feel that our country's traditions are being struck down in the name of more power for the politicians.

Napolitano is also no lover of FDR, for the same reasons he criticizes Obama. But he would surprise virtually everyone by saying that when it comes to “constitutional fidelity” the least loyal to the provisions of the constitution was Abraham Lincoln. “He waged war on about half the country, without authority for that in the Constitution, a war that killed 700,000 people if civilians are included. Obama is already close to Lincoln and has surpassed FDR in stepping on the Constitution. Ol’ Rajjpuut has known plenty of southerners who blanched at the term the “Civil War” and preferred to call it “The War of Northern Aggression" as they had been taught in their schools” but from a N.J. judge that’s gotta be a surprise . . . .

Back to Obamacare, the judge continues: “the states have had a role in health care delivery for 233 years, a big role since about 1920, and a huge role since Medicaid was passed in 1965, there is no precedent for the federal government to just move in there. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of the law the president just signed.” However, according to Napolitano, the bad news is that many of the laws provisions will not be "challengable" until 2014 when they’d go into effect. In any case, the Judge says it takes the average court case four years to pass through the system to reach the Supreme Court. “You’re talking abut 2018 which is eight years from now.

Rajjpuut, of course sees a cleaner, better world and has a better way, the thing to do is for 38 states (the 3/4 necessary for citizen creation of a new amendment to the Constitution) to pass an amendment repealing Obamacare and all its provision, eliminating all the 159 new federal bureaucracies created by the law, and unhiring all 1,650 new IRS agents required by the law. This is the single most magic action awaiting the TEA Party's commitment. There has never before been an Amendment created for the Constitution, this is the TEA Party's divine purpose if ever there was one!

Other points raised by the Judge include . . . .

The federal government lacks constitutional authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance or fine them for not doing so.

The sweetheart deals still in the Obamacare law are definitely unconstitutional. The Gatorade exception, Louisiana Purchase and others “create a very unique and tricky constitutional problem (they violate the equal protection clauses and equal process clauses) because they treat some citizens differently from others” based upon the state they’re living in “so these benefits or bribes whatever you call them” force people in other states "to pay for the benefits of states that pay less.”

The U.S. Constitution created the federal government and it was “not created to right every wrong, but rather to operate only in the seventeen specific, discrete areas where the Constitution empowered it to act.”

One of the more objectionable parts of the law was that a takeover of the student college loan industry was added into the bill so that students taking out loans could partially fund Obamacare. Included in the law was an exception so that a congressional member’s bank (he partially owns it, Rajjpuut believes) could still stay in the student loan business.

Exempting union members from so-called “Cadillac taxes” on expensive health care insurance policies while imposing a direct tax on other citizens is “outright discrimination” and unconstitutional.

“This health care legislation will prove that the UNlimited government folks are WRONG in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

A group very much in tune with Judge Napolitano is the recently-emerged TEA^^^ Party (acronym: Taxed Enough Already) which buys his arguments 100% and seeks to find fiscal-conservatives to back this November. One strong reason for the great distress of TEA Party members: Obama's budget initiatives carried into the future have been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the National Debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio from an alarmingly high 53% to an incredible 90+%. The last nation to embark willingly on such a plan was Japan in the late 80's and early 90's. Today Japan, once thought of as an economic super power, faces a debt/GDP ratio of 192% and her glory days are far behind her.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^^http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

Voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress according to the latest Rasmussen poll. 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress while only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of those key issues. 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress. 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical. There is a wide divide between the tiny Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed. By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/27/cbo_analysis_by_2020,_obama_budget_will_bankrupt__nation.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/high_time_for_tea_party__major_parties_to_enact.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/41_of_dems_say_republicans_should_challenge_obamacare_law_and_63_of_americans_agree_in_cbs_poll.thtml

Read more…