AND ALL WE GOT was this lousy tax.
WHAT?! Are you talking about.
Article I, Section 9: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”
What that means, for those of you in Rio Linda, is that, if you ship a computer from Texas top Ohio, no tax. A book from Seattle to Kentucky — no tax. A ladies’ razor from Paramus to Brooklyn: NO! TAX!
There’s nothing in there about a “locus” or a “presence” in the destination state. The authority to tax follows the GOODS.
Now, most copies of the Constitution label this as a restriction on Congress. But, in the actual text of the document, there is no such note. Oh, in the earlier parts of section 1, there is discussion of the form and structure of Congress. And the entire Article is about Congress. But — and this is important, the actual language of the law is ABSOLUTE. It doesn’t say “Congress shall lay no tax or duty….” It says, “NO tax or duty SHALL BE LAID…” Which means by ANY authority whatsoever. NOBODY is allowed to tax interstate commerce. Period. End of discussion.
But, Alger (she said, playing the good little shill), then all people would have to do to avoid a sales tax would be to carry their goods across a state line. Poof! No more sales tax!
And, by you, this is a problem?
‘Ll… How would states pay for stuff?
Oh, I don’t know… Hold a bake sale?
But… what about roads? And police and fire?
Where is it written that these things must be paid for via general taxes? Hmmm?
Um… (Realizing that she’s in a spot.) We’ve always done it that way?
And, also, you of course realize that we are not attacking funding for police and firemen, roads and sewers — yet.
OK. That sounded really lame, even while I was saying it.
True. And hardly accurate. In fact, for the majority of the history of the country — if you count from the first settlements in the present territory of the U.S. — it’s been done any way but. The rearing of the ugly head of statism is a relatively recent invention. And, contra the chattering and ruling classes, I don’t see it as progress.
Take your example and edit it a bit. “In order for a person to retain his liberty, all he would have to do is cross a state line.”
What? You mean to say that taxes are NOT an affront to liberty? They steal from a person his very substance. How much more despicable does an act of government have to become in order to become an affront to liberty? Hmmm?
But all of that is beside the point. The Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, the rules on the inside of the lid of the game box forbid the activity, in clear, no-nonsense terms. And, yet, the governments — several and sundry — of the nation insist it is their right and due — meet and just — that they be enabled to lay these impositions.
And they therefore must have amended the Constitution. After all, a government cannot break the law. It’s un-possible. Like crossing the streams — right?
Well, no. Crossing the streams is not not possible. In fact, less than five minutes after that limit was mentioned, they — get this — crossed the streams.
Oh! So the government IS able to violate the Constitution. So we can go tell Nancy Pelosi that, yes, “Is Obamacare constitutional?” is a serious question, and, no, the Roberts decision is hardly dispositive. In fact, while claiming to be protecting the viability of the Court, the Chief Justice may have actually undermined it.
But that’s hardly surprising, now, is it?