The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax

By Publius Huldah

A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. ¹

Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 ² and in North Carolina as HB 366. ³ Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.

Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:

It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending

Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That’s a good idea?

Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.  States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?

Section 4 is a joke:  Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.

How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden

Section 5 says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]

What is a “general revenue tax”? Section 6 defines it:

“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]

Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”

There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.

Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” ⁴ which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.

So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:

· Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or

· A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.

Which option will Congress choose?

Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax

Article I, §8, clause 1 says:

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”

Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:

“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comments and scroll down after comment 19 till you see Chip DeMoss’ name].

We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!

We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:

“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”

Do you see?

National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. ⁵ It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).

“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:

· the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3;

· the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and

· the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.

A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.

We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.

We were manipulated into supporting the 16^th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.

And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; ⁶ and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.

There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list. See the list HERE.

Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.

Endnotes:

¹ Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.

All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.

² Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.

³ Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?

⁴ “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.

⁵ Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.

⁶ The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, Compact for America has claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH

August 26, 2015

Babies Don’t Provide Anchors!

By Publius Huldah

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says, in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…”

One of the purposes of Section 1 was to extend citizenship to freed slaves.

This Section does not provide that illegals who invade our Country and drop a baby here are automatically the parents of a US citizen.

The key is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: Consider the French ambassador and his lovely young wife stationed in Washington, DC. She gives birth to a child here. Her child was born here. But is her child “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No! The child is subject to the same jurisdiction as his parents: France.

Consider the American Indians: Sec.1 of the 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on American Indians. They were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” – they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes.

An illegal alien who invades our Country is in the same status as the French Ambassador’s wife. The baby she drops here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Country she left.

So the 14th Amendment does NOT confer citizenship on babies of illegals born here – just as it does not confer citizenship on the babies of foreign diplomats stationed here.

Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, US Constitution, Congress may make laws deciding how people become naturalized citizens.

But Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship status on babies born here of illegal aliens.

This is important.

For a deeper understanding of this important issue, see Professor Edward Erler’s brilliant essay,  Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny

 

To see the debates (on the language I quoted at the top) in the US Senate on May 30, 1866, go HERE  

and start reading in the center column, under the subheading, RECONSTRUCTION.   Fascinating.

revised Nov. 1, 2018

“Natural Born Citizen” and Coverture.

At the common law, Husband and wife were “one” and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is “coverture”.

Married women weren’t separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband’s. Married women weren’t “citizens” in their own right.

Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of “natural born citizen”: The Man is the one who counts!

Later on, with Married Womens’ Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife’s legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]

At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER’s citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V.  I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child’s birth for the child to be a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO Barack Hussain Obama’s mother was, and it doesn’t matter WHO Ted Cruz’ mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT “natural born citizens”.

Before you gnash your teeth at this constitutional requirement which disqualifies Ted Cruz, look at Ted’s Record. Look at his connections. Look at his Wife’s connections. For Ted’s record, look at his actual position on gun control.  Look at his actual position on obamatrade. You think this guy will fix everything? You are gullible if you do.

Cruz is establishment all the way… he says what we want to hear – counting on us to ignore his record and connections.

Americans!  Will you wise up before it is too late?  No one out there will ride in to “fix everything”.

You better start getting ready for upheaval. Make plans.  Form alliances with your neighbors. Mend fences. Repent of your sins.

Does the Creature Dictate to the Creator?

By Publius Huldah

WHERE did the federal government come from? It was CREATED by the Constitution.

WHO ratified the Constitution? WE THE PEOPLE, acting through special ratifying conventions called in each of the States.  So it was The People of each State who ratified the federal Constitution for their State.

So the federal government is merely the “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 33 (5th para), and Thomas Jefferson in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, under the 8th Resolution.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a correct understanding of the relation between the federal government and The People unless you understand that the federal government is merely the “creature” of the Constitution. It is not a party to it. The STATES are the parties to the constitutional compact (contract).

THIS is why James Madison said, in his Report of 1799 to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, that THE STATES, as the creators of the federal government, are the final authority on whether their creature has violated the compact THE STATES MADE WITH EACH OTHER. The constitutional compact is between the Sovereign States. The federal government is merely the “creature” of that compact.

That is why the States have the natural right to NULLIFY unconstitutional acts of their “creature”, the federal government.

But our “creature”, the federal government, has taken the bizarre position that the Constitution means whatever THEY say it means.

Oh, do they need smacking down! Does the creature dictate to its creator?

The nullification deniers say, “YES!”

Manly men say, “NO!”