In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Can Congress Regulate Firearms Through its Taxing
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/30/greenslade.htm
Was the Congress Granted the Constitutional Authority to Regulate Firearms Through its Taxing Power?
By Robert Greenslade
On February 24, 2003, Diane Feinstein and the usual suspects in the United States Senate introduced the "Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003 (S 429 IS)." The stated purpose of the legislation is "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms..." The operative words in this proposed legislation is the phrase "to regulate." This bill, which amends the so-called "National" Firearms Act, is just another usurpation of power because Congress is constitutionally prohibited from using its taxing power to directly regulate anything, including firearms.
The taxing power of the federal government is found at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States. This provision grants Congress the power "[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Pursuant to this clause, Congress can only impose taxes for the three (3) purposes enumerated in this provision. It cannot constitutionally use this provision for regulatory or social engineering purposes. The stated purpose of any legislation being enacted under the guise of taxation must be for the purpose of raising revenue, i.e."to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Unfortunately for the American people, the constitutionally challenged members of Congress claim this clause, specifically the general welfare phrase, grants them a separate legislative power [i.e., they have the power to legislate for the general welfare generally]. This assertion was universally rejected by the Founders and early legal scholars.
In 1833, United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution were published in book form. These commentaries have served as a reference source for the legal community for many years. Justice Story rejected the contention that the taxing clause was an unlimited power. In fact, he asserted that the general welfare phrase did not confer any power but was simply a qualification on the taxing power:
If the clause, 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.
On the other hand, construing this clause in connexion with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing power to objects for the common defence or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.
Story went on to state that Congress could not use the taxing clause for anything other than raising revenue:
The power to lay taxes is a power exclusively given to raise revenue, and it can constitutionally be applied to no other purposes. The application for other purposes is an abuse of the power; and, in fact, however it may be in form disguised, it is a premeditated usurpation of authority.
As stated by Story, any attempt by Congress to use the taxing clause for anything other than raising revenue is "a premeditated usurpation of authority."
If Congress had the power to use the taxing clause as a legislative power, then it could circumvent the principles of limited government and delegated powers. Thus, it could, under the pretext of executing a delegated power, enact laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the federal government. This is precisely what is happening because the federal government was never granted the constitutional authority to regulate firearms or firearms ownership within the several States in the first place.
It should also be noted that the federal government was never granted any domestic jurisdiction over so-called social issues within the several States. Thus, even if Congress had regulatory power through the taxing clause, it could not constitutionally exercise that power within the States. The federal government's lawful jurisdiction only extends to external or foreign affairs and matters concerning the collective interests of the States.
A reading of Senator Feinstein's legislation shows that it is not a revenue bill. Her proposed legislation is clearly a domestic safety or social engineering bill. Section 2 states:
The Congress finds that the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices...these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use; extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce...and the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security. [Bold added]
The only time Congress can constitutionally regulate something through the taxing clause is when regulation is an incidental result of raising revenue. Regulation can only be the result of taxation, not the stated purpose of taxation.
This legislation is, in the words of Justice Story, "a premeditated usurpation of authority" because it is an attempt to use the taxing power as a legislative power. But, since the federal judiciary has apparently abandoned any loyalty to the Constitution and is rapidly becoming a bunch of lackeys for the democrat and republican parties, don't look for this incessant usurpation of power to stop anytime soon.
Note: the author has written extensively on the federal government's usurpation of power through the Commerce Clause [commonly known as the interstate commerce clause even though the word interstate does not appear in the Constitution]. The federal government is using this clause to obliterate the individual right to keep and bear arms. [See: The Federal Government is using the Commerce Clause to Obliterate the Individual Right to Possess Firearms for more information on this subject] The reader will note this term was also invoked in Feinstein's proposed legislation. Not satisfied with just a "simple" usurpation of power through the taxing and the Commerce Clauses, this legislation classifies these firearms as "a serious and substantial threat to the national security." Labeling firearms as a "threat to the national security" may be a preview of things to come in the federal government's push to disarm the American people.
Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/30/greenslade.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Was the Congress Granted the Constitutional Authority to Regulate Firearms Through its Taxing Power?
By Robert Greenslade
On February 24, 2003, Diane Feinstein and the usual suspects in the United States Senate introduced the "Anti-Terrorism Military Sniper Weapon Reclassification Act of 2003 (S 429 IS)." The stated purpose of the legislation is "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms..." The operative words in this proposed legislation is the phrase "to regulate." This bill, which amends the so-called "National" Firearms Act, is just another usurpation of power because Congress is constitutionally prohibited from using its taxing power to directly regulate anything, including firearms.
The taxing power of the federal government is found at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States. This provision grants Congress the power "[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Pursuant to this clause, Congress can only impose taxes for the three (3) purposes enumerated in this provision. It cannot constitutionally use this provision for regulatory or social engineering purposes. The stated purpose of any legislation being enacted under the guise of taxation must be for the purpose of raising revenue, i.e."to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Unfortunately for the American people, the constitutionally challenged members of Congress claim this clause, specifically the general welfare phrase, grants them a separate legislative power [i.e., they have the power to legislate for the general welfare generally]. This assertion was universally rejected by the Founders and early legal scholars.
In 1833, United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution were published in book form. These commentaries have served as a reference source for the legal community for many years. Justice Story rejected the contention that the taxing clause was an unlimited power. In fact, he asserted that the general welfare phrase did not confer any power but was simply a qualification on the taxing power:
If the clause, 'to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion; since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers.
On the other hand, construing this clause in connexion with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing power to objects for the common defence or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.
Story went on to state that Congress could not use the taxing clause for anything other than raising revenue:
The power to lay taxes is a power exclusively given to raise revenue, and it can constitutionally be applied to no other purposes. The application for other purposes is an abuse of the power; and, in fact, however it may be in form disguised, it is a premeditated usurpation of authority.
As stated by Story, any attempt by Congress to use the taxing clause for anything other than raising revenue is "a premeditated usurpation of authority."
If Congress had the power to use the taxing clause as a legislative power, then it could circumvent the principles of limited government and delegated powers. Thus, it could, under the pretext of executing a delegated power, enact laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the federal government. This is precisely what is happening because the federal government was never granted the constitutional authority to regulate firearms or firearms ownership within the several States in the first place.
It should also be noted that the federal government was never granted any domestic jurisdiction over so-called social issues within the several States. Thus, even if Congress had regulatory power through the taxing clause, it could not constitutionally exercise that power within the States. The federal government's lawful jurisdiction only extends to external or foreign affairs and matters concerning the collective interests of the States.
A reading of Senator Feinstein's legislation shows that it is not a revenue bill. Her proposed legislation is clearly a domestic safety or social engineering bill. Section 2 states:
The Congress finds that the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices...these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use; extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce...and the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security. [Bold added]
The only time Congress can constitutionally regulate something through the taxing clause is when regulation is an incidental result of raising revenue. Regulation can only be the result of taxation, not the stated purpose of taxation.
This legislation is, in the words of Justice Story, "a premeditated usurpation of authority" because it is an attempt to use the taxing power as a legislative power. But, since the federal judiciary has apparently abandoned any loyalty to the Constitution and is rapidly becoming a bunch of lackeys for the democrat and republican parties, don't look for this incessant usurpation of power to stop anytime soon.
Note: the author has written extensively on the federal government's usurpation of power through the Commerce Clause [commonly known as the interstate commerce clause even though the word interstate does not appear in the Constitution]. The federal government is using this clause to obliterate the individual right to keep and bear arms. [See: The Federal Government is using the Commerce Clause to Obliterate the Individual Right to Possess Firearms for more information on this subject] The reader will note this term was also invoked in Feinstein's proposed legislation. Not satisfied with just a "simple" usurpation of power through the taxing and the Commerce Clauses, this legislation classifies these firearms as "a serious and substantial threat to the national security." Labeling firearms as a "threat to the national security" may be a preview of things to come in the federal government's push to disarm the American people.
Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/30/greenslade.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Comments
"It is important, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.."
-George Washington