Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
The uniformity here prescribed has reference to the various localities in which the tax is intended to operate.......The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
The uniformity clause in article 1 means that regardless of what kind of tax you're talking about, it must apply equally to all the states. It means only that taxes cannot be used to show favortism toward people in one particular location. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this idea over the years. Here's one example, a quote from the Court's unanimous decision in the Head Money Cases of 1884 as written by Justice Samuel Miller.
The uniformity here prescribed has reference to the various localities in which the tax is intended to operate.......The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
Head Money Cases
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
The uniformity clause in article 1 means that regardless of what kind of tax you're talking about, it must apply equally to all the states. It means only that taxes cannot be used to show favortism toward people in one particular location. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this idea over the years. Here's one example, a quote from the Court's unanimous decision in the Head Money Cases of 1884 as written by Justice Samuel Miller.
The uniformity here prescribed has reference to the various localities in which the tax is intended to operate.......The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
Head Money Cases
Look at edit3 in the OP.
There are deals in the bill that allow states like nebraska and florida to pay less into the government health system overall than other states. This is not uniform taxation and, as you state, it violates the constitution due to it not "applying equally to all the states"
The uniformity clause in article 1 means that regardless of what kind of tax you're talking about, it must apply equally to all the states. It means only that taxes cannot be used to show favortism toward people in one particular location. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this idea over the years. Here's one example, a quote from the Court's unanimous decision in the Head Money Cases of 1884 as written by Justice Samuel Miller.
Head Money Cases
Look at edit3 in the OP.
There are deals in the bill that allow states like nebraska and florida to pay less into the government health system overall than other states. This is not uniform taxation and, as you state, it violates the constitution due to it not "applying equally to all the states"
No, those are examples of pork-barrel spending. In each case, those states are getting a big, fat cash handout from Washington. It's absolutely disgusting but it has nothing to do with tax levels. Everybody is taxed the same. They just get different-sized helpings of pork.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
The uniformity clause in article 1 means that regardless of what kind of tax you're talking about, it must apply equally to all the states. It means only that taxes cannot be used to show favortism toward people in one particular location. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this idea over the years. Here's one example, a quote from the Court's unanimous decision in the Head Money Cases of 1884 as written by Justice Samuel Miller.
The uniformity here prescribed has reference to the various localities in which the tax is intended to operate.......The tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found.
Head Money Cases
Look at edit3 in the OP.
There are deals in the bill that allow states like nebraska and florida to pay less into the government health system overall than other states. This is not uniform taxation and, as you state, it violates the constitution due to it not "applying equally to all the states"
It relates to medicare/medicade tax not spending so it actually does apply
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.
Fail.
income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....
if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Income tax taxes income, not people.
The uniformity clause in article 1 means that regardless of what kind of tax you're talking about, it must apply equally to all the states. It means only that taxes cannot be used to show favortism toward people in one particular location. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this idea over the years. Here's one example, a quote from the Court's unanimous decision in the Head Money Cases of 1884 as written by Justice Samuel Miller.
Head Money Cases
Look at edit3 in the OP.
There are deals in the bill that allow states like nebraska and florida to pay less into the government health system overall than other states. This is not uniform taxation and, as you state, it violates the constitution due to it not "applying equally to all the states"
Exactly...Now witness the very symbol of justice regarding Law?
Stare at it for a moment, what does it mean for justice? Is this just a symbol? Does it really MEAN anything?
The statue has a balanced scale for a reason...(They weren't trying to be cute).
Or you could be bad at everything and have investment income.income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....
if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Income tax taxes income, not people.
Income is the product of one's labor... and taxes on that product are decidedly a tax on the INDIVIDUAL... Thus the name: "INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX"... just as the CORPORATE Income Tax, taxes the product of the corporation's labor...
Investment income is also a product of the investor's labor... in having secured the investment; All are their PROPERTY and taxation of that property flies in the face of principled liberty.
Now again kids... the issue is not so much the taxation; but the confiscatory taxation and the INSATIABLE APPETITE OF LEFTIST ABUSE!
I'm pretty sure the cadillac plans were taken out of the bill. They aren't increasing tax on the rich but on income level. Subtle, but different, and uniform.Read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power 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;
In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
Fail.
income tax is the only tax that taxes one group of people at a higher rate than another.....
if i am good at something the government takes more from me.....and gives it to people that aren't so good at it.....
Read what it says in the constitution people...here is a quote of it
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power 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;
In the preamble there is clearly a difference between common defense and general welfare. That difference being that one is to be provided for and the other is to be promoted, not provided.
In article 1 it says the government can lay taxes to provide for both the defense and welfare of american citizens. However, these taxes must be uniform throughout the country. By having our progressive tax system, only taxing people with cadillac plans, or only increasing the taxes on the rich to pay for health care this legislation directily violates article 1, section 8, clause 1 by having the duties, imposts, and excises being applied non-uniformly for health care in the legislation.
EDIT: Taxes on cadillac plans have been removed. This is no longer an issue
EDIT2: If the taxes on employers and employees who have employer provided health plans is still in then this is an issue. It is not being implimented uniformly as american's who either purchase it on their own, are on a government program already, or dont choose to have it have don't have to pay the tax but those who get it from their employer do. not uniform
EDIT3: The special tax break deals for states like florida and nebraska are also a direct violation of the constitution as those are not being applied uniformly.
)Do the 13 state attorneys general have a case against ObamaCare?
My response:
Absolutely. It will be an uphill battle, because modern “constitutional law” is so far removed from the Constitution itself, but a win is not impossible. There are three main arguments. (1) Under the Constitution, as properly interpreted, Congress has no power to enact such a plan. (2) The plan conscripts state governments into carrying out and paying for federal mandates. And (3) the individual mandate amounts to an unlawful capitation or direct tax.
(more...)
The States Respond to ObamaCare | Cato @ Liberty
It relates to medicare/medicade tax not spending so it actually does apply
That's simply not true. Every state is taxed exactly the same. Nebraska was promised a bigger cash handout from the federal government than any other state. That's pork.
