Obama’s promise zones violate both the intent and letter of law!

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
386
Points
130
We are told that Obama’s “promise zones” do not violate our Constitution. But no evidence is offered to substantiate that claim. So, let us look at some historical facts which indicate there is a long standing rule which applies to federal spending and it establishes Obama’s “promise zones” are absolutely contrary to the legislative intent and letter of our Constitution.

Under Obama’s “promise zones” a number of cities would receive “comprehensive federal assistance” and receive preferential treatment to deal with the financial effects cause by the recession ___ a recession which has cause economic pain in each of the various United States. In fact, under Obama’s proposal taxpayers in every city across the United States will be tax to lessen the economic misery felt in cities chosen by Obama.

How does this violate the legislative intent and letter of our Constitution? Well, let us start by refreshing our memory by reading part of the New England Confederation of 1643 ___ an agreement among a number of the first English Colonies on America soil.


It is by these Confederates agreed that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, upon what part or member of this Confederation soever they fall, shall both in men, provisions and all other disbursements be borne by all the parts of this Confederation in different proportions according to their different ability in the manner following, namely, that the Commissioners for each Jurisdiction from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring a true account and number of all their males in every Plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several Jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen years old to threescore, being inhabitants there. And that according to the different numbers which from time to time shall be found in each Jurisdiction upon a true and just account, the service of men and all charges of the war be borne by the poll: each Jurisdiction or Plantation being left to their own just course and custom of rating themselves and people according to their different estates with due respects to their qualities and exemptions amongst themselves though the Confederation take no notice of any such privilege: and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates.


Please note a specific rule is established among the members of the Confederacy under which a common treasury is filled by each member supplying “men, provisions and all other disbursements“. There is no allowance for the financial burden being selectively placed upon one member at the expense of the others.

Now, let us review the Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781


VIII.

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.



Again we find a specific rule by which the member States each agree to contribute into a common treasury, by the same rule and without exemption or preference.

Now, looking at the Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787

Art. 4. .

The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States;



Again we see a specific rule for financial contributions being applied equally within the territory as is applied to all other States and without exception or preference!

And now we get to our existing Constitution and we find a specific rule by which each member state agrees to carry an apportioned share of any financial burden which is levied among the States.

Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the Several States…


OUR CONSTITUTION’S FAIR SHARE FORMULAS MAY BE EXPRESSED AS FOLLOWS:


State`s Pop.
___________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s number of Representatives
Pop. of U.S.


State`s Pop.
-------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF BURDEN
U.S. Pop.


In addition to the above formulas, we also find in our Constitution a specific intention expressed to forbid federal force being used to create unequal burdens by any “Regulation of Commerce”:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

And so, it is an irrefutable fact that the rule of apportionment was adopted to insure federal power could not be used to place a disproportionate burden upon one state or several states to the advantage of another state or states, which is exactly what would happen under Obama’s “promise zones”.

In fact the Founder’s intentions for tax equality were eloquently stated by Representative John Page on February 7th 1792 while speaking before the House of Representatives:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative John Page

It should also be noted our Founders applied the same rule of apportionment in the disbursement of federal revenue from the treasury to the States, and is documented in an Act of Congress passed in June of 1836 when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied.

And what has the Supreme Court stated in regard to this rule of apportionment?
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made___ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601

The irrefutable fact is, Obama’s “promise zones” violate the rule of apportionment, and both the intent and letter of law, and would create a number of privileged communities who would receive preferential treatment, rather than equal treatment because of the recession, a recession which is felt in each and every one of the United States

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals, and now his “promise zones”] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
386
Points
130
Obama’s promise zones violate both the intent and letter of law!
And what website did you pull this from?
And why do you suggest this is not my work when it is?

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
167,616
Reaction score
16,239
Points
2,165
"Obama’s promise zones violate both the intent and letter of law!"

Naw, they don't.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
386
Points
130
"Obama’s promise zones violate both the intent and letter of law!"

Naw, they don't.


But no evidence is offered by you to substantiate that claim.


JWK





They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top