As I wrote about a
month ago, the conflict over the
initial conception of the United States, as fought between the
Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution and its Federalist
supporters, continues on to this day, though no one is quite certain
which side they are on. Of course, every politician desires to
demonstrate their beliefs stem directly from (and are corroborated
by) the Constitution, especially the modern Republican party who wrap
themselves in its papery embrace, but neither modern party strictly
adheres to arcane orthodoxy. The most embarrassing example is when a
prominent politician “quotes”
a founding father, with my personal favorite being Rick
Perry's attempt to
quote Thomas Paine, when he actually quoted Edward
Abbey.
But, onward...
There are four main issues
the two party predecessors debated: the use of military force, the
power of the purse, the relevance of religion, and (ultimately) the
balance of power between the United and the States.
The
power of taxation is bound excursively in the House of
Representatives. No bill containing monetary provisions can begin in
the Senate (which is why the Republican Health Care bill had to
originate in the House, even if the Senate chooses to completely
rewrite it), and even this was a concession by the Federalists.
Hamilton and Madison believed the House would transform into a mob,
but knew the Anti-Federalists would not accept the power of taxation
in the hands of the Senate. Regarding taxation, Hamilton wrote in
Federalist
31, “... the
federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified
power of taxation in the ordinary modes.” He was responding to the
failure of States under the Articles of Confederation to supply the
requisitions of Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation the
National government could request money, but it had no means to
enforce what were essentially powerless pleas. The Constitution
empowered the United States to directly tax citizens, instead of
asking the states. States today, are still allowed to tax citizens,
but can not tax the Federal government, as decided in 1819's Supreme
Court Case, McCulloch v. Maryland.
Chief Justice John Marshall declared in his decision, “That the
power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be
denied,” implying the states had no right to overpower the National
government, because of its supremacy.
How
much can the National Government tax? Legally, the United States can
impose taxes of any amount it desires, leaving the States not a cent.
Of course it does not do this, and taxes at a reasonable level,
enabling the states space in which to raise their own revenue.
Additionally, the United States taxes citizens and returns a portion
to each states, depending on each state's needs. The
Atlantic
wrote an article on how money is redistributed, with a detailed
examination on which states (as of 2014) receive and which give. And
what did the Anti-Federalists want? At the time of the Articles of
Confederation, the National government directly collected the import
and export taxes, and nothing else. The Anti-Federalists desired
that the taxation powers remain as under the Articles, or a
compromise. They feared the centralized power of taxation, and
predicted it would lead to the eventual destruction of the states.
What
is taxation's final outcome? Hamilton said in Federalist
30,
(and these italics are his, not mine) “... in
the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation, in every
stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its
resources.”
He means, the needs of a people will always expand to that of their
country's available resources. When a country is wealthy, the people
will find a means of using that wealth, implemented through the
National Government. Government will expand to provide for the
expanding needs of its citizens. And he was right, as this sounds
like an early germ (not disease) of social programs. Note, it is
difficult, or perhaps impossible, to say whether he condemns or
endorses this situation. Rather, he states it as a fact, without
clear bias toward one position or the other. Concluding taxation, it
seems, that on this first issue the Democrats are with the
Federalists, and the Republicans, side with the Anti-Federalists.
Yet,
the main purpose of taxation in Hamilton's mind was not social
programs, but defense. The Constitution, without the Bill of Rights,
is essentially a document organized singularly for the defense of the
United States. After all, Hamilton ridiculed the Articles of
Confederation for their inability to pay off debts and maintain a
standing army capable of quelling internal dissents, and fending off
foreign foes. For this purpose a national, professional, permanent
military would be required, supplied with the best equipment the
United States could provide. A strong program of centralized finance
would be required, as examined above. But the Anti-Federalists did
not desire this. Referring to the Republican tradition of the both
the golden age of Greece and their own recent success in the
Revolutionary War, they said their armies would be like the phalanx,
composed of citizen soldiers, temporary, independent, and localized.
Like the hoplite they would bear their own weapon, and fight for the
love of country rather than cash. The Federalists rejected this
solution, but when the Anti-Federalist asked for each state to retain
its independent militia, the Federalists demurred. In this case, the
reader can see the ideas of the Federalist more closely align with
the Republican party (though it should be noted that the Federalist
does not discuss in detail the use of the military, only declaring
broadly that it is for the common defense).
Next
week, the other two issues and their modern relevance.
Originalism and the Federalist
Papers
Comments
Post a Comment