Claimants of the Constitution: Taxes and Defense


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