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;
-
This single clause of all the operative clauses of the United States' Constitution is among the most contentious and at the centre of a lot of very bitter court cases. This is because human nature is such that the amount that people want to pay for things, including the upkeep of the nation, is zero. They will even invent the lie that taxation is theft to justify why they do not want to pay (which morally sounds like trying to justify freeloading).
The introduction of Federal Income Tax proved so controversial, even though this clause seems pretty plenary in its scope to me, was enough to prompt the Sixteenth Amendment; which doesn't really functionally do anything to expand the scope of the words "Power To lay and collect Taxes" at all.
What I find very weaselly about this is that although this clause empowers the Congress to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" it does not impose this as a duty to do so. This is why public education did not arrive en masse until well into the nineteenth century in some parts of the country, and why supposedly the richest and greatest country in the world is so utter poxy and bereft of moral fibre that it can't even provide basic health care to 13% of the population. It's perfectly capable and frequently does find the money to bomb the cuss out of brown people but can't even be bothered to lift a finger to help out its own citizenry. What a poxy little country.
Clause 2
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
-
This wee clause cuts right to the heart of what the telos of money is. A United States Dollar, drawn on the credit of the United States and borrowed by the Department of Treasury from the Federal Reserve, is in principle a small debt which exists for the purpose of doing one unit of work; to be later retired upon the destruction of that same Dollar upon payment of taxation. What is an money? Avalanches about: business continues below. Commence arguing.
The new system of government (invented mostly by Hamilton) would always have to agree to and inherit the debts accrued by the Continental Congress and the States, for running the business of the War of Independence. Upon the establishment of the first Federal Reserve system, the United States Of America (that is, the new corporation sole established by this very Constitution) took on the collective debt of $75,000,000. Just like Britain and France, the United States Of America was broke and had to rely on the fidus of the American people that the new United States Dollar as created as a result of this clause, would be good for the full faith and credit of the United States. It was. For a very brief period in 1831, the United States Of America actually was debt free. Since then, which includes the collapse of several Federal Reserve systems, the United States has reaccumulated debt like a drunkard at a Gin and Wine Party, because the people who have all the money do not want to pay.
Clause 3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
-
The popular story about why the United States was started, contains elements of truth. The slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" while fun, contains the very big blind spot that most men didn't get the franchise until the states were forced to drop property ownership requirements over the next half-century, and most women didn't get the franchise until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The thing that actually caused the outrage had to do with business people being forced to pay a tax of ninepence in the pound, for the value of tea imported to the United States, as well as taxes imposed upon intoxicating liquors. 9d./£1 = 3.75% which doesn't seem like a lot. What makes this a particularly hot topic is that the "tax" wasn't really a tax but practically a payment to the East India Company who ran a monopoly on trade.
The new United States Government wanted in on that sweet sweet taxation money; so what is really fun is that by 1794, there was a landed tax on the value of tea imported to the United States at 5c/$1 or 1s./£1 which at 5% is higher than the tax that people complained about; plus with continuance of the fact that most people who actually did the fighting in the War Of Independence, that is the Privates, the Engineers, the Gunners, et cetera, still didn't get the franchise in their lifetime. It was still "Taxation Without Representation" but at least it was Taxation Without Representation to Americans, which is a good thing, yeah?
Also take note of the part of this clause "and with the Indian Tribes". As the United States has a "Republican" form of government and as the treaty process with Native Americans is so very complex as to be asterisks all the way down, and as the fact that United States had not Manifest Destined its way across the continent and killed people left right and centre (yet), the question as to what to do with Native Americans was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil War got in the way so it was drop-punted into the next century and then the Civil Rights Movement still didn't really resolve the problem so it was drop-punted into the next century and here we are.
As for the question of how much the Federal Government can actually regulate Commerce among the several States, is one which is stupidly unresolved in all directions and any multi-state business which needs to contend with different state taxes and different wages even across counties, realises that this clause is wildly ineffective at doing anything.
Clause 4
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
-
The question of "who is a citizen?" and "who is entitled to the rights therein?" are questions that were of immediate import to the new nation. What I find insidious is that there was still doubts over whether or not native peoples were citizens and therefore entitled to citizenship or not, in spite of the fact that the United States was Manifest Destinying its way through native peoples' homes and lands. The idea that there should be uniform Rules surrounding Naturalization and who is and is not a citizen and that the Federal Government should the one to decide this as a matter of fact, seems as obvious as the day is long to me.
Exactly what Naturalization and Bankruptcy have to do with each other is beyond me. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean at all.
Clause 5
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
-
In the late eighteenth century the most common coin in circulation in the United States for big values, was not the Sovereign but the Spanish 8 Real coin. The de facto exchange rate between the Spanish Real and the British Pound was 32:1 which meant that the Spanish 8 Real was effectively worth Five Shillings. As this was also a relative big coin, it like all big coins were popularly called a Dollar, after the "Thaler" which was a similar big coin in use in the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire and in the haphazard Italian and German states and city states.
After America adopted the Constitution and went to establish its own mint, the French Revolution kicked off in 1789 and probably because there was a sense of friendship and goodwill with all things French, as France adopted a decimal currency, the United States basically took its existing principle coin (the Dollar) and broke it into 10 dimes abd 100 centimes (and 1000 mils). Thus the United States not quite two and a half centuries after inception, is still using a thing derived from a hybrid British Pound and Spanish 8 Real.
While I am here and this whole thing is very clearly me ranting about stuff like a Village Idiot on the floor of the Congress of Morons, I may as well voice my complaint about two coins. Firstly, the Cent coin: it costs more than one cent to make and because it's a pain in the posterior, it also costs more for people to have to deal with it. In fact, the United States Cent's only efficient use, is as washers and spacers in place of hardware, and in trumpet muzzles as buckshot. The United States Cent fails at its only job which is to facilitate commerce.
Secondly, the United States Dollar Coin is very superior to the United States Dollar Note in every single aspect, including durability and the fact that when a Dollar Coin gets old and beat up, it still gets accepted in vending machines, whereas beat up Dollar Notes do not. The United States used to have Dollar Coins and I bet that it the machinery was set up to accept those, they would still take coins from more than 200 years ago but won't take a Note from eight weeks ago.
Clause 6
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
-
Yeah, don't do it. It's dangerous. Stay safe.
Clause 7
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
-
When the United States wants to do socialism, it does so in a very big way; so much so that this tiny little clause is the basis of the biggest and most expensive socialist project in the history of the world. That is, the Eisenhower System Of Defence Highways.
When Dwight D Eisenhower, who would eventually go on to become General, then Supreme Allied Commander, and then finally President, was but a private in the US Army, he was sent out on a survey mission with the Army Corps of Engineers to drive a series of trucks across the United States in the early 1920s. The quality of the roads were so bad that this journey took weeks. The Army Corps of Engineers made their report back to the federal government and then it was filed away.
If you then fast forward thirty years to when Eisenhower rose upwards and upwards, when he eventually became President, he appointed Charles Erwin Wilson who was the ex-CEO of General Motors corporation. If ever there was proof of the military-industrial-complex, isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors and a President who had seen the efficiency of the autobahn system in the Third Reich, suddenly found the funds to build the interstate system? Isn't it a coincidence that the ex-CEO of General Motors should suddenly find himself at the centre of government and have authorised the building of lots and lots of massive public roads to the tune of what would eventually cost $450bn? What a coincidence!
Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
-
I find it interesting that even before the invention of the modern novel, before the invention of so much of the built world as a result of the sciences, that the United States Constitution seems strangely prescient about copyright and patent laws. Granted that the United States was itself an invention of the Age of Enlightenment but this seems to have more to do with how someone spins a profit than anything else.
If you read through the notes of the Constitutional Conventions, this is one of the few examples where famous philanderer and bounder Benjamin Franklin, had his mitts all over the place. This clause assumes that the benefits of the invention of things as a result of science and arts is not a collective good for the benefit of all and that the inventor should have right to extract royalties from their invention. To what degree and how long those royalties should extend for, has been a very long running debate (sometimes under the watchful eye of the mouse).
Clause 9
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
-
You know that popular sentiment that there is a separation of powers, well this clause kind of makes a mockery of that.
While the Supreme Court lives outside the Congress, the inferior tribunals are very much constituted by the Congress. Also, the executive functions of the court system, are vested in the Department of Justice; which is the domain of the office of the President. The idea that there are checks and balances here, is materially a lie. Except for the Supreme Court, Congress if they wanted to, could constitute and run all the inferior courts pretty well much by diktat.
Clause 10
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
-
YAAARGH. Here be pirates, ye land-lubbers. Shiver me timbers and bezack me jik-jaks. Piracy on the High Seas is all good and proper but what exactly are "Offenses against the Law of Nations"? Remember, this is after the Treaty of Westphalia but well before things like the League of Nations and the United Nations. Exactly what "the Law of Nations" is, was a mystery almost as soon as it was committed to paper.
Clause 11
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
-
This is subtle and strange. Although the President is the head of the armed forces by virtue of being the head of executive government, the President does not have the power to declare war and really only has powers granted by other legislation to enact 'police action' for a limited period of time. The power to declare war, and enter into treaties et cetera is vested in the Congress.
In practice all that this means is that the Congress passes legislation when appropriate to Authorise The Use Of Military Force (AUMF) and these AUMFs end up being open ended horrorshows. The unpleasantnesses in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, and minor kerfuffles in places like Malaya, Kosovo, and Libya et cetera, were not wars and did not remotely look like wars, did they?
Presumably Congress wanted to limit the power of the President because they had just been through a revolution in which the King of England was personally blamed for the use of force. Likely this is the result of works like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlet and the text of the Declaration of Independence which was quite popular but materially a lie. Granted that the King was the ultimate bearer of the use of force but that was always the case. The actual use of British force was more diffuse and the actual prosecutors of war were Lord North's executive government.
Having said that even in the twenty-first century, it is quite frankly strange and bizarre that the head of state is not the progenitor of declarations of war because as we saw this century, it is parliaments and the Congress who ultimately push for that use of force. This in conjunction with the operational clauses that mean that two-thirds of the Congress can override the President, mean that if popular feeling runs hot then the President can not act as that last stop; including when they should do.
Clauses 12 to 16
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
-
I shall take all of these together as they are the same subject but granular.
Of course it makes sense that the Congress as the branch of government empowered to make war should have the power and right to make laws regarding same. Of course it makes sense that as the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, that the government empowered to that end should have the ability to do so. However what is schizophonic about these particular clauses is the conditions and spirit under which they were created.
One of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence was that the King commanded and quartered standing armies within the American colonies. These clauses, in the face of those complaints (and in fact justly so), now empower Congress to raise and support and maintain standing armies within those same American colonies (now states). The arguments behind these clauses which people went ballistic over and indeed even within the anti-Federalist factions which would only agree to ratifying the United States Constitution at all if there was another Bill of Rights tacked on the end, was that there should not be a standing army at all and that the defence of the nation should be formed on an ad-hoc basis when necessary. Even then, this would have been madness.
What I find so very very evil about the consequence of how these clauses have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, is that when it when it mentions things like “organizing, arming, and disciplining” and “training” because they are then followed by the object of “the Militia”, the opinion of the Supreme Court as stated in Heller v DC (2009) is that they only apply in relation to “the Militia” and not to an individual. The functional reading of any kind of attempt to introduce any kind of gun control is “YIPPY-O KI-AY, PARENTAL-CUSSER” and then openly accepting the deaths of 50 times per capita due to firearms as my country, as the acceptable price of so-called freedom. Not even the deaths of primary school children, or assassination attempts on Presidential candidates (or even the deaths of four Presidents) is enough to move the needle in any direction.
Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;
-
This is ultimately the clause which gives rise to the creation of the capital District of Columbia, which is part of no state but looks very much like one in every single respect except for the fact that it is hideously disenfranchised.
The District of Columbia gets one member of the House Of Representatives, who gets zero say on legislation. They get no members at all in the Senate. They get three votes in the Electoral College, which comes about because they get representation in the election of a President as if they were a state. Being the House member for the District of Columbia is on par with being the Vice President because they have no power, but still get paid a salary for essentially doing nothing.
Based upon some reading, I have come to the conclusion that the argument about where to put the Seat of the Government and the Capitol was the subject of bitter debates because while the states wanted it closeby, they did not want to have to cede the territory to place it. What we have now is a weird half square thing cut out from the state of Maryland; which as far as I can tell is advantageous to everyone except Maryland.
Clause 18
-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
-
Quite frankly, all of Section 8 could have been replaced with this clause and the words "in all cases whatsoever"; which would have established plenary powers to the Federal Government. I am sure that just like Australia, or Canada, or Germany, or any other country with a state/province/canton system that melds into a Federation, that they would have naturally fallen into a set of useful arrangements.
No comments:
Post a Comment