Essay Example on Congress' Power to Tax for Common Defence and Welfare

Clause 1 of Article (I), Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that, "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"(Constitution, 1787). Eastman (2001) notes that this particular clause is often termed as the "spending power" clause among learned friends. In summary, this clause gives power to congress over the collection, distribution, and dispensation of all the federal forms of taxes in the United States. Congress, as the legislative arm of the government, has the power to pass laws regarding all kinds of taxes, including oversight and amendments of the same laws.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In his 1838 Commentary, in Book (III), chapter 14, Supreme Court Justice Joseph L. Story gives a detailed break-down of Article 1, Section 8, where he notes that the first clause has quite some controversy and will "continue to be the debatable ground of the constitution" (1838). Justice Story writes that intellectuals and constitution experts have a hard time agreeing on the full extent of Congress's constitutional powers as regards taxation. He cites rulings by Supreme Court Justice James Marshall (Marshall, 1819) and opinions of founding fathers such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton.

Story's interpretation is that Congress is limited in its mandated power to collect taxes, doing so for only two reasons- first to pay off the national debt and, secondly, for Defense, to protect the sovereignty of the United States. Justice Story's main argument is that power conferred by Clause 1 of Article (I), Section 8 is to be treated like any other legislative or law-making power; thus, the Executive and Judiciary arms of government, and indeed Congress itself cannot interpret the clause political (confederate). Justice Story writes, "there is no ground whatsoever, which authorizes any resort to the confederation, to interpret the power of taxation" (1833). In summary, Story advocates for the interpretation of this law by Congress independent of political or judicial influence, but at the same time insist that the power to collect taxes is a law like any other, and any decision on the same should be duly informed.

There have been several Supreme Court cases that have cited Clause 1 of Article (I), Section 8 of the US constitution, to make its judgments. One of the earliest is McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the question of Congress's "power to incorporate a bank" was put under the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court (Marshall, 1819). The premise of the Supreme Court hearing was that in 1816, Congress chartered the United States' Second Bank. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed state legislation to collect taxes on the banks. James McCulloch, a cashier in the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay taxes to the state of Maryland and was convicted in a county court.

Upon petitioning the Supreme Court, the state of Maryland was found to be on the wrong via a unanimous decision by the panel: "We are unanimous of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void (Marshall, 1819). Justice Marshall (1819) notes that the case answered some questions on the matter of state powers versus federal powers; that whenever lawmakers and interpreters are in doubt, the United States Constitution had supreme authority over state laws.

In the hearing and ruling of a case in the Supreme Court, United States v. Butler (297 U.S. 1, 1936), Justice Holmes maintained a similar stance on the "spending power of congress" (Holmes, 1936). The premise of the case started with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933), which imposed a "special tax" on processors of farm produce. In response, Butler, a cotton miller, and his associates took issue with the tax and challenged it in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court nullified the Act in a 6-3 jury ruling. Holmes, in his commentary, mentioned that the Agricultural Adjustment Act's invalidation was because it did not meet the criterion set by Article (1), Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, which mandated taxation to be for "general welfare" (Holmes, 1936).

Holmes noted that the judgment, like McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, serves to show the "spending power" of Congress in deciding what taxes are legal and the bodies responsible for collecting them. It was not that the Agricultural Act was wholly unconstitutional, but the section where it gave the government the power to dispense a "special tax" on processors of agricultural goods was. Holmes presupposes that future cases will uphold decisions such as these to protect the business interests and economic activities of American citizens.

Eastman (2001), a constitutional law professor, provides expert opinion on the "spending power clause," insisting that "Congress has only the power to spend for the "general" welfare and not for the special welfare of particular regions or states." Justice Holmes had noted that the founding fathers had differing views on the power and limitations of Article (I), Section 8, Clause 1: notably Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Holmes. The fact that the clause and subsequent rulings relying on it have remained consistent for more than three centuries is not evidence of lack of progress but necessary oversight by the legislature (Eastman, 2001). Eastman denotes that the precedence of previous cases heard in the Supreme Court is too strong for any amendment to the clause. At the same time, he maintains that the clause should remain as it is for the sake of protection of people's economic rights (Eastman, 2001).

Conclusion

In his conclusion, Eastman writes: "for the first eighty-five years of our nation's history, under both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the language of "general welfare" was viewed as a limitation on the powers of Congress, not as a grant of plenary power." The statement of plenary power by Eastman summarizes the history, case applicability, and potential future of Article (I), Section 8, Clause 1. Up to the mid-eighteenth century, popular opinion was that the "spending power clause" placed limits on congress. However, case rulings such as the United States vs. Butler proved that Congress has sole power (plenary power) over all matters of taxation. Congress, in summary has absolute powers regarding the application of the spending power clause. According to Eastman (2001), Congress has too many unchecked powers under the spending power clause. He advocates for the restoration of the "general welfare" provision of that law so that Congress may also be limited.

References

Constitution, U. S. (1787). Article 1, Section 8. See http://www. house. gov/Constitution/Consti tution. html.

Eastman, J. C. (2001). Restoring the General to the General Welfare Clause. Chap. L. Rev., 4, 63.

Holmes, J. W. (1936). The Federal Spending Power and State Rights: A Commentary on United States v. Butler. Michigan Law Review, 34(5), 637-649. DOI: 10.2307/1282078

Marshall, J. (1819). McCulloch v. Maryland. Nueva York, John Day Company.

Rosen, M. D. (2001). The Radical Possibility of Limited Community-Based Interpretation of the Constitution. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 43, 927.

Story, J. (1833). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Vol. 1). Little, Brown.