What did Chief Justice John Marshall say about the power to tax?
In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall famously commented, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" on his way to ruling that it's too dangerous to allow states the authority to extract revenue from the federal government.
What can Chief Justice Marshall teach us about power to destroy?
To answer this question, we can turn again to Chief Justice Marshall. In a section already quoted, he declared that “a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with, these powers to create and preserve,” and that when this situation exists the “authority which is supreme must control.”
Did John Marshall spread his mercy Beyond the Potomac?
Unfortunately, John Marshall didn't spread his sense of mercy beyond the banks of the Potomac to others who might find a similar dagger to their throats—such as Brandon Spencer, the owner of an amusement arcade in Hanover, Pennsylvania. Andrew Staub at the PA Independent has the story:
What does the constitution say about the power to tax?
' Stating that 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy,' he said that the states 'have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, or … control' the laws of the federal government, and thus the law 'imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
What was meant by Justice John Marshall's observation that the power to tax is the power to destroy?
Marshall ruled the Maryland law that established the tax unconstitutional with his famous statement: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to destroy a federal agency would give the state supremacy over the federal government, so the states may not tax a federal agency.
Is the power to tax is the power to destroy?
An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. A question of constitutional power can hardly be made to depend on a question of more or less.
What does Marshall say about the power to tax in McCulloch v. Maryland?
The court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government. Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Government and concluded, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
What did John Marshall say about taxes?
Marshall repeated Webster's warning that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” The result would be a crippled national government bowing “at the foot of the states.” Marshall con- cluded by saying that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, burden, or in any manner control the ...
Why is power of tax also called the power to destroy?
The power to tax is the power to destroy only in the sense that those who have power can misuse it. The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this court sits. — Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The power to tax is the one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based.
Why is the power to tax is sometimes called the power to destroy?
We have this principle that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. If you would be imposing too many burdens on the inhabitants of the state, then, this will destroy the state as well as the inhabitants.
What did Chief Justice John Marshall argue in McCulloch v. Maryland?
majority opinion by John Marshall. Maryland may not impose a tax on the bank. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.
How would you describe John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution?
Second, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government. He believed that those powers, though enumerated, should be construed expansively in order to accomplish the great ends of government.
Why was John Marshall's ruling in 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland a very important Supreme Court decision?
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is one of the first and most important Supreme Court cases on federal power. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers derived from those listed in Article I, Section 8. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank.
Who said the power to tax is the power to destroy?
This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).
What is the power to tax?
In the United States, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. This is also referred to as the "Taxing and Spending Clause."
What a taxing power can be according to Chief Justice Marshall?
Setting forth his renowned dictum that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the states (and, by inference, local governments) "have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws ...
Why is the power to tax not valid?
The only reason for not applying the axioms—”That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create”—to government taxation of individuals, then, would be that they are not valid. It is not difficult to test their validity as axioms. It involves only determining whether in the nature of things they are necessarily true. Clearly enough, the power to tax does involve the power to destroy. The power to tax entails the power to take up to 100 per cent of the income from any undertaking. No undertaking, no matter how well it is financed, can survive indefinitely if all its income is drained away in taxes. Hence, any and every human undertaking, short of breathing, can be destroyed by taxation.
What is the significance of Marshall's axioms?
Maryland. He propounded several interesting and profound axioms in that decision. The strange thing about these axioms is that they have been permitted to remain in the limited context in which he found use for them rather than being given general application. This is strange because axioms are, by nature, universal in extent and everywhere applicable, if they are true. Moreover, these axioms have been given added weight in the United States by being embedded in and used to buttress a unanimous Supreme Court decision which still stands.
Why was the absolute prohibition of taxation accidental?
The reason for the absolute prohibition of such taxation was accidental, not essential. That is, it did not arise from the nature of government or of taxation but from peculiar, hence, accidental, features of the federal system of government. The Court’s decision in this case, of course, was concerned with ruling upon acts occurring within this system, and constitutional historians have usually held that Marshall was concerned with asserting the supremacy of the United States government. Be that as it may, it is not my purpose here to enter upon the question of the merits of the decision or of the particular arguments advanced in support of it. These have been brought up only to show that the absolute prohibitions against the taxation involved arose from peculiar arrangements and not from the axioms which were earlier cited. In short, they were brought up in order to get them out of the way so as to give the axioms the examination they warrant and suggest their implications.
How does tax affect business?
In the first place, taxation affects when and whether a business enterprise is begun. To go into business requires a greater or lesser amount of capital, depending on its size and requirements. To gather the capital, savings must be accumulated. Probably the form of taxation with the most devastating effects on saving is inflation. Government, by increasing money supply, reduces the value of money being accumulated as savings. Indeed, the propensity to save is discouraged by inflation, and the propensity to spend is encouraged.
How does the government reduce the value of money being accumulated as savings?
Government, by increasing money supply, reduces the value of money being accumulated as savings. Indeed, the propensity to save is discouraged by inflation, and the propensity to spend is encouraged. The progressive income tax is another deterrent to capital accumulation.
Which kind of taxation should be prohibited?
The second kind of taxation that should be prohibited is the graduated or progressive income tax. The graduated income tax destroys incentive to produce and provide goods and services. It attacks saving and investment in just those places where they could be most readily accomplished. It is unjust because it penalizes higher earnings, earnings which in the absence of proof to the contrary are evidence of greater service by individuals and corporations.
Which principle inherently limits taxes in the United States?
It is this: Taxes must be limited to a degree that will not divest the owner of control over his creations, productions, or provisions. They are his by right, and only so much of them may be taken as is necessary to protect him in his ownership of them. If the government, either by taxation or any other device, comes into control it is the control of the superior by the inferior.
Who said the power to tax is the power to destroy?
The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. These are the words of Daniel Webster and Chief Justice John Marshall who lived in the days of the Founders.
What article of the Constitution did the founders put restrictions on the taxing power?
The Founders felt so strongly about the need to control government officials in their desire to get more money that they put the following restrictions on the taxing power right into the Constitution: Article I, Section 2:
Why did the founders provide a way to tax the people directly in dire emergencies?
It was for this reason that the Founders provided a way to tax the people directly in dire emergencies. In these very limited situations where taxes would need to be collected from the people or the states, the allocation would be on one basis and one basis only - population.
Why are indirect taxes more discretionary?
Indirect taxes are more discretionary. It was felt that the federal government's limited roles would be supported entirely by tariffs on imports. The Founders did not anticipate the government needing to reach inward to the people for support in ordinary times.
What did the founders feel about the tax collectors?
With these limitations in mind, the Founders felt confident that future generations would be spared the heavy-handed oppression of tax collectors who would invade one's privacy and confiscate large portions of a person's property.
What would happen if taxes were levied?
If taxes were to be levied they would be by the states, and the national government would then request each state to voluntarily give its fair share to the National government. It was not long after the Revolutionary War began that the Founders realized this system was too weak.
Why did the founders declare independence?
One of the driving forces motivating the Founders to declare independence 236 years ago was the oppressive nature of King George's taxes. The Founders knew governments had to have financial means to survive. But their study of history proved that it is the nature of almost all men who come to power, to abuse the people by taking more and more from them through government taxation. It was for this reason that the first government of the Unites States of America (the Articles of Confederation) contained no power in the national government to levy any kind of tax. If taxes were to be levied they would be by the states, and the national government would then request each state to voluntarily give its fair share to the National government. It was not long after the Revolutionary War began that the Founders realized this system was too weak. General Washington was in the field seeing his men starve, freeze, and die. His pleadings to Congress for more help were answered mostly by an apologetic excuse that the states had been requisitioned and it was up to them to send Washington the needed provisions. Some did and some didn't. No one knew the desperate need for more energy or power in the federal government than George Washington. Nevertheless, it would be many years before he would see that happen. Meanwhile, he had a war to fight and the inability of Congress to raise the necessary funds was one reason we almost lost the war for independence.
The Founder's Fear of The Power to Tax
The Founders' Lessons About Taxation
- As a result of many years of trial and error, the Founders learned some powerful lessons about taxes: 1. Just taxing the states is impractical, since the only way to enforce such taxation is to send in an army. 2. There is a difference between direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are levied on a person or his property and must be paid by the individual. Indirect taxes are levied on thing…
Constitutional Limitations on The Power to Tax
- The Founders felt so strongly about the need to control government officials in their desire to get more money that they put the following restrictions on the taxing power right into the Constitution: Article I, Section 2: Article I, Section 9: With these limitations in mind, the Founders felt confident that future generations would be spared the heavy-handed oppression of tax collectors who wou…
The People Are Relying Too Much on The Federal Judiciary
- In the same recent opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts reminds the people that the ultimate decisions rest with the people themselves. He wrote: Perhaps a reminder is in order of the warning Thomas Jefferson gave about the danger of relying too much on the federal judiciary to solve issues which the people should be solving in their legislative bodies. Here are several quot…