Home » Opinion » Editorials
July 02. 2012 8:19PM
An American mandate: The Founders would be appalled
On the eve of Independence Day, many Americans are still digesting last Thursday’s ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Congress has the authority to tax the free and independent people of the United States for the offense of not following orders Congress has given. Moreover, the content of those orders is limited only by the imaginations of the 535 members of Congress.
What might the Founders of this nation, the men who risked death to secure for posterity the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, think of such a turn of events?
As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his ruling, “the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem.” However, he wrote, although Congress may not impose such mandates under the Commerce Clause, it may pass them and then tax anyone who disobeys. That calls to memory the colonial reaction to the little-remembered Declaratory Act of 1766.
Parliament’s attempt to tax Americans without representation via the Stamp Act of 1765 was a dismal failure. To temper the calls for rebellion, Parliament repealed the act. But in its place it passed the Declaratory Act, which asserted “the king’s Majesty... had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
The phrase “to bind the colonies and people of America... in all cases whatsoever” became a sort of patriot rallying cry in the 1770s. It is inconceivable that the men who rebelled against that would approve of ceding to Congress the power to order them to behave as Congress wishes.
When Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty threw tea chests into Boston Harbor, they were not protesting the tax, which had been passed six years before. They were protesting the Tea Act, which compelled them to buy East India Company tea and forbade them from buying or selling any other. It was a mandate to buy a specific product. It helped spark a revolution.
Now, 236 years after that revolution began, we are told that our own government can compel us to buy whatever product it wishes, to behave in virtually any way it wants, as long as it does so through its power to tax. When the Founders fought to secure the blessings of liberty for their descendants, seeing those descendants submit to the orders of a distant government was not what they had in mind.
What might the Founders of this nation, the men who risked death to secure for posterity the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, think of such a turn of events?
As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his ruling, “the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem.” However, he wrote, although Congress may not impose such mandates under the Commerce Clause, it may pass them and then tax anyone who disobeys. That calls to memory the colonial reaction to the little-remembered Declaratory Act of 1766.
Parliament’s attempt to tax Americans without representation via the Stamp Act of 1765 was a dismal failure. To temper the calls for rebellion, Parliament repealed the act. But in its place it passed the Declaratory Act, which asserted “the king’s Majesty... had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”
The phrase “to bind the colonies and people of America... in all cases whatsoever” became a sort of patriot rallying cry in the 1770s. It is inconceivable that the men who rebelled against that would approve of ceding to Congress the power to order them to behave as Congress wishes.
When Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty threw tea chests into Boston Harbor, they were not protesting the tax, which had been passed six years before. They were protesting the Tea Act, which compelled them to buy East India Company tea and forbade them from buying or selling any other. It was a mandate to buy a specific product. It helped spark a revolution.
Now, 236 years after that revolution began, we are told that our own government can compel us to buy whatever product it wishes, to behave in virtually any way it wants, as long as it does so through its power to tax. When the Founders fought to secure the blessings of liberty for their descendants, seeing those descendants submit to the orders of a distant government was not what they had in mind.
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: A new garden cemetery for Manchester - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: NH Fire Insurance has broad presence, shorter name - 0
- NH Fire Company knew how to celebrate an anniversary - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: Prosperity in Manchester and a fireproof building to lead by example - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: San Francisco burns, and New Hampshire Fire comes through - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: The NH Fire Insurance Company gains a strong foothold - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: Devastating fires provide opportunities to shine - 0
- Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: Manchester's worst fire strikes the heart of the city - 0
- Looking Back with Aurore Eaton: New Hampshire's first insurance company opens for business - 0
Aurore Eaton's Looking Back: A burial ground for the dead and a park for the living
READER COMMENTS: 0- 65 mph OK for E-ZPass drivers with opening of new lanes at Hooksett toll plaza - 0
- Updated: NH Senate kills House-passed gas, tobacco tax hikes - 1
- Senate Finance Committee rejects Medicaid expansion - 9
- Man wielding pipe robs Cumberland Farms in Goffstown - 0
- Buchholz moves to 7-0 as Red Sox post win - 0
- Gambling bill scuttled, 'Now it is going to be really tough' for budget - 29
- NHIAA Roundup: BG girls’ tennis team sweeps Pinkerton - 0
- NHIAA box scores, summaries for May 22 - 0
- Officials say Goffstown High ‘safe’ after threat of violence - 1
White powder in Salem shipping container posed no serious risks
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



