- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that Texas decided to tax its exports to the other 49 states of fossil fuels, farm products, building materials (most cement is made in Texas), and mining output.
Should that be allowed, or would the Federal Government have a case to step in and try to force Texas to share its wealth with the peasant states?
I think that by taxing our oil exports (remember that even imported oil is regularly refined or at least piped through Texas) and other products could really pump some money in to the state. No reason we should be giving away the fruits of Exxon's labor, for example, for free to Californians.
But what say you?
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5
The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.
Read more. Guide to the Constitution
Carefully note the use of the conditional verb "should" in the question posed.
I didn't ask if Texas IS able to charge export taxes, I asked whether it SHOULD be able to charge export taxes.
In the above they are concerned that they will be taxed disproportionately by an export tax for what they are exporting.No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5
The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.
Read more. Guide to the Constitution
No, that was the original intent of the commerce clause...
As a conservative I should think you would understand that - never met a liberal who understood anything about the Constitution though, and since they dominate our country... anything goes.
Carefully note the use of the conditional verb "should" in the question posed.
I didn't ask if Texas IS able to charge export taxes, I asked whether it SHOULD be able to charge export taxes.
In the above they are concerned that they will be taxed disproportionately by an export tax for what they are exporting.
A federal proscription, not state.
Which would not be the same as an export tax charged by them to another state.
Is there another proscription that applies to the States?
People still don't seem to get that distinction. Something is LEGAL because it is in the Constitution. But being in the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it JUST.
peasant states?
I thought Texas was the one that was just crying to the feds for some disaster relief :lamo
Hey Texas! Hurry up and secede so that you can deal with the floods yourself and spiral down into social, economic, and political disarray! It'll sure be a good laugh for me :lamo
Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that Texas decided to tax its exports to the other 49 states of fossil fuels, farm products, building materials (most cement is made in Texas), and mining output.
Should that be allowed, or would the Federal Government have a case to step in and try to force Texas to share its wealth with the peasant states?
I think that by taxing our oil exports (remember that even imported oil is regularly refined or at least piped through Texas) and other products could really pump some money in to the state. No reason we should be giving away the fruits of Exxon's labor, for example, for free to Californians.
But what say you?
Plebeian.
I could probably buy your family. I'm out of this thread, not gunna waste my time anymore.
Also, 9 votes no, 2 votes yes (one yes vote was probably you), we win.
Really? And how does that make you feel?I could probably buy your family.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?