[dccmd]

What did the Framers mean by apportioned direct taxes?
Was this meant to be a cryptic reference to financing the federal government (without using the word “requisitions”) by continuing the failed method of requisitions on the states by population apportionment that was the fundamental method of financing the confederational government under the Articles of Confederation?
Was the requisition on the states method ever used after the ratification and implementation of the Constitution?
Daniel Clyde Cummings
dccmd@hotmail.com

[dccmd]

The right answer is to retrocede the residential areas of DC to Maryland in the same manner that about one-third of the original DC was retroceded to Virginia (its entire original contribution), keeping only the federally owned areas. Then DC residents could participate fully in the politics of Maryland. This does not require a constitutional amendment, since the Constitution does not specify a minimum area for the national capital (only a maximum area).
Daniel Clyde Cummings
dccmd@hotmail.com

[dccmd]

Abraham Lincoln showed wisdom and executive independence from the Supreme Court by treating free black Americans as citizens (while simultaneously tolerating legal black slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation) in ways relevant to the executive department; for example, he allowed them to apply for and receive passports on the same terms as white citizens. He realized that he was bound by oath to the Constitution independent of the judiciary and that he owed no compliance to judicial constitutional errors; this does not relieve him from responsibility for other actions of doubtful constitutional standing. It also does not mean that the Dred Scott decision was entirely wrong; it must be parsed most carefully and meticulously. Slavery itself was absolutely constitutional until the 13th Amendment; that was upheld by Taney. The heart of the case about whether slaves as constitutionally recognized property in the Southern states continued to be property when taken to a free state had no clear answer in the original constitution that I am aware of. Taney expressed his biased racist opinion that property rights superseded the freedom laws of the North, but contrary constitutional opinions seem to me to be equally reasonable; I see the 10th Amendment as allowing states to choose to be totally free territory without any recognition of slavery property ownership within their boundaries, especially slaves intentionally brought into those states; in that situation I see no place for the “fugitive slave” provisions of the Constitution. Taney lost his way, however, due to the deep passion of his racist beliefs, when he declared free blacks in free northern states to be noncitizens; nothing in the original Constitution or its amendments stated or implied any such interpretation.
Daniel Clyde Cummings
dccmd@hotmail.com

[dccmd]

Basic proper terminology: The word “College” does not appear in the Constitution and should not be used in discussing the constitutional presidential election process; it implies a more unified process than the Framers intended. We should use the term “presidential electors” instead whenever we discuss any matter concerning that process.

Constitutional provision: The Constitution gives each state legislature the absolute prerogative to determine how the presidential electors allotted to that state are to be chosen; no constitutional limitations are placed on the legislatures. Therefore, it is constitutionally in order (not necessarily wise) for a legislature to designate a “bound electors” process and provide a legal penalty for “faithless electors”; this is is a significant limitation on presidential elector freedom to choose.

Daniel Clyde Cummings
Constitution Party presidential candidate (not final nominee)
dccmd@hotmail.com

[Author]

Posts