posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 03:14 AM
It's bad. Here's why.
Article 1 para. 10 sec. 2.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use
of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Do you see the problem????
Let me lay it out for you then.
Imports which probably makeup 90% plus of internet commerce have an immunity to state taxes. They aren't supposed to keep it.
WHY HAS EVERYBODY FORGOTTEN THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STATE TAX-FREE IMPORTED GOODS???
Now look at the reasoning behind this clause in the Constitution.
Federalist Papers Article 42
To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the
great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the
relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty
to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the
passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by
past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it
would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity.
To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an
indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by
resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an
enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for
immediate and immoderate gain. The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by
other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage
through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states
shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in
an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the
mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not
establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.
The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the
provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the
legislative right of any State within its own limits. What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled, and has
been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils. And how the trade with Indians, though not members of a State, yet
residing within its legislative jurisdiction, can be regulated by an external authority, without so far intruding on the internal rights of
legislation, is absolutely incomprehensible. This is not the only case in which the articles of Confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to
accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom,
by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain.
To make this simple the compromise on the state powers of import/export taxation was to simply let them have the power to tax but the Federal
Government gets the revenue. So a internet tax is unconstitutional. THE STATES CANNOT KEEP IT.