text:
History of the lumber industry in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
American Loggers in Okanogan County, Washington, 1927.
The history of the lumber industry in the United States spans from the precolonial period of British timber speculation, subsequent British colonization, and American development into the twenty-first century. Following the near eradication of domestic timber on the British Isles, the abundance of old-growth forests in the New World posed an attractive alternative to importing choice timber from the Baltic via the narrow straits and channels between Denmark and Sweden.[1] The easily available timber proved an incredible resource to early settlers, with both domestic consumption and overseas trade fueling demand. The industry expanded rapidly as Americans logged their way across the country.
By the 1790s, New England was exporting 36 million feet of pine boards and 300 ship masts annually, with over 75 percent coming from Massachusetts (which included Maine) and another 20 percent coming from New Hampshire.[2] By 1830, Bangor, Maine had become the world's largest lumber shipping port and would move over 8.7 billion board feet of timber over the following sixty years.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Colonial era
1.1 Early Housing
1.2 Commercial Markets
1.3 Maritime Markets
2 Nineteenth century
3 Twentieth century
4 Twenty-First Century
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links
Colonial era[edit]
The English forests of hardwood and conifer had been all but decimated by the thirteenth century. Beginning in the 1540s, further exploitation of its remaining forests ensued as British factories began consuming vast amounts of wood to fuel its iron industry. In an attempt to preserve its dwindling resource, parliament passed Act for the Preservation of Woods in 1543, limiting further felling of timber to 440 yards from landed property. However, by the seventeenth century even the tracts that had been reserved for the Crown had been depleted. As a result, the price of firewood doubled between 1540 and 1570, leaving the poorest literally freezing to death.[1][4]
In 1584 Richard Hakluyt, archdeacon of London’s Westminster Abbey and preeminent geographer in Europe, published a manuscript titled A Discourse of Western Planting, in which he advocated the colonization of North America for the “employmente of numbers of idle men” to extract its natural resources for exportation to England. Among the commodities listed as marketable goods was trees. It was Hakluyt’s belief that North America and its endless stock of resources would solve the nation’s dilemma. Hakluyt projected that an established lumber industry would deliver returns that would in itself justify investment in settling the area that was becoming commonly known by several names including; Norumbega, Acadia, Virginia or New England.[5]
Hakluyt and seven other men formed a joint stock company aptly named the Virginia Company, and on April 10, 1606 received the First Charter of Virginia from King James I. The charter split the company into two separate groups, a London-based group known as the London Company (of which Hakluyt was a member) and a Plymouth-based group known as the Plymouth Company. The charter decreed the right upon both companies to “make habitation, plantation, and to deduce a colony of sundry of our people into that part of America commonly called Virginia” between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees of north latitude.[6] On December 20, 1606 one hundred men and four boys boarded the ships Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery and set sail down the Thames under Captain Christopher Newport.[7]
On April 10, they entered the “Chesupioc” Bay and landed alongside “faire meddowes and goodly tall trees.”[8] Finally on April 26, 1607, the London Company reached Virginia, and declared their settlement Jamestown in honor of the King.[9] Almost immediately the London Company began sending shipments of trees back to England. A letter written in 1608 expressing the abundant discovery of good trees for export read, “I heare not of any novelties or other commodities she hath brought more then sweet woode.” However, exportation of any scale was delayed. During the winter of 1609, 154 of the original 214 colonists perished. The event would be remembered as the Starving Time, and it would be another eleven years before timber production of any consequence would resume in New England.[10]
In 1621 pressure from Plymouth Company’s financiers impelled the colonists to ship to England a load of their commodities upon the vessel Fortune “laden with good clapboard as full as she could stowe.” However, it wasn’t long before the pilgrims realized that their wood supply was too precious a resource to export, and promptly restricted overseas sales in a colony-wide decree:
“That for the preventing of such inconveniences as do and may befall the plantation by the want of timber, That no man of what condition soever sell or transport any manner of works…[that] may tend to the destruction of timber…without the consent approbation and liking of the Governor and councile.”[11]
By the 1680s, over two dozen sawmills were operating in southern Maine.[12]
Early Housing[edit]
Homes serve as a stabilizer for settlements attempting to establish permanent residence.[13] Therefore, upon the establishment of Jamestown, the London Company quickly set about constructing a fortification for protection from hostile natives. By mid-June of 1607 the company had finished constructing its fort, triangular in shape, enclosing about one acre, with its river side extending 420 feet and its other sides measuring 300 feet. Within the fort the company built a church, storehouse, living quarters - all the amenities the colony would need to survive. Between February and May 1609, improvements were made to the colony; twenty cabins were built, and by 1614 Jamestown consisted of, “two faire rowes of howses, all of framed timber, two stories, and an upper garret or corne loft high, besides three large, and substantiall storehowses joined together in length some hundred and twenty foot, and in breadth forty….” Without the town”…in the Island [were] some very pleasant, and beutifull howses, two blockhowses…and certain other framed howses.”[14]
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Patuxet Indians had been shaping the forests for thousands of years. Where natural clearings already didn’t exist, the Patuxet systematically burned and felled tracts of forest for growing corn and constructing their dwellings. Many of the original colonial settlements would later be located on such sites, including Plymouth, Boston, Salem, Medford, and Watertown.[15] However, by the mid-1630s the original treeless outcroppings became overpopulated and could no longer support additional settlement. As a wave of new immigration arrived, settlers were forced into the woods to make their property claims.
One colonist explained the process of constructing a rudimentary shelter, whereby an individual would, “dig a square pit in the ground, cellar fashion, 6 or 7 feet deep, as long and as broad as they think proper, case the earth inside with wood all around the wall, and line the wood with the bark of trees or something else to prevent the caving in of the earth; floor this cellar with plank and wainscot it overhead for a ceiling, raise a roof of spars clear up and cover the spars with bark and green sods."[16]
As commodities, tools and building supplies steadily flowed into Virginia, home construction advanced, producing sturdy foundations upon which hewn timbers were erected, the exterior covered with clapboard, and the interior coated with wainscoting. By 1612, clay was being dredged from the James and Chickahominy Rivers. Bricks were fired and constructed into chimneys, as well as homes for the more affluent. However, necessity required clearing the land of timber resulting in an abundance of optimal material for building wood frame houses.
Regarding the architecture of the typical seventeenth century home, the structures were on average one-story structures with a loft accessible via a ladder-like stairway. There were often chimneys at both ends of the home, where meals typically were prepared upon an open hearth. The houses averaged between thirty and forty feet in length, and between eighteen and twenty feet in width.[17][18]
A Small Colonial Jamestown House, Built Around 1630
Commercial Markets[edit]
In the 1600s virtually no commercial trade existed between Britain and New England. In fact, it would take nearly fifty years for the Admiralty to personally send mast ships and recruit colonials willing to produce timber for British stores. However, wood became a material used in abundance for everyday items. Hickory, ash, and hornbeam were used to craft bowls and tools. Cedar and black walnut were used for their ornate properties and crafted into decorative boxes, furniture and ceremonial gunstocks. And sweet sap was extracted from maple, rivaling honey as the colony’s premier source of sweetener.[19][20]
Britain’s Navigation Acts prevented New England from trading its valuable commodities with other European nations. However, timber was excluded from the Navigation Acts allowing the colonies to export vast quantities of wood commodities to nations otherwise beholden to British duties. Oak staves for wine barrels, along with building timber, white pine boards, and cedars shingles were traded to Spain, Portugal, the Canary Islands, the Azores, and Madeira. In addition, inter-colonial trade was unrestricted, allowing for the development of a major trade relationship with British Barbados.
Having long since dropped all other crops in favor of sugar production, and thoroughly stripped their islands of timber, Barbados and later other Caribbean islands became virtually dependent upon timber imports from New England. A letter from Barbadian representatives to the British Parliament in 1673 illustrated the necessity to which they relied upon New England timber. Lumber was required to maintain their buildings, staves and heading of porous red oak were in need for transporting sugar and molasses casks - even production resources were in demand to ensure economies of scale. By 1652 New England had established robust overseas markets shipping lumber, seafaring vessels, and fishing goods.[21][22]
Maritime Markets[edit]
On April 27, 1607, one day after the London Company reached the Chesapeake, a group of colonists built a small boat and launched it the following day.[23] By the 1600s, nearly all commerce was waterborne, and in Virginia the shallop was the most popular boat for use in the colony. Due to its relatively small size (16–20 feet in length) it was perfectly suited for exploring rivers and creeks, as well as for trading and transporting tobacco to ships.[24][25]
Shortly after its inception, shipbuilding in the Virginia colony was a very simple operation carried out by plantation owners. A suitable location along the bank of a stream with water deep enough to float a vessel was essential. Likewise, access to suitable timber and the means to transport the materials were crucial. However, boatbuilding stagnated and shipbuilding failed to develop in those early years. Furthermore, the few boatwrights inhabiting the colony perished in the great Indian massacre of 1622.[26][27]
Early Ship Yard
By 1629 the respective companies’ financiers had become increasingly concerned upon failures to realize returns on their investment. As a result, the New England Company (a reorganized version of the Plymouth Company) along with the directors of the Massachusetts Company sent their own shipwrights to jump-start domestic shipbuilding. Accordingly, shipbuilding in the early 1630s suddenly came to life along the banks of Boston and Charlestown. The region appeared as though it were designed for building ships.
White oaks provided excellent ship timber and planking. Cedars, chestnuts, and black oaks were perfect for the underwater portion of the ships – due to their impermeability to liquids, shock resistance, strength, natural durability, and decay-resistant properties among others.[19][28][29] Within a decade boats and ships proliferated.
In A Perfect Description of Virginia, an unnamed author wrote that the colony was swarming with “pinnaces, barks, great and small boats many hundreds, for most of their plantations stand upon the rivers’ sides and up little creeks and but a small way into the land.”[30] In 1662 the General Assembly of Virginia sought further to encourage shipbuilding by enacting a series of incentivizing laws which declared:
“Be it enacted that every one that shall build a small vessel with a deck be allowed, if above twenty and under fifty tons, fifty pounds of tobacco per ton; if above fifty and under one hundred tons, two hundred pounds of tobacco per ton; if above one hundred tons, two hundred pounds per ton. Provided the vessel is not sold except to an inhabitant of this country in three years.”
Builders were also incentivized by receiving two shilling exemptions off export duties per hogshead of tobacco, as well as exemption from castle duties, two pence reduction per gallon on imported liquor, and exemption from duties traditionally imposed on shipmasters upon entering and clearing. Furthermore, throughout the duration of the royal government there would be various laws remitting the duties on imports received on native ships, remission of tonnage duties, and exemptions for licensing and bond where applicable.[31]
The size of vessels in Virginia had steadily been increasing as well, and the craftsmanship had been improving, such that in a letter to Lord Arlington, Secretary of the Colony Thomas Ludwell boasted: “We have built several vessels to trade with our neighbors, and do hope ere long to build bigger ships and such as may trade with England.” Such was the astonishment at how quickly New England’s shipbuilding had rapidly progressed that an article was submitted in the English News Letter of March 12, 1666 describing “A frigate of between thirty and forty [tons?], built in Virginia, looks so fair, it is believed that in short time, they will get the art of shipbuilding as good frigates as there are in England”.[32] As early as 1690 Dr. Lyon G. Tyler in The Cradle of the Republic wrote that ships of 300 tons were built in Virginia and trade in the West Indies was conducted in small sloops.[33]
Regardless of the increase in timber production, the commodity was not as profitable as Richard Hakluyt had hoped. The cause was due in part to the higher wages paid by freeholders compared to their serf counterparts in Europe, as well as the cost of transatlantic shipping. While Boston ports charged forty to fifty shillings, the Baltic ports only charged nine.[34]
That changed when England awoke to a timber crisis after commercial competition with the Dutch came to a breaking point. The Navigation Acts of 1651 had greatly limited imports into England, prompting Denmark to prey upon British ships as they sailed to and from the Baltic Sea transporting their timber cargo. It was at this time, on the eve of the first Anglo-Dutch War (1652–1654) that the Admiralty considered a plan to develop a North American source of timber and masts, and forgo possible crisis as a result of impending lengthy repair of battle-shattered masts.[26]
North European fir had been the Admiralty’s timber of choice for its mast construction. However, finding its supply chain obstructed, the Admiralty’s second choice was the North American white pine. A shipload had been received from Jamestown in 1609 and another in 1634 from Penobscot Bay, both of which were found to be agreeable .[35] There is disagreement amongst scholars about which variety was the strongest, however the North American white pine was considered more resilient, one fourth lighter in weight, and exponentially larger; reaching a height of 250 feet, several feet in diameter at the base, and weighing in as much as 15 to 20 tons.[36] Accordingly, the Admiralty sent a fleet of mast ships in 1652 and thus began Britain’s steady importation New England masts .[19]
Following the development of New England’s shipbuilding industry, it became common for the British to retail New England ships due to significantly lower production costs. The abundance of naval stores and good timber enabled colonists to produce ships thirty percent cheaper than the English, making it the most profitable manufactured export during the colonial period.[37]
The Admiralty’s venture to get mast logs out of the New England forest, in turn, produced a labor force that with it developed into a booming domestic lumber industry. Since ninety-plus percent of New England pines harvested were unsuitable for masts, an important building and commodities lumber market emerged converting rejected masts into merchantable boards, joists and other structural lumber. Such was the success of the colonial entrepreneurs that the Crown became concerned that its newfound resource of dependable naval stores and masts would quickly dwindle.
In response, King William III enacted a new charter in October 1691 governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, reserving for the King “all Trees of the Diameter of Twenty Four Inches and upwards” that were not previously granted to private persons.[38][39] The portion of the charter quickly became known as the King’s Broad Arrow. All timber consigned under the charter were marked with three strikes of an ax resembling an upside down arrow. The importance of the policy only increased with the onset of The Great Northern War (1700–1721), which all but halted Baltic exports to England. Consequently, British Parliament began passing a series of acts regulating imports from the Baltic and promoting imports from New England.[40]
Agents Marking Trees with the King’s Broad Arrow
The Act of 1704 encouraged the import of naval stores form New England, offering £4 per ton of tar or pitch, £3 per ton of resin of turpentine, and £1 per ton of masts and bowsprits (40 cubic feet). The Act of 1705 forbade the cutting of unfenced or small pitch pine and tar trees with a diameter less than twelve inches. The Act of 1711 gave the Survey General of the King’s Forests authority over all colonies from New Jersey to Maine. Lastly, the Act of 1721 extended dominion of the King’s Forests to any trees not found within a township or its boundaries, and interestingly enough officially recognizing the American word ‘lumber’ for the first time.[40]
However, the acts and policy proved virtually impossible to enforce. A survey in 1700 documented more than fifteen thousand logs that violated the twenty-four inch restriction.[40] Attempts to curb illegal lumbering continued under the appointment of John Bridger as survey general in 1705. His task was to survey and protect His Majesty’s Woods, duties of which he performed with great enthusiasm. Bridger conducted extensive mast surveys, confiscated illegal timber, and prosecuted violators, to no avail. Colonists didn’t care, and often disregarded the Broad Arrow mark. It became virtually impossible for a single surveyor with a few deputies to police the entire expanse of New England’s forests. After much pleading on behalf of Bridger for more resources and authority, the Parliamentary Acts (1704–1729) slowly eased the burden of his charge. Ironically, in 1718 Bridger was removed for corruption and his predecessor Colonel David Dunbar, treated the post with indifference.[41][42]
The effects of the policy on the American economy remains unclear. Without the Admiralty’s quest for choice timber the American lumber industry may not have developed as quickly. Certainly, the policy ensured a steady reliable source of mast timber during England’s ascension to naval dominance, but at a price. Perceived violations of property rights on New England colonists served only to stoke the embers of rebellion. Shipments of New England timber continued unabated until the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. The last supply of New England masts reached the home country on July 31, 1775 after more than 4500 white pines had been sent under the Broad Arrow policy.[43][44]
The American industrial revolution caused the national demand for timber to spike. Prior to the Civil War, more than ninety percent of the nation's energy came from wood, fueling the great transportation vehicles of the era.[12] As Americans settled the timber-starved Great Plains, they needed material from the lumber-rich parts of the nation with which to build their cities. The burgeoning railroad industry accounted for a fourth of the national lumber demand and required the product to build rail cars and stations, fashion ties, and power trains.[12] Even as the coal began to replace wood as an energy source, the coal mining industry itself needed lumber to support its mining structures and create its own rail beds. Technological development helped the industry meet the soaring demand. New methods of transporting lumber, like the steam engine, provided the means to log further inland and away from water. New machines such as the circular saw and the band saw allowed forests to be felled with significantly improved efficiency.[45] The resulting increased timber production saw New England forests become rapidly depleted, and American loggers began methodically cutting their way south and west in search of new forests.
Nineteenth century[edit]
United States
Lumber Production [46]
Year
Annual Production
(millions of board feet)
1850 5,000
1860 8,000
1870 13,000
1880 18,000
1890 23,500
1900 35,000
By the 1790s, New England was exporting 36 million feet of pine boards and 300 ship masts annually, with over 75 percent coming from Massachusetts (which included Maine) and another 20 percent coming from New Hampshire.[2] By 1830, Bangor, Maine had become the world's largest lumber shipping port and would move over 8.7 trillion board feet of timber over the following sixty years.[3] Throughout the 19th century, Americans headed west in search of new land and natural resources. The timber supply in the Midwest was dwindling, forcing loggers to seek new sources of “green gold.” In the early decades of the 19th century, the Great Lakes and their tributary waterways flowed through areas densely covered with virgin timber. The timber became a primary resource for both regional and national building materials, industry, and fuel.[47][48][49]
By 1840, upstate New York and Pennsylvania formed the seat of the industry. By 1880 the Great Lakes region dominated logging, with Michigan producing more lumber than any other state.[12]
Twentieth century[edit]
Seattle - Kerry Lumber Mill - 1900
By 1900, with timber supplies in the upper Midwest already dwindling, American loggers looked further west to the Pacific Northwest. The shift west was sudden and precipitous: in 1899, Idaho produced 65 million board feet of lumber; in 1910, it produced 745 million.[50] By 1920, the Pacific Northwest was producing 30 percent of the nation's lumber.[51]
Whereas previously individuals or families were managing single sawmills and selling the lumber to wholesalers, towards the end of the nineteenth century this industry structure began to give way to large industrialists who owned multiple mills and purchased their own timberlands.[12] None was bigger than Frederick Weyerhauser and his company, which started in 1860 in Rock Island, Illinois and expanded to Washington and Oregon. By the time he died in 1914, his company owned over 2 million acres of pine forest.[52]
Following the onset of the Great Depression, many companies were forced to shut down. Total production of lumber fell at a devastating rate, from 35 billion board feet in 1920 to 10 billion board feet in 1932. Moreover, the steady decline of gross income, net profits, and increased consumption of cement and steel products, exacerbated the decline of lumber production.[53]
United States
Gross Income, Net Profits, Production, and price index in the Lumber Industry 1920 -1934[54]
Year
Gross Income
(In Millions Dollar)
Net Profit
(In Millions Dollar)
Production
(In Board feet)
(In Millions)
Wholesale Price Index
(1926=100)
1920 3,312 N/A 35,000 N/A
1922 2,402 167 35,250 N/A
1924 2,835 132 39,500 99.3
1926 3,069 117 39,750 100.0
1928 2,342 82 36,750 90.5
1930 1,988 110 26,100 85.8
1932 854 202 10,100 58.5
1934 N/A N/A 12,827 84.5
In 1933, following the election and first term of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was passed. President Roosevelt believed that unrestrained competition was one of the root causes of the Great Depression. According to The Effect of the N.R.A. Lumber Code on Forest Policy, national lumber codes regulated various aspects of the industry, including wages, hours, and price.[55]
The industry was suffering on many fronts. It was incurring low prices for its products, low wages for its workers, and facing exhausted tracts of forest caused previously by overproduction in late 1920’s.[55] As illustrated in table 2, prices rebounded in 1934. Note that it is not only because of Lumber code but also comprehensive impact of devaluation, amplified public work spending, and improved banking system.[56]
As old-growth forest disappeared rapidly, the United States' timber resources ceased to appear limitless. Canadian lumberman James Little remarked in 1876 that the rate at which the Great Lakes forests were being logged was "not only burning the candle at both ends, but cutting it in two, and setting the match to the four ends to enable them to double the process of exhaustion."[57]
To deal with the increasingly limited availability of timber resources, the Division of Forestry was established in 1885, and in 1891 the Forest Reserve Act passed, setting aside large tracts of forest as federal land. Loggers were forced to make already cut lands productive again, and the reforesting of timberlands became integral to the industry. Some loggers pushed further northwest to Alaskan forests, but by the 1960s most of the remaining uncut forest became protected.[12]
The portable chain saw and other technological developments helped drive more efficient logging, but the proliferation of other building materials in the twentieth century saw the end of the rapidly rising demand of the previous century. In 1950, the United States produced 38 billion board feet of lumber, and that number remained fairly constant throughout the decades moving forward, with the national production at 32.9 billion board feet in 1960 and 34.7 billion board feet in 1970.[58]
Twenty-First Century[edit]
Presently there is a healthy lumber economy in the United States, directly employing about 500,000 people in three industries: Logging, Sawmill, and Panel.[59] Annual production in the U.S. is more than 30 billion board feet making the U.S. the largest producer and consumer of lumber.[59] Despite advances in technology and safety awareness, the lumber industry remains one of the most hazardous industries in the world.
While challenges in today’s market exist, the United States remains the second largest exporter of wood in the world. Its primary markets are Japan, Mexico, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Due to higher labor costs in the United States, it is common practice for raw materials to be exported, converted into finished goods and imported back into the United States.[59] For this reason, more raw goods including logs and pulpwood chip are exported than imported in the United States, while finished goods like lumber, plywood and veneer, and panel products have higher imports than exports in the U.S.[60]
Recently there has been a resurgence in logging towns in the United States. This has been due in large part to the housing recovery.[61]
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Manning 1979, p. 7
^ Jump up to: a b Defebaugh, James E. History of The Lumber Industry of America. Vol. 2. Chicago: American Lumberman, 1907. 17.
^ Jump up to: a b "Nineteenth Century Industries: Lumber." Penobscot Marine Museum. http://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbho-1/working-the-bay/nineteenth-century-industries-lumber.
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 14
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp. 11-15
Jump up ^ Billings 1975, p. 3
Jump up ^ Billings 1975 p. 5
Jump up ^ Jester 1957, p. 2
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp 17-18
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp 18-19
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp 21-22
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Lumber Industry." Encyclopedia of American History. Answers Corporation, 2006.
Jump up ^ Jester 1957, p. 1
Jump up ^ Hatch 1957, pp 4, 8, 13
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 20
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p22
Jump up ^ Jester 1957, pp. 20-21, 24
Jump up ^ Stanard 1970, p.60
^ Jump up to: a b c Manning 1979, p. 17
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp. 22-23
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp 24-25
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, p. 22
Jump up ^ Hudson 1957, p. 1
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, p. 21
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, p. 5
^ Jump up to: a b Manning 1979, p. 13
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, p. 16
Jump up ^ Panshin & De Zeeuw 1970, pp. 572, 576
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 23
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, p. 12
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, p. 23
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, pp. 24, 25
Jump up ^ Evans 1957, p. 26
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p 24
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, p. 9
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 27, 28
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp. 23, 24
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, pp. 25, 27
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, p. 25
^ Jump up to: a b c Manning 1979, p. 28
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, p. 33
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 29
Jump up ^ Manning 1979, pp. 13, 33
Jump up ^ Rutkow 2012, p. 32
Jump up ^ "Lumber Industry," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com Archived 2009-10-31 at WebCite © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation
Jump up ^ United States Forest Service. The Lumber Cut of the United States 1907. Government Printing Office, 1908. p. 7.
Jump up ^ http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/171/growth-of-the-lumber-industry-1840-to-1930
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-12-24. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
Jump up ^ http://thunderbay.noaa.gov/history/lumber.html
Jump up ^ Pacific Northwest Research Station. Status of the interior Columbia basin: Summary of scientific findings (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-385). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, (1996, November). p. 55.
Jump up ^ Marchak, M. P. Logging the globe. Montreal & Kingston, Jamaica: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995. p. 56.
Jump up ^ Faiman-Silva, Sandra L. Choctaws at the Crossroads: The Political Economy of Class and Culture in the Oklahoma Timber Region. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2000. p 100.
Jump up ^ Simpson and Swan 1937 pp. 110-111
Jump up ^ Simpson and Swan 1937 p. 111
^ Jump up to: a b Duncan 1941, p. 92
Jump up ^ Duncan 1941, p. 94
Jump up ^ Little, James. The Timber Supply Question, of the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America. Montreal: Lovell, 1876. p. 14.
Jump up ^ Ulrich, Alice H. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics, 1950-80. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1981. p 46.
^ Jump up to: a b c "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-12-21. Retrieved 2013-12-21.
Jump up ^ http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fpl_rp676.pdf p. 33
Jump up ^ https://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323864304578316132672998200
References[edit]
Billings, W. M. (1975). The Old Dominion in the seventeenth century: A documentary history of Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press.
Evans, C. W. (1957). Some Notes on Shipbuilding and Shipping in Colonial Virginia. Williamsburg: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corp.
Duncan, Julian (1941). The Effect of the N.R.A. Lumber Code On Forest Policy: Vol. 49, No. 1 JSTOR 1824348
Hatch, C. E. (1957). The First Seventeen Years, Virginia, 1607-1624. Williamsburg: s.n.
Hudson, J. P., & Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation (1957). A pictorial booklet on early Jamestown commodities and industries. Williamsburg, Va: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corp.
Jester, A. L. (1957). Domestic Life in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. Williamsburg: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corp.
Manning, S. F. (1979). New England masts and the King's Broad Arrow. Greenwich, London: Trustees of the National Maritime Museum.
Mason, H. (2008). The Shallop | Captain John Smith Historical Trail. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from http://www.smithtrail.net/captain-john-smith/the-shallop/
Panshin, A. J., & De, Z. C. (1970). Textbook of wood technology: Vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rutkow, E. (2012). American Canopy: Trees, Forests, and the Making of a Nation. New York: Scribner.
Simpson, J.P. and Swan, Edmund L.C. (1937) Improvements in the Lumber Industry: vol. 193 no. 1 110-119, from http://ann.sagepub.com/content/193/1/110
Stanard, M. N. (1970). Colonial Virginia: Its people and customs. Detroit: Singing Tree Press.
Washburn, W. E. (1957). Virginia under Charles I and Cromwell, 1625-1660.
Williamsburg: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corp.
External links[edit]
US Forest History Society
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_lumber_industry_in_the_United_States&oldid=850204009"
Categories:
History of forestry in the United States
Logging in the United States
Natural history of the United States
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template webcite links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 14 July 2018, at 11:18 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

values:
/wiki/Old-growth_forests
mw-redirect
Old-growth forests

values:
/wiki/Joint_stock_company
mw-redirect
Joint stock company

values:
/wiki/First_Charter_of_Virginia
mw-redirect
First Charter of Virginia

values:
/wiki/King_James_I
mw-redirect
King James I

values:
/wiki/Captain_Christopher_Newport
mw-redirect
Captain Christopher Newport

values:
/wiki/Patuxet_tribe
mw-redirect
Patuxet tribe

values:
/wiki/Britain_(placename)
mw-redirect
Britain (placename)

values:
/wiki/Virginia_colony
mw-redirect
Virginia colony

values:
/wiki/New_England_Company
mw-redirect
New England Company

values:
/wiki/General_Assembly_of_Virginia
mw-redirect
General Assembly of Virginia

values:
/wiki/Lord_Arlington
mw-redirect
Lord Arlington

values:
/wiki/King_William_III
mw-redirect
King William III

values:
/wiki/Frederick_Weyerhauser
mw-redirect
Frederick Weyerhauser

values:
/wiki/National_Industrial_Recovery_Act
mw-redirect
National Industrial Recovery Act

values:
/wiki/Division_of_Forestry
mw-redirect
Division of Forestry

values:
nofollow
external free
http://encarta.msn.com

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1824348

values:
nofollow
http://www.foresthistory.org/
external text

values: Category:History of forestry in the United States

values: Category:Natural history of the United States

values: Category:Webarchive template webcite links

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-History_of_the_lumber_industry_in_the_United_States rootpage-History_of_the_lumber_industry_in_the_United_States skin-vector action-view


text:
Taxing and Spending Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of a series on
Taxation in the
United States of America
Federal taxation[show]
Alternative minimum tax
Capital gains tax
Corporate tax
Estate tax
Excise tax
Gift tax
Income tax
Payroll tax
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
IRS tax forms
Revenue by state
History
Constitutional authority
Taxpayer standing
Court
Protest
Evasion
State and local taxation[show]
State income tax
Property tax
Sales tax
Use tax
Land value tax
State tax levels
Federal tax reform[show]
Automated payment transaction tax
9–9–9
Competitive Tax Plan
Efficient Taxation of Income
FairTax
Flat tax
Hall–Rabushka flat tax
Kemp Commission
Taxpayer Choice Act
USA Tax
Value added tax
Border-adjustment tax
United States portal
v
t
e
Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies[show]
Government revenue
Tax revenue
Non-tax revenue
Tax law
Tax bracket
Tax threshold
Exemption
Credit
Deduction
Tax shift
Tax cut
Tax holiday
Tax advantage
Tax incentive
Tax reform
Tax harmonization
Tax competition
Double taxation
Representation
Unions
Medical savings account
Tax, tariff and trade
Economics[show]
Price effect
Excess burden
Tax incidence
Laffer curve
Optimal tax
Theory
Optimal capital income taxation
Collection[show]
Revenue service
Revenue stamp
Tax assessment
Taxable income
Tax lien
Tax refund
Tax shield
Tax residence
Tax preparation
Tax investigation
Tax shelter
Private tax collection
Tax farming
Noncompliance[show]
Tax avoidance
Tax evasion
Tax resistance
Tax haven
Smuggling
Black market
Transfer mispricing
Unreported employment
Tax shelter
Distribution[show]
Tax rate
Progressive
Regressive
Proportional
Types[show]
Direct
Indirect
Per unit
Ad valorem
In rem
Capital gains
Carbon
Consumption
Dividend
Ecotax
Excise
Fuel
Georgist
Gift
Gross receipts
Income
Inheritance (estate)
Land value
Payroll
Pigovian
Property
Sales
Sin
Single
Stamp
Steering
Turnover
Value-added (VAT)
Corporate profit
Excess profits
Windfall profits
Negative (income)
Flat
Wealth
International[show]
Financial transaction tax
Currency transaction tax
Tobin tax
Spahn tax
Tax equalization
Tax treaty
Permanent establishment
Transfer pricing
European Union FTT
Foreign revenue rule
Trade[show]
Custom
Duty
Tariff
Import
Export
Tariff war
Free trade
Free trade zone
Trade agreement
Religious[show]
Church tax
Eight per thousand
Teind
Tithe
Fiscus Judaicus
Leibzoll
Temple tax
Tolerance tax
Jizya
Kharaj
Khums
Nisab
Zakat
By country[show]
List of countries by tax rates
Tax revenues as %GDP
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bulgaria
BVI
Canada
China
Colombia
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Malta
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Palestine
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
v
t
e
The Taxing and Spending Clause[1] (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause)[2] and the Uniformity Clause,[3] Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.[4]
Contents
[hide]
1 Constitutional text
2 Background
3 Powers granted
3.1 Power to tax
3.2 Implicit power to spend
4 Limitations on taxing power
4.1 Origination Clause
4.2 General Welfare Clause
4.2.1 Comparative view
4.3 Uniformity Clause
4.4 Apportionment of direct taxes
4.4.1 Apportionment and income taxes
4.5 No taxes on exports
5 Restrictions on spending
5.1 Disguised regulations
5.2 Unconstitutional conditions
5.3 Conditional spending and federalism
5.4 Power of the purse, generally
6 Notes
7 Footnotes
8 References
Constitutional text[edit]
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Background[edit]
One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes.[5][6] Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments—each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress.[7] Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart.
The Congress recognized this limitation and proposed amendments to the Articles in an effort to supersede it.[7] However, nothing ever came of those proposals until the Philadelphia Convention.
Powers granted[edit]
The power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states.[8] The taxation power has been perceived over time to be very broad, but has also, on occasion, been curtailed by the courts.[9] United States v. Butler stated that the clause also granted "a substantive power... to appropriate", not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.[10]
Power to tax[edit]
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
This power is considered by many to be essential to the effective administration of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government impotent. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the general support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as:
regulatory taxation – taxing to regulate commerce;[11]
prohibitive taxation – taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce;[12] and finally,
tariffs – taxing as a means of protectionism.[13]
In 1922, the Supreme Court struck down a 1919 tax on child labor in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[14] commonly referred to as the "Child Labor Tax Case". The Court had previously held that Congress did not have the power to directly regulate labor, and found the law at issue to be an attempt to indirectly accomplish the same end. This ruling appeared to have been reinforced in United States v. Butler,[10] in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were an unconstitutional attempt to regulate state activity in violation of the Tenth Amendment. However, despite its outcome, Butler affirmed that Congress does have a broad power to tax, and to expend revenues within its discretion.
Implicit power to spend[edit]
With the power to tax implicitly comes the power to spend the revenues raised thereby in order to meet the objectives and goals of the government. To what extent this power ought to be utilized by the Congress has been the source of continued dispute and debate since the inception of the federal government, as will be explained below. However, interpretations recognizing an implicit power to spend have been questioned.[15]
The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct. In South Dakota v. Dole,[16] the Court upheld a federal law which withheld highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21.
Limitations on taxing power[edit]
Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the origination of revenue bills within the House of Representatives, the disallowal of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment. Additionally, Congress and the legislatures of the various states are prohibited from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax by the Twenty-fourth Amendment.
Origination Clause[edit]
The Constitution provides in the Origination Clause that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The idea underlying the clause is that Representatives, being the most numerous branch of Congress, and most closely associated with the people, know best the economic conditions of the people they represent, and how to generate revenues for the support of government in the least burdensome manner. Additionally, Representatives are regarded the most accountable to the people, and thus are least likely to exercise the taxing power abusively or injudiciously.
General Welfare Clause[edit]
See also: General Welfare clause
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of The Federalist Papers set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[17][18]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[19] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[20]
Although The Federalist was not reliably distributed outside of New York,[21] the essays eventually became the dominant reference for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as they provided the reasoning and justification behind the Framers' intent in setting up the federal government.[21]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[22] This assertion is based on the motivating factor which the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions played upon the electorate; the Kentucky Resolutions, authored by Thomas Jefferson, specifically criticized Hamilton's view. Further, Jefferson himself later described the distinction between the parties over this view as "almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans...."[23]
Associate Justice Joseph Story
Associate Justice Joseph Story relied heavily upon The Federalist as a source for his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. In that work, Story excoriated both the Madisonian view and a previous, strongly nationalistic view of Hamilton's which was rejected at the Philadelphia Convention. Ultimately, Story concluded that Thomas Jefferson's view of the clause as a limitation on the power to tax, given in Jefferson's opinion to Washington on the constitutionality of the national bank, was the correct reading.[24] However, Story also concluded that Hamilton's view on spending, articulated in his 1791 Report on Manufactures, is the correct reading of the spending power.[25]
Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., (1922)[14] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was overturned in 1936 in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Justice Story's construction, holding the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare. The Court wrote:
[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.
The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[26] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987)[16] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds where a state did not mean certain conditions required by Congress. Following that ruling, the Court later held by a 7–2 vote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) that Congress conditioning a state's receipt of the entirety of its federal Medicaid funds on whether said state elected to expand its Medicaid program in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was an unconstitutionally coercive use of Congress's spending power.
To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. Historically, however, the Anti-Federalists were wary of such an interpretation of this power during the ratification debates in the 1780s.[27][28] Due to the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists, Madison was prompted to author his contributions to The Federalist Papers, attempting to quell the Anti-Federalists' fears of any such abuse by the proposed national government and to counter Anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.[17][29]
Proponents of the Madisonian view also point to Hamilton's limited participation in the Constitutional Convention,[30] particularly during the time frame in which this clause was crafted,[31] as further evidence of his lack of constructive authority.
An additional view of the General Welfare Clause that is not as well known, but as authoritative as the views of both Madison and Hamilton, can be found in the pre-Revolutionary writings of John Dickinson, who was also a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention.[32] In his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767), Dickinson wrote of what he understood taxing for the general welfare entailed:
The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all. He who considers these provinces as states distinct from the British Empire, has very slender notions of justice, or of their interests. We are but parts of a whole; and therefore there must exist a power somewhere, to preside, and preserve the connection in due order. This power is lodged in the parliament; and we are as much dependent on Great Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on another.
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration. All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part, that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended.[33] – (emphasis in the original)
The idea Dickinson conveyed above, explains University of Montana Law Professor Jeffrey T. Renz, is that taxing for the general welfare is but taxation as a means of regulating commerce. Renz expands upon this point:
If we excise "general welfare" from the Tax Clause, we are presented with the claim that Congress may not levy duties for purposes other than paying the debts and providing for the common defense. Indeed, omitting the general welfare phrase would eliminate nearly all duties for regulatory purposes. A strong argument could be made that while Congress might have the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, the omission of "general welfare" from the Tax Clause was intended to deny it the power to regulate commerce by means of duties.[15]
Comparative view[edit]
The narrow construction of the General Welfare Clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries. Virtually every state constitution has a general welfare clause which is interpreted as granting the state an independent power to regulate for the general welfare. An international example is provided by a report from the Supreme Court of Argentina:
In Ferrocarril Central Argentino c/Provincia de Santa Fe, 569 the Argentine Court held that the General Welfare clause of the Argentine Constitution offered the federal government a general source of authority for legislation affecting the provinces. The Court recognized that the United States utilized the clause only as a source of authority for federal taxation and spending, not for general legislation, but recognized differences in the two constitutions.[34]
Uniformity Clause[edit]
The final phrase of the Taxing and Spending Clause stipulates:
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Here, the requirement is that taxes must be geographically uniform throughout the United States. This means taxes affected by this provision must function "with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."[35] However, this clause does not require revenues raised by the tax from each state be equal.
Justice Story characterized this requirement in a light more relevant to practicality and fairness:
It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist.[36]
In other words, it was another check placed on the legislature in order to keep a larger group of states from "ganging up" to levy taxes benefiting them at the expense of the remaining, smaller group of states.
A somewhat notable exception to this limitation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Ptasynski,[37] the Court allowed a tax exemption which was quasi-geographical in nature. In the case, oil produced within a defined geographic region above the Arctic Circle was exempted from a federal excise tax on oil production. The basis for the holding was that Congress had determined the Alaskan oil to be of its own class and exempted it on those grounds, even though the classification of the Alaskan oil was a function of where it was geographically produced.
To understand the nuance of the Court's holding, consider this explanation: Congress decides to implement a uniform tax on all coal mining. The tax so implemented distinguishes between different grades of coal (e.g., anthracite versus bituminous versus lignite) and exempts one of the grades from taxation. Even though the exempted grade could potentially be defined by where it is geographically produced, the tax itself is still geographically uniform.
Apportionment of direct taxes[edit]
Language elsewhere in the Constitution also expressly limits the taxing power. Article I, Section 9 has more than one clause so addressed. Clause 4 states:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Generally, a direct tax is subject to the apportionment rule, meaning taxes must be imposed among the states in proportion to each state's population in respect to that state's share of the whole national population. For example: As of the 2000 Census, nearly 34 million people populated California (CA). At the same time, the national population was 281.5 million people. This gave CA a 12 percent share of the national population, roughly. Were Congress to impose a direct tax in order to raise $1 trillion before the next census, the taxpayers of CA would be required to fund 12 percent of the total amount: $120 billion.
Apportionment and income taxes[edit]
Before 1895, direct taxes were understood to be limited to "capitation or poll taxes" (Hylton v. United States)[38] and "taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate" (Springer v. United States).[39] The decision in Springer went further in declaring that all income taxes were indirect taxes—or more specifically, "within the category of an excise or duty."[39] However, in 1895 income taxes derived from property such as interest, dividends, and rent (imposed under an 1894 Act) were treated as direct taxes by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and were ruled to be subject to the requirement of apportionment.[40] As the income taxes imposed under the 1894 Act were not apportioned in such a manner, they were held unconstitutional. It was not the income tax per se, but the lack of a provision for its apportionment as a direct tax which made the tax unconstitutional.
The resulting case law prohibiting unapportioned taxes on incomes derived from property was later eliminated by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. The text of the amendment was clear in its aim:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Shortly after, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad that under the Sixteenth Amendment income taxes were constitutional even though unapportioned, just as the amendment had provided.[41] In subsequent cases, the courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment and the Brushaber decision as standing for the rule that the amendment allows income taxes on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[42]
No taxes on exports[edit]
Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 provides a further limitation:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
This provision was an important protection for the southern states secured during the Constitutional Convention.[43] With the grant of absolute power over foreign commerce given to the federal government, the states whose economies relied chiefly on exports realized that any tax laid by the new central government upon a single item of export would apply very unevenly amongst all the states and favor states which did not export that good.[44]
In 1996, the Supreme Court held this provision prohibits Congress to tax any goods in export transit, and further forbids taxes on any services related to such export transit.[45]
Shortly after, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this provision in United States v. United States Shoe Corp. in 1998.[46] As part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, a harbor maintenance tax (26 U.S.C. § 4461) was imposed at the ad valorem (percentile) rate of 0.125% the value of the cargo instead of at a rate dependent entirely upon the cost of the service provided by the port. The Court unanimously affirmed the ruling of the lower Federal Circuit Court that a "user fee" imposed in such a manner is, in fact, a tax on exports and unconstitutional.
However, Congress may tax goods not in transit even though they are intended for export so long as the tax is not imposed solely for the reason that the good will be exported.[47] For example, a tax imposed on all medical supplies would be constitutional even though there is a likelihood a portion of those supplies will be exported.
Restrictions on spending[edit]
The constraints placed upon the Taxing and Spending Clause and the subsequent powers derived therefrom do not stop at the Taxing Power.
Disguised regulations[edit]
While such holdings are rare and unlikely under contemporary jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has shown in the past its possible willingness to intervene on Congressional spending where its effects amount to a disguised regulation on private activity. The case illustrative of this is United States v. Butler.[10]
In this case, the Court held that Congress had imposed a coercive federal regulatory scheme on farm production under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA). By entering into contracts with farmers who reduced their output of selected crops, Congress had placed non-participating farmers at a distinct disadvantage to farmers who cooperated. As such, the program was not truly voluntary as it left the farmers no real choice; the options for the farmers were either cooperation or financial ruin. Under those circumstances, the regulatory scheme essentially required submission of farmers to a regulatory scheme Congress had no power to impose on its own.
The holding of the Butler case stemmed from the legal theory of that era, which held that regulation of production fell outside of Congress's commerce power. While the Court today is much more likely to defer to Congressional spending via the Commerce Clause, there are still circumstances where such spending may not be justifiable or validated by that power.[48]
Unconstitutional conditions[edit]
While clearing the hurdle of regulatory spending may be easier today than in the past, another significant hurdle exists in the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Under this principle, the government may not use its spending power to purchase the constitutional rights of the spending's beneficiaries. Furthermore, entitlements may not be denied on grounds that violate a constitutionally protected right.[49]
The Court has typically held this spending limitation as only applying to First Amendment rights where the choice imposed is unreasonable or vague, or where the beneficiary essentially is put into a position where acceptance of the conditions becomes obligated.[50][51]
Conditional spending and federalism[edit]
In 1988, the holding in South Dakota v. Dole[16] reaffirmed the authority of Congress to attach conditional strings to the receipt of federal funds by state or municipal governments. In addition to the requirement that spending be for the general welfare, however, the Court devised more scrutinous criteria for determining the constitutionality of the conditions imposed:
First, there can be no surprises; that is, the conditions for receipt must be stated clearly and the beneficiary must be aware of those conditions and their consequences.
Second, the conditions imposed must be related to the spending in question.
Last, the incentive must not be so significant as to turn cooperation into coercion.
At dispute in Dole was a condition placed on the receipt of federal highway funds: elevation of the drinking age. Any state in which persons less than 21 years of age could lawfully possess and consume alcohol would consequently lose five percent of the federal highway funds allocated by Congress. The Court found the second and last conditions met since the requirement for the funds was germane to highway safety. Additionally, the loss of only five percent of the amount was not found so substantial as to be coercive in the eyes of the Court (as opposed to losing half or all of the funds might be).
In 2012, the court held for the first time in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that Congress had used its power under the spending clause in a way that was impermissibly coercive.[52]
Power of the purse, generally[edit]
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress's power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.
Congress attempted to limit appropriations logrolling via riders with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The U.S. Supreme Court later struck down the act on grounds that it violated the Presentment Clause.
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ In the hand-written engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the British spelling "defence" is used in Article One, Section 8 (See the National Archives transcription and the Archives' image of the engrossed document. Retrieved both webpages on 24 October 2009.)
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up ^ Emanuel, at 697.
Jump up ^ Natelson, Robert G. (2003). "The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding". Kansas Law Review. Lawrence, KS: Kansas Law Review, Inc. 52 (1).
Jump up ^ Prepared by Devotion Garner; Updated by Cheryl Nyberg (Updated Sept. 30, 2013). "Popular Names of Constitutional Provisions". Seattle, Washington: M.G. Gallagher Law Library, University of Washington School of Law. Retrieved July 28, 2014. Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jump up ^ Eastman, James C. "Essay on the Spending Clause". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 28, 2014.
Jump up ^ Madison, James. (April 1787) Vices of the Political System of the United States. The Papers of James Madison. (Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962–77)
Jump up ^ Urofsky, Melvin I.; Paul Finkelman (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 1 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–82. ISBN 0-394-56414-6.
^ Jump up to: a b Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789. (Edited by Worthington C. Ford et al. 34 vols. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904–37)
Jump up ^ Hamilton, The Federalist No. 32, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation), The Daily Advertiser
Jump up ^ Killian, at 153.
^ Jump up to: a b c United States v. Butler , 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
Jump up ^ License Tax Cases , 72 U.S. 462 (1866).
Jump up ^ McCray v. United States , 195 U.S. 27 (1904).
Jump up ^ J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394 (1928).
^ Jump up to: a b Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. , 259 U.S. 20 (1922).
^ Jump up to: a b Renz, Jeffrey T. (1999). "What Spending Clause? (or The President's Paramour): An Examination of the Views of Hamilton, Madison, and Story on Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the United States Constitution". John Marshall Law Review. Chicago, IL: John Marshall Law School. 33 (81). SSRN 223735  .
^ Jump up to: a b c South Dakota v. Dole , 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
^ Jump up to: a b Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal
Jump up ^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
Jump up ^ Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2008). 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. New York City: Three Rivers Press.
Jump up ^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961–79)
^ Jump up to: a b Furtwangler (1984).
Jump up ^ Eastman, John C. (2001). "Restoring the "General" to the General Welfare Clause". Chapman Law Review. Orange, CA: Chapman University School of Law. 4 (63).
Jump up ^ Jefferson, Thomas (1987). "Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin". The Founders' Constitution. 2. The University of Chicago Press. p. 452. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Document 25. Retrieved 3 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Story, Commentaries, §§923–24, and footnotes.
Jump up ^ Story, Commentaries, §§972–75.
Jump up ^ Helvering v. Davis , 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
Jump up ^ "Brutus, no. 5" (13 December 1787)
Jump up ^ "Brutus, no. 6" (27 December 1787)
Jump up ^ James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 Writings of James Madison, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, at 530 [1]
Jump up ^ The National Archives. "America's Founding Fathers: Delegates to the Constitutional Convention". The National Archives.
Jump up ^ Frustrated with his two counterparts in the NY delegation, Hamilton left the convention at the end of June 1787. He was absent for much of the remaining convention, present only on Aug 13 and for the two final weeks in Sept. Nearly all of the formulation of the General Welfare Clause took place during this absence. See Story (1833), §925.
Jump up ^ Lloyd, Gordon; Jeff Sammon (2006). "Individual Biographies of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention". TeachingAmericanHistory.org.
Jump up ^ Dickinson, John (December 7, 1767). Written at Philadelphia. Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies. New York, NY: The Outlook Company (published 1903). pp. 13–14. ISBN 1-140-71514-3.
Jump up ^ Miller, Jonathan M. (1997). "The Authority of a Foreign Talisman: A Study of U.S. Constitutional Practice as Authority in Nineteenth Century Argentina and the Argentine Elite's Leap of Faith". American University Law Review. Washington, D.C.: American University Washington College of Law. 46 (1483, at 1562).
Jump up ^ Head Money Cases , 112 U.S. 580 (1884).
Jump up ^ Story (1833), §954.
Jump up ^ United States v. Ptasynski , 462 U.S. 74 (1983).
Jump up ^ Hylton v. United States , 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
^ Jump up to: a b Springer v. United States , 102 U.S. 586, at 602. (1880).
Jump up ^ Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. , 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
Jump up ^ Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad , 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
Jump up ^ Parker v. Commissioner , 724 F.2d 469 (1984).
Jump up ^ Monk, Linda R. (2003). The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-6720-5.
Jump up ^ Story (1833), §1011.
Jump up ^ United States v. IBM , 517 U.S. 843 (1996).
Jump up ^ United States v. United States Shoe Corp. , 523 U.S. 360 (1998).
Jump up ^ May, p. 242
Jump up ^ May, p. 243
Jump up ^ United States v. American Library Association, Inc. , 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
Jump up ^ Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. , 547 U.S. 47 (2006).
Jump up ^ Grove City College v. Bell , 465 U.S. 555 (1984).
Jump up ^ Bob Drummond (June 1, 2012). "Limits on Spending Power Seen as Health Ruling’s Legacy". bloomberg.
References[edit]
Emanuel, Steven L. (2004). Constitutional Law (Emanuel Law Outlines) (22nd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, Inc. pp. 57–61. ISBN 0-7355-5172-3.
Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. pp. 510–62. ISBN 0-87187-612-4.
Furtwangler, Albert (1984). The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-1643-4.
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James (1787–1788). "The Federalist Nos. 30–36, & 41". The Federalist. New York, NY: The New York Packet, the Daily Advertiser, and the Independent Journal. ISBN 0-8239-5735-7.
Jensen, Erik M. (2005). The Taxing Power: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-313-31229-8.
Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 152–68. ISBN 0-16-063268-4.
May, Christopher N.; Allan Ides (2007). Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (4th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. pp. 234–47. ISBN 0-7355-2000-3.
O'Brien, David M. (2008). Constitutional Law and Politics: Struggles for Power and Governmental Accountability. I (7th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 667–80. ISBN 0-393-93038-6.
Story, Joseph (1833). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray and Company. ISBN 0-306-70363-7.
Tucker, John Randolph (1899). Tucker, Henry St. George, ed. The Constitution of the United States: A Critical Discussion of Its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation. I. Chicago, IL: Callaghan & Co. pp. 456–508. ISBN 0-8377-1206-8.
[show]
v
t
e
United States Constitution
Text
(via Wikisource)
Preamble and Articles I–VII
Amendments 1–10
Amendments 11–27
Unsuccessful Proposed Amendments
Debates in State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution
Preamble
and articles
Preamble
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Amendments
Ratified
Bill of Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Others
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pending
Congressional Apportionment
Titles of Nobility
Corwin Amendment
Child Labor
Repealed
Eighteenth Amendment
Unsuccessful
Equal Rights
District of Columbia Voting Rights
List of Amendments
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
Reconstruction Amendments (Amendments 13–15)
Amendment proposals in Congress
Convention to propose amendments
State ratifying conventions
Formation
History
Articles of Confederation
Mount Vernon Conference
Annapolis Convention
Philadelphia Convention
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Three-Fifths Compromise
Committee of Detail
Signing
Independence Hall
Syng inkstand
The Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Massachusetts Compromise
Virginia Ratifying Convention
Hillsborough Convention
Rhode Island ratification
Drafting and ratification timeline
Clauses
Appointments
Appropriations
Assistance of Counsel
Bill of credit
Case or Controversy
Citizenship
Commerce
Compact
Compulsory Process
Confrontation
Contract
Copyright and Patent
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment
Exceptions
Excessive Bail
Ex post facto
Extradition
Free Exercise
Free Speech
Fugitive Slave
Full Faith and Credit
General Welfare
Guarantee
Impeachment
Import-Export
Ineligibility
Militia
Natural-born citizen
Necessary and Proper
New States
No Religious Test
Oath or Affirmation
Origination
Petition
Postal
Presentment
Privileges and Immunities
Privileges or Immunities
Recommendation
Self-Incrimination
Speech or Debate
Speedy Trial
State of the Union
Supremacy
Suspension
Take Care
Takings
Taxing and Spending
Territorial
Title of Nobility
Treaty
Trial by Jury
Vesting
Vicinage
War Powers
List of clauses
Interpretation
Concurrent powers
Congressional enforcement
Constitutional law
Criminal procedure
Criminal sentencing
Dormant Commerce Clause
Enumerated powers
Equal footing
Executive privilege
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
Judicial review
Nondelegation doctrine
Preemption
Saxbe fix
Separation of church and state
Separation of powers
Taxation power
Unitary executive theory
Display
and legacy
National Archives
Charters of Freedom Rotunda
Independence Mall
Constitution Day
Constitution Gardens
National Constitution Center
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution (painting)
A More Perfect Union (film)
Worldwide influence
US Government Portal • Law Portal • Wikipedia book
[show]
v
t
e
United States Constitutional Tax Law
[show]
Article I
Authority to tax
Scope of authority
Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1915)
Sovereign tax immunity
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869)
Collector v. Day (1871)
Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. (1895)
Decline of sovereign tax immunity
Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911)
South Carolina v. Baker (1988)
Uniformity of indirect taxes
Head Money Cases (1884)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1915)
Regulatory taxation
Head Money Cases (1884)
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
United States v. Kahriger (1953)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Direct taxes
Hylton v. United States (1796)
Springer v. United States (1881)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company (1916)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
State import-export duties
Privilege taxes
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
State tonnage duties
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
[show]
Amendment XVI
History and purpose
Springer v. United States (1881)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911)
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1915)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916)
Income
Eisner v. Macomber (1920)
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)
Taxable corporate dividends
Eisner v. Macomber (1920)
United States v. Phellis (1921)
Taxable corporate earnings
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (1955)
Taxable gains
Crane v. Commissioner (1947)
Deductions and exemptions
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1915)
Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co. (1931)
Diminution of loss
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926)
[show]
Related Provisions
Apportionment of representatives
Amendment affecting apportionment
Origination of bills of revenue
Federal voting rights
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxing_and_Spending_Clause&oldid=800763922"
Categories:
Clauses of the United States Constitution
Legislative branch of the United States government
Legal history of the United States
Taxation in the United States
Taxing and Spending Clause case law
Hidden categories:
CS1 errors: dates
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Simple English
Edit links
This page was last edited on 15 September 2017, at 14:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: td

value: tr

value: th

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Logo of the Internal Revenue Service.svg

attrs: href class

attrs: class id href

values: NavToggle NavToggle1 #

value: li

values: font-size: 105%; padding: 0.2em 0px 0.4em; text-align: center; display: none;

values:
/wiki/Automated_payment_transaction_tax
mw-redirect
Automated payment transaction tax

values:
/wiki/Value_added_tax
mw-redirect
Value added tax

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/Tax,_tariff_and_trade
mw-redirect
Tax, tariff and trade

values:
/wiki/Theory_of_taxation
mw-redirect
Theory of taxation

values:
/wiki/Tax_collection
mw-redirect
Tax collection

values:
/wiki/Tax_preparation
mw-redirect
Tax preparation

values:
/wiki/Tax_farming
mw-redirect
Tax farming

values: European Union financial transaction tax

values: Rule against foreign revenue enforcement

values:
/wiki/Free_trade_zone
mw-redirect
Free trade zone

values: List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP

values:
/wiki/Taxation_in_Singapore
mw-redirect
Taxation in Singapore

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention
mw-redirect
Philadelphia Convention

values:
/wiki/Concurrent_power
mw-redirect
Concurrent power

values:
/wiki/Tariffs_in_American_history
mw-redirect
Tariffs in American history

values:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

values:
/wiki/Child_labor
mw-redirect
Child labor

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: Limitations on taxing power

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/US_federal_election
mw-redirect
US federal election

values:
/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Poll tax (United States)

values: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
mw-redirect
General Welfare clause

values: United States presidential election, 1800

values: Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

values: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

values: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

values:
/wiki/John_Dickinson_(delegate)
mw-redirect
John Dickinson (delegate)

values: Edit section: Apportionment of direct taxes

values:
/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000
mw-redirect
United States Census, 2000

values: Edit section: Apportionment and income taxes

values:
/wiki/Tax_per_head
mw-redirect
Tax per head

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

values: Edit section: Unconstitutional conditions

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: Conditional spending and federalism

values: Edit section: Power of the purse, generally

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/1/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/72/462/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/195/27/
external text

values: J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/276/394/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/259/20/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=223735

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/203/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/619/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/580/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/462/74/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/171/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/102/586/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/1/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/517/843/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/360/
external text

values: United States v. American Library Association, Inc.

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/194/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/547/47/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/555/
external text

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/John_Randolph_Tucker_(1823-1897)
mw-redirect
John Randolph Tucker (1823-1897)

values: s:Constitution of the United States of America

values: s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution

values: s:Portal:Unsuccessful attempts to amend the United States Constitution

values: s:Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

values: Preamble to the United States Constitution

values: Article Two of the United States Constitution

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values: Article Four of the United States Constitution

values: Article Five of the United States Constitution

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Article Seven of the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

values: List of amendments to the United States Constitution

values: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

values: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Constitutional Convention (United States)

values: Signing of the United States Constitution

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island

values: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Guarantee_Clause
mw-redirect
Guarantee Clause

values: Oath of office of the President of the United States

values: List of clauses of the United States Constitution

values: United States constitutional criminal procedure

values: United States constitutional sentencing law

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

values: Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

values: United States Constitution and worldwide influence

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
/wiki/Stanton_v._Baltic_Mining_Company
mw-redirect
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution

values: Category:Legislative branch of the United States government

values: Category:Legal history of the United States

values: Category:Taxing and Spending Clause case law

values:
/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: Taxing and Spending Clause – Simple English

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Taxing_and_Spending_Clause rootpage-Taxing_and_Spending_Clause vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view