Changes

Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.

Recently, there has been a concerted effort by the Left to reinterpret an excise as an “event tax” -- that is, a tax levied on an “event” solely by virtue of the fact that an event or transaction has occurred. This definition is without foundation.  The so-called “event” definition was completely unknown to the drafters of the Constitution, and has never been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or by any other court.  Were that definition allowed, any “event” could theoretically be taxed as an excise, and the Constitutional distinction between Direct taxes (requiring apportionment) and Indirect taxes and excises (requiring uniformity) would collapse. In that case, almost any commodity or activity could be taxed by government, and nothing would remain in the Constitution to safeguard the private wealth of the People.

For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is typical of Marxist regimes, but anathema to the American experience.  

For example, if the “event” definition of excise were permitted, Congress could levy a tax on attending church, or issuing a news report, or going to school, because each of these is an “event.” Congress would essentially gain unlimited taxing authority -- and thus unlimited ''authority'' -- over the People. This sort of a construct is anathema to the American experience, but typical of Marxist regimes.  

However, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule such taxes unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of unalienable rights, not privileges. These "events" are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type), nor are they subject to Direct taxation without apportionment.

However, a proper understanding of the meaning of "excise" assures us that U.S. courts would likely rule such taxes unconstitutional because these “events” involve the exercise of unalienable rights, not privileges. These "events" are therefore not subject to Indirect taxes (of which the excise is a type), nor are they subject to Direct taxation without apportionment.