758,000 Pennsylvania voters

[silverscreenselect]

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care.

All I can say is 'No, it's not.' The Constitution either means something or it doesn't.

Well apparently, it meant one thing in 1989 and 1993 and another thing today to a whole bunch of Republican senators including Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Dick Lugar.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28 ... e-20110529

And not to mention the Heritage Foundation. Here's what your buddy Rush has to say about the Heritage Foundation:

Rush Limbaugh knows that conservative ideas are making an astonishing comeback—thanks in part to the ceaseless efforts of The Heritage Foundation, a public policy think tank that promotes the principles that made America great: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

How about what Sean Hannity has to say about Heritage:

“No organization on earth is a better supplier of innovative, conservative ideas grounded in founding principles than Heritage.”

Here's what Forbes has to say about so-called conservative opposition to the individual mandate:

In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days. Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... l-mandate/

Although the Forbes article does indicate a lot of conservatives have changed their minds on the wisdom of the individual mandate, the question remains: If they think it's unconstituional now, why would they propose it back then?

Here's another article on the same subject.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28 ... e-20110529

[flockofseagulls104]

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care.

All I can say is 'No, it's not.' The Constitution either means something or it doesn't.

But it takes the Supreme Court to interpret what it means.

Exactly right. The Supreme Court has now allowed the Federal Government to mandate that everyone has to eat broccolli, if it so desires. All they have to do is tax you if you don't.

Today it's healthcare, because we have a democrat controlled congress and execute branch. Who knows what it will be tomorrow when people you don't agree with are given control?

[flockofseagulls104]

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care.

All I can say is 'No, it's not.' The Constitution either means something or it doesn't.

Well apparently, it meant one thing in 1989 and 1993 and another thing today to a whole bunch of Republican senators including Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Dick Lugar.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28 ... e-20110529

And not to mention the Heritage Foundation. Here's what your buddy Rush has to say about the Heritage Foundation:

Rush Limbaugh knows that conservative ideas are making an astonishing comeback—thanks in part to the ceaseless efforts of The Heritage Foundation, a public policy think tank that promotes the principles that made America great: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

How about what Sean Hannity has to say about Heritage:

“No organization on earth is a better supplier of innovative, conservative ideas grounded in founding principles than Heritage.”

Here's what Forbes has to say about so-called conservative opposition to the individual mandate:

In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days. Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... l-mandate/

Although the Forbes article does indicate a lot of conservatives have changed their minds on the wisdom of the individual mandate, the question remains: If they think it's unconstituional now, why would they propose it back then?

Here's another article on the same subject.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28 ... e-20110529

http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/r ... ranscript/

[flockofseagulls104]

Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Dick Lugar.

Republicrats to a man.

[silverscreenselect]

Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Dick Lugar.

Republicrats to a man.

Air Flock is once again circling Fantasy Island, preparing for a landing.

[flockofseagulls104]

Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, and Dick Lugar.

Republicrats to a man.

Air Flock is once again circling Fantasy Island, preparing for a landing.

Let me put it in language you might understand:
All the above are institutionalized, like Brooksie in Shawshank. They live, breath and eat Washington, it's politics and it's culture. They might represent conservatism, but they don't practice it.
The fantasy here is that you know anything about conservatism. Proof of that is that you believe Obama to be conservative.

[silverscreenselect]

The fantasy here is that you know anything about conservatism. Proof of that is that you believe Obama to be conservative.

Flock, as near as I can tell, what you call conservatism was practiced at one time in the United States. It was called the Articles of Confederation and it worked so well the Founding Fathers got rid of it in less than ten years.

Since that time, your view of conservatism has never prevailed in the United States. And if the Articles of Confederation were unworkable in the 1780s, when life, business, the world economy, and technology were much simpler than they are now, I'm curious why you think it would work any better today.

Unless you'd just rather give the Lehman Brothers and the JP Morgans of the world another crack at running things and see how that turns out for you.

[flockofseagulls104]

The fantasy here is that you know anything about conservatism. Proof of that is that you believe Obama to be conservative.

Flock, as near as I can tell, what you call conservatism was practiced at one time in the United States. It was called the Articles of Confederation and it worked so well the Founding Fathers got rid of it in less than ten years.

Since that time, your view of conservatism has never prevailed in the United States. And if the Articles of Confederation were unworkable in the 1780s, when life, business, the world economy, and technology were much simpler than they are now, I'm curious why you think it would work any better today.

Unless you'd just rather give the Lehman Brothers and the JP Morgans of the world another crack at running things and see how that turns out for you.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced by a thing called the Constitution of the United States. All elected and appointed representatives in Washington take an oath to protect and defend it. Though your hyperbole that I somehow believe that the AOC are relevant is clever in an obtuse way, it's just another one of your off base statements.

The Constitution states specifically what powers are given to the Federal Government. It also states specifically some that are not given to the federal government. It is pretty specific. The prevailing mood of the Washington Empire is to just ignore it when they can get away with it. And they are getting away with it. Everyone needs healthcare and it's just too expensive, so let's mandate that everyone has to have it and penalize (oops, tax) them if they don't so we can add them to the rolls.

Next up? Everyone has to have shelter, so let's give everyone a house or government apartment and tax everyone to support the cost (plus a little to pay for administration of the program). Everyone has to have food .... Everyone has to have this... Everyone has to have that...

[silverscreenselect]

The Constitution states specifically what powers are given to the Federal Government. It also states specifically some that are not given to the federal government. It is pretty specific. The prevailing mood of the Washington Empire is to just ignore it when they can get away with it.

They do ignore your view of the Consitution. But so has every authority for the past 220 years, because your view rests on a rather strained reading of phrases like "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper."

In 1798, Congress passed a bill, signed into law by John Adams, that mandated private health insurance for sailors in the merchant marine. Just as a guess, I'd say Adams and the members of Congress in 1798 had a better idea of what the Constitution meant and what it allowed and what it prohibited than you and the rest of your Johnny-comes-220-years-lately crowd.

Your fantasy view of the world and the Constitution, just as your fantasy that Reagan wasn't a big spender because he made some tough sounding speeches, may be comforting, but it's just a fantasy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... e-in-1798/

[Beebs52]

Is it not possible that interstate commerce and necessary and proper have morphed over the years? Which would account for people back in the day not realizing that there would be such overreaching acts? Which would lead one to believe that less is better? A more strict interpretation would be better?

Because, as much as you hammer on Flock, he's right when he brings up shelter, etc. Water resources will be huge in the next few years. Actual having a home, access to electricity, garbage collection.... oh. Wait! Buying large sugary drinks! Or fatty foods!

At what point does it stop. Because states' rights apparently don't mean anything.

The slippery slope has started to incline, so at what point do you stop the federal government from regulating and monitoring your lifestyle? I'm not being snarky.

[silverscreenselect]

Is it not possible that interstate commerce and necessary and proper have morphed over the years? Which would account for people back in the day not realizing that there would be such overreaching acts?

Interstate commerce has morphed over the years. Which doesn't mean that the founding fathers would think that the government would be overreaching today. What it does mean is that the expanding nature of interstate commerce is such that individual states are becoming increasingly unable to regulate it in an effective manner. The reason the interstate commerce clause was in the Constitution in the first place was because the founding fathers realized the states weren't capable of adequately regulating it even back in the 1700s when the main issue was possible retaliatory and discriminatory practices against out-of-state goods (which there was fairly little of in any event).

While I'm writing this post, I can order merchandise from a company in California that will arrive at my front door tomorrow (considering the time of day, let's say Friday), and the transaction can be processed through a credit card company that is based in South Dakota. That's not something the Founding Fathers envisioned, so it's safe to say that methods of effectively regulating this type of commerce go well beyond the types of federal or state laws that were around in the 1790s. It doesn't mean the federal government is overreaching; it does mean that the methods required to effectively regulate commerce today go far beyond what was needed in 1790.

[Beebs52]

Is it not possible that interstate commerce and necessary and proper have morphed over the years? Which would account for people back in the day not realizing that there would be such overreaching acts?

Interstate commerce has morphed over the years. Which doesn't mean that the founding fathers would think that the government would be overreaching today. What it does mean is that the expanding nature of interstate commerce is such that individual states are becoming increasingly unable to regulate it in an effective manner. The reason the interstate commerce clause was in the Constitution in the first place was because the founding fathers realized the states weren't capable of adequately regulating it even back in the 1700s when the main issue was possible retaliatory and discriminatory practices against out-of-state goods (which there was fairly little of in any event).

My bolded part-is that not a subjective judgment on your/others' part?

[Sistine Fanny]

Coincidentally enough, I got a letter a couple weeks, maybe a month ago, that went something along the lines of this:

Hello, we were nosey parking around in your beeswax and couldn't help but notice that you are not currently registered to vote. Although we have no reasonable cause to believe that you aren't an adult who would be perfectly capable of registering to vote if you felt the need, we've enclosed a completely un-asked for voter registration form for you. You're welcome!

So I tossed it into a pile of other mail I was planning on ignoring for a while and didn't even think about when this subject came up. But I was going through that stack of mail today and decided to check out the form.

When I saw that you can be on permanent mail in, I was considering actually filling it out for about .59845658033 seconds. Then I saw in the FAQs on the back that If you have a driver's license you have to give the number of it, even though you only have to give the last four numbers of your social if you don't have one. That ain't right. If the last four is acceptable for some, it should acceptable for all. So into the circular file it went...

Anyways, down at the bottom it gives a long list of acceptable forms of ID to present when you vote. A student id is acceptable if it's from a state college. Most of them are picture ID, but you can also bring a certified copy of your b/c and two forms of proof of residence like a utility bill, pay stub showing address, etc.

I got the impression from the list of alternate and non picture ids that it was more to show that you are still a resident of the city/county/state rather than to prove that you are who you say are......

[Bob78164]

Coincidentally enough, I got a letter a couple weeks, maybe a month ago, that went something along the lines of this:

Hello, we were nosey parking around in your beeswax and couldn't help but notice that you are not currently registered to vote. Although we have no reasonable cause to believe that you aren't an adult who would be perfectly capable of registering to vote if you felt the need, we've enclosed a completely un-asked for voter registration form for you. You're welcome!

So I tossed it into a pile of other mail I was planning on ignoring for a while and didn't even think about when this subject came up. But I was going through that stack of mail today and decided to check out the form.

When I saw that you can be on permanent mail in, I was considering actually filling it out for about .59845658033 seconds. Then I saw in the FAQs on the back that If you have a driver's license you have to give the number of it, even though you only have to give the last four numbers of your social if you don't have one. That ain't right. If the last four is acceptable for some, it should acceptable for all. So into the circular file it went...

Anyways, down at the bottom it gives a long list of acceptable forms of ID to present when you vote. A student id is acceptable if it's from a state college. Most of them are picture ID, but you can also bring a certified copy of your b/c and two forms of proof of residence like a utility bill, pay stub showing address, etc.

I got the impression from the list of alternate and non picture ids that it was more to show that you are still a resident of the city/county/state rather than to prove that you are who you say are......

The requirements vary from state to state. Texas won't take a student ID. Nor will it take a state employee ID card. Pennsylvania won't take most student IDs. --Bob

[Bob78164]

A minor nit. SSS said the Constitution hasn't changed one iota since 1989. Actually, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified in the early '90s. Not that it has anything to do with the constitutionality of health care. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

A minor nit. SSS said the Constitution hasn't changed one iota since 1989. Actually, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified in the early '90s. Not that it has anything to do with the constitutionality of health care. --Bob

Another minor nit. The Constitution has changed drastically since 1989. It has been made irrelevant. As Mark Levin says, we are now in Post Constitutional America.

John Roberts said Obamacare is constitutional under the power of Congress to tax. There are 3 (and only 3) methods under the Constitution that Congress has to impose taxes. Excise taxes, direct taxes and income taxes (16th Amendment). The Obamacare 'tax' fits none of these definitions, but Roberts decided that's just a matter of semantics. It's a living document after all, if it doesn't say what we want it to say, we'll just decide the founding fathers didn't have the foresight to understand our modern world. That's where we're going to, and it's just a matter of time til we get a Hugo Chavez running America.

[silverscreenselect]

There are 3 (and only 3) methods under the Constitution that Congress has to impose taxes. Excise taxes, direct taxes and income taxes (16th Amendment).

Where in the Constitution does it say that these are the only methods of imposing taxes? I'll even do you a favor and include the entire taxing and spending clause for you, since you prefer Mark Levin's version of the Constitution to that of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Flock, your version and Mark Levin's version of the Constitution have never existed, not today, not in 1789, not ever. It's just a combination of wishful thinking, sour grapes, and scouring through bits and pieces of certain of the Founding Fathers' writings in hopes of supporting your viewpoint.

[Sistine Fanny]

The requirements vary from state to state. Texas won't take a student I'd. Nor will it take a state employee I'd card. Pennsylvania won't take most student IDs. --Bob

No shit. Just because I don't vote doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the difference between state and federal statutes and, even if I wasn't, the Texas and Pennsylvania ID requirements have been stated (ha!) here ad nauseum. So thanks for informing me of something that even a simpleton could have gleaned by reading as few as two or three posts in this thread.

I just thought I'd add something that actually pertained to what now barely resembles the original discussion by posting the requirements for a state other than Texas or Pennsylvania, since it was by happenstance that I ended up getting something in the mail that listed all of the forms of ID that are accepted in order to vote in Colorado.

[christie1111]

The requirements vary from state to state. Texas won't take a student I'd. Nor will it take a state employee I'd card. Pennsylvania won't take most student IDs. --Bob

No shit. Just because I don't vote doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the difference between state and federal statutes and, even if I wasn't, the Texas and Pennsylvania ID requirements have been stated (ha!) here ad nauseum. So thanks for informing me of something that even a simpleton could have gleaned by reading as few as two or three posts in this thread.

I just thought I'd add something that actually pertained to what now barely resembles the original discussion by posting the requirements for a state other than Texas or Pennsylvania, since it was by happenstance that I ended up getting something in the mail that listed all of the forms of ID that are accepted in order to vote in Colorado.

You don't? This surprises me.

[Sistine Fanny]

The requirements vary from state to state. Texas won't take a student I'd. Nor will it take a state employee I'd card. Pennsylvania won't take most student IDs. --Bob

No shit. Just because I don't vote doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the difference between state and federal statutes and, even if I wasn't, the Texas and Pennsylvania ID requirements have been stated (ha!) here ad nauseum. So thanks for informing me of something that even a simpleton could have gleaned by reading as few as two or three posts in this thread.

I just thought I'd add something that actually pertained to what now barely resembles the original discussion by posting the requirements for a state other than Texas or Pennsylvania, since it was by happenstance that I ended up getting something in the mail that listed all of the forms of ID that are accepted in order to vote in Colorado.

You don't? This surprises me.

You're surprised that I don't what? Vote? I'm always surprised that people are surprised, because I'm one of the most un-political people around, not only here, but in general. My political comments are pretty much limited to teasing SSS about his bromance and jokingly blaming Obama for everything from people being gay to the weather being too damned hot. I'm sure I've made the stray opinion here and there, but generally I'm just taking the piss.

We had a poll not long ago about whether we voted or not and I gave some of my reasons in response to some who were surprised and/or outraged over my apathy. But it's mainly because, under our current system, my vote is meaningless....

[littlebeast13]

No shit. Just because I don't vote doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the difference between state and federal statutes and, even if I wasn't, the Texas and Pennsylvania ID requirements have been stated (ha!) here ad nauseum. So thanks for informing me of something that even a simpleton could have gleaned by reading as few as two or three posts in this thread.

I just thought I'd add something that actually pertained to what now barely resembles the original discussion by posting the requirements for a state other than Texas or Pennsylvania, since it was by happenstance that I ended up getting something in the mail that listed all of the forms of ID that are accepted in order to vote in Colorado.

You don't? This surprises me.

You're surprised that I don't what? Vote? I'm always surprised that people are surprised, because I'm one of the most un-political people there is, not only here, but in general. My political comments are pretty limited to teasing SSS about his bromance and jokingly blaming Obama for everything from people being gay to the weather being too damned hot. I'm sure I've made the stray opinion here and there, but generally I'm just taking the piss.

We had a poll not long ago about whether we voted or not and I gave some of my reasons in response to some who were surprised and/or outraged, but it's mainly because, under our current system, my vote is meaningless....

I'll have to go this year..... one of my "I Voted" stickers fell off the LBN's steering wheel again, and it needs to be replaced for the sake of symmetry....

lb13

[flockofseagulls104]

There are 3 (and only 3) methods under the Constitution that Congress has to impose taxes. Excise taxes, direct taxes and income taxes (16th Amendment).

Where in the Constitution does it say that these are the only methods of imposing taxes? I'll even do you a favor and include the entire taxing and spending clause for you, since you prefer Mark Levin's version of the Constitution to that of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Flock, your version and Mark Levin's version of the Constitution have never existed, not today, not in 1789, not ever. It's just a combination of wishful thinking, sour grapes, and scouring through bits and pieces of certain of the Founding Fathers' writings in hopes of supporting your viewpoint.

Hmmm, every brief and article I see relating to the taxing authority of Congress seems to agree that the Constitution limits to the taxing power of Congress to levy only Direct and Excise type taxes and gives specific directions as to how they are to be levied. To that you can add Income taxes, which was added via the 16th amendment. There still seems to be some argument about the legitimacy of Income taxes by some.

But be that as it may, if the founders gave congress unlimited taxing authority, then why did they place elsewhere in the document specific limitations? (See Article 9)? And why did subsequent congresses they feel they needed to go through all the trouble of adding the 16th amendment to allow the fed to collect income taxes? Shoot, they could have just said we need to take so much percent of your income as a penalty, and when it was brought to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice could have ruled on his own that it was a new type of tax. Now we have a new type of tax: on inactivity. We can be taxed if we DON'T purchase health insurance.

Please understand, you may chastise me if it makes you feel better, but there are other people who are vastly more qualified than you who disagree with you. But I guess you are much better at logic and much more informed than they are.

Many of your answers to the posts I put here seem to consist of your opinion expressed as fact accompanied by a patronizing remark aimed at me. That may be sufficient to prove your point to yourself, but not to me.

[silverscreenselect]

But be that as it may, if the founders gave congress unlimited taxing authority, then why did they place elsewhere in the document specific limitations? (See Article 9)? And why did subsequent congresses they feel they needed to go through all the trouble of adding the 16th amendment to allow the fed to collect income taxes?

I never said there weren't limits. I only said that there were more than three types of taxes allowed under the Constitution. The only type of tax that is specifically prohibited is a poll tax (also by an amendment). The 16th Amendment was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that declared an earlier income tax unconstitutional. It might be added that the Supreme Court around the turn of the 20th century was an activist Court that invented ways to overturn legislation with which they disagreed (such as "substantive" Due Process), ways that have never been followed before or since.

[flockofseagulls104]

But be that as it may, if the founders gave congress unlimited taxing authority, then why did they place elsewhere in the document specific limitations? (See Article 9)? And why did subsequent congresses they feel they needed to go through all the trouble of adding the 16th amendment to allow the fed to collect income taxes?

I never said there weren't limits. I only said that there were more than three types of taxes allowed under the Constitution. The only type of tax that is specifically prohibited is a poll tax (also by an amendment). The 16th Amendment was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that declared an earlier income tax unconstitutional. It might be added that the Supreme Court around the turn of the 20th century was an activist Court that invented ways to overturn legislation with which they disagreed (such as "substantive" Due Process), ways that have never been followed before or since.

It would seem to me to be very unlikely and not in character with the framers of the Constitution to give unlimited taxing powers to a federal government. Especially since one of the major reasons they fought a costly war was to gain independence from a country who imposed what they considered unfair and excessive taxes on them.

Admittedly the Articles of Confederation did not work because they gave very little power to the federal government and became unworkable, but the main focus of the Constitutional Convention was to define the limits of the federal government. That is why they enumerated the powers that were given to it. It was a painful process framing that Constitution, because the states at that time did not want to give up their powers to a federal government.

Contrast that to today when in response to every crisis, be it real or manufactured, a good percentage, if not a majority, of the people of this country clamor for the Federal government to fix it. The states are slaves to federal funding. And the Washington elite are all to ready to take every crisis on with a new program and a new bureaucracy, because it gives them more power and more job security. It is no wonder that Washington DC is one of the fastest growing cities in the past decade.

[flockofseagulls104]

But be that as it may, if the founders gave congress unlimited taxing authority, then why did they place elsewhere in the document specific limitations? (See Article 9)? And why did subsequent congresses they feel they needed to go through all the trouble of adding the 16th amendment to allow the fed to collect income taxes?

I never said there weren't limits. I only said that there were more than three types of taxes allowed under the Constitution. The only type of tax that is specifically prohibited is a poll tax (also by an amendment). The 16th Amendment was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that declared an earlier income tax unconstitutional. It might be added that the Supreme Court around the turn of the 20th century was an activist Court that invented ways to overturn legislation with which they disagreed (such as "substantive" Due Process), ways that have never been followed before or since.

Ok, what I've seen is the the federal government has the authority to impose direct taxes, which are limited and have to be apportioned equally based on census data, excise taxes, which relate to commercial transactions (not lack of commercial transactions) and income taxes. What other taxes are enumerated and allowed in the Constitution that Mark Levin and other Constitutional experts might have missed?