Federalist 36 and 37; What is a Poll Tax and Why Term Limits Matter

Hamilton as Publius, opens Federalist 36 with a discussion of the type of person who would likely be elected to the House of Representatives.  “There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general.[1]  

Hamilton uses the character of the House of Representatives as a rebuttal to the objection that the new federal government would not be able to take into account the individual states’ uniqueness when it comes to taxation.  Because of the nature of the lower house, these people would have intimate knowledge of their individual states to, “a minute topographical acquaintance with all the mountains, rivers, streams, highways, and bypaths in each State.”  To those who wonder about an apparatus to collect federal taxes, “The national legislature can make use of the SYSTEM OF EACH STATE WITHIN THAT STATE.” (Emphasis in the original).  There was no federal collection of taxes anticipated at our inception. 

Of course, it sounds a bit absurd to our ears today to hear Hamilton say of the necessity for the states to collect taxes that, “their expenses come to be limited within their natural compass, the possibility almost of interference will vanish. A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource.”  

Hamilton goes on to discuss poll taxes.  While he confesses his “disapprobation of them,” he acknowledges that the states use them and that there is nothing in the new constitution to prevent them.  In this case a poll tax refers to a uniform tax on individuals, per capita.  Any poll tax that was not completely uniform was prohibited.  This is not the same thing as a tax on voting which, while it was called the same thing, was declared unconstitutional under the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment.  

Madison returns in Federalist 37 and opens by saying that the purpose of these writings is to appeal to those with an open mind.  In a message to us today, Madison states that he is not writing in order to convince those who have already decided against the new constitution no matter the counter argument.  Their case is lost.  Rather he is appealing to those, “who add to a sincere zeal for the happiness of their country, a temper favorable to a just estimate of the means of promoting it.”  He acknowledges that the key issue is how to craft a government that is strong enough to meet the challenges faced by the new nation, but that remains a republic and allows for liberty.  

Key for us is to understand, “The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us.”  Madison, and the rest of the founders, are very much aware that this is the first time anything of the sort has been attempted in history.  At best, a study of history to that point would help to point out the flaws that should be avoided in the other forms of government tried up until that time, but would do so, “without pointing out that which ought to be pursued.”  In a line that takes us back to the Hebrews, he asks for some understanding for the, “fallibility to which the convention, as a body of men, were liable.”  They were just men doing the best that they could.  

The founders intended to balance the need for stability with maintaining a representative republic. “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments.”  Clearly, the turnover in representatives would keep the federal government in check.  And in another reminder of how Aristotle viewed the ideal government, “that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands.”  By disbursing the power, our founders felt that liberty would be best ensured.  

In yet another Aristotelian phrase, Madison remarks how even nature blurs the lines between vegetable life and inorganic matter.  In the same way, this new government seeks to combine the three basic functions of executive, legislative, and judicial into one form.  His humility comes through in his acknowledgement of the fluidity of these distinctions and his sincere belief that what they have written is worthy of the new nation.

In addition to the difficulty of putting form to these distinct roles, Publius acknowledges that there is the additional complication of dealing with both large and small states.  Madison knows that the constitution will not please everyone. He is stating that this is the best outcome that these men could come up with, thankfully untainted by the effects of political partisanship that generally accompany these kinds of deliberations.  

And finally, all that said, Madison believes that the work is, like the work of gaining independence itself, Divinely inspired.  “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

 

1 thought on “Federalist 36 and 37; What is a Poll Tax and Why Term Limits Matter”

  1. There is a small problem with Term Limits… you have a perpetual Staff Mafia on the Hill that sets out to capture every new legislator and “bubble” them as soon as they’re seated. They screen constituent contacts to ensure that only messages that fit the Narrative get through, they craft legislation and speeches to conform to the chosen Uniparty Narrative, they generally enforce an agenda that benefits themselves and their paymasters rather than the country or the constituents.

    Until you Roto-Rooter out that septic tank, all term limits do is replace a dirty diaper with a soon-to-be-just-as-dirty one. I’m not opposing term limits in principle, just noting a Second Order Consequence that also needs to be dealt with at the same time… could even be argued that Congressvermin are a symptom and the Uniparty Staff deep-state are the real problem, but I’m more in the school of “two equal intertwined problems.”

Leave a Comment