What gives a Supreme Court Justice the authority to reach across the Atlantic Ocean, resurrect an English tax on wealthy households, and use that history to defend an entirely different American system of taxation?

Justice Benjamin Cardozo did precisely that in 1937.

In Steward Machine Company v. Davis, Cardozo defended the federal unemployment tax imposed under the Social Security Act.

And among the historical examples he invoked was an English tax dating to 1777.

But what was that English tax?

It was a tax on the luxury of employing male servants.

Think about that.

Wealthy English households employed footmen, coachmen, butlers, and other male domestic servants. Parliament taxed the people who could afford these luxuries.

The servants themselves were not the taxpayers under that law.

The footman was not taxed for being a footman. The butler was not taxed for earning his livelihood. The wealthy household paid for maintaining domestic servants.

This was not a universal tax on employment. It was not a tax on every working man. It was not a tax on the ordinary business of earning a living.

It was a selective tax on a particular luxury associated with wealth.

Now consider what Cardozo did with that history.

He invoked this narrow English example while defending a federal tax measured by the wages paid by American employers.

And he reached back to Virginia, where a 1780 tax measure likewise included certain male servants among its taxable subjects.

Neither historical example established a general American constitutional power to tax every employment relationship.

But Cardozo’s judicial reach did not end there.

“On that same day, Cardozo also upheld the federal old-age benefits program in Helvering v. Davis, while the Court separately sustained the taxes imposed on employers and employees. What began as a historical comparison involving wealthy households became part of a broader judicial defense of federal taxation affecting ordinary Americans.”

Two decisions. Two different tax arrangements. One extraordinary expansion of federally approved taxation.

And that brings us to the Liberty Dialogues examination of judicial power.

BREACH. DRIFT. ENCROACHMENT. ENTRENCHMENT.

BREACH: When a historical example is treated as though it establishes constitutional authority it does not itself establish.

DRIFT: The movement from a luxury tax on wealthy households to a federal tax affecting ordinary commercial employment.

ENCROACHMENT: The expansion of federal taxation into economic relationships far beyond the particular circumstances of those historical examples.

ENTRENCHMENT: The Supreme Court’s decisions give that broader exercise of federal power the force of constitutional precedent.

And what makes this so extraordinary is the presumption beneath it.

Since when does an English Parliament define the limits of the American Constitution?

Since when does a tax on a wealthy man’s footman establish the constitutional legitimacy of a federal employment-tax system?

And since when does a Virginia tax from 1780 justify an entirely different national scheme?

Cardozo was not writing legislation. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court, entrusted with judging whether Congress had acted within its constitutional authority.

The historical examples he cited could illustrate how governments once taxed particular relationships.

They could not, by themselves, supply constitutional authority to tax entirely different relationships.

And that is the issue.

A historical analogy is not a constitutional delegation of power.

An English statute is not an American constitutional amendment.

And judicial approval is not a substitute for demonstrating the constitutional source and limits of governmental authority.

The question Cardozo should have answered is simple:

Where does the Constitution authorize the particular federal power being exercised?

Not where England taxed a wealthy man’s servant.

Not where Virginia once taxed a particular household arrangement.

But where the American people delegated the power in question to their federal government.

That is the question every exercise of federal authority must survive.

And no amount of judicial prestige can transform a weak historical analogy into a grant of constitutional power.

thelibertydialogues.com

If you voted in today’s election, I have one very simple question.

Of all the candidates you voted for, which one possesses the intelligence, the discernment, the integrity, and the courage to restore the American Republic to its constitutional foundations?

Which one?

Which candidate understands that the American people are sovereign, that their natural rights are not privileges granted by government, and that elected representatives are supposed to govern government—not the American people?

CAN YOU NAME ONE?

And if you cannot, I have another question.

WHY DID YOU VOTE?

For generations, Americans have elected Republicans and Democrats, hoping that someone in Washington would restore the freedoms our Founders intended to secure.

Yet the fundamental problem remains.

We keep changing the people in government without restoring the constitutional limitations upon government itself.

The American Republic was never intended to depend upon finding the perfect politician.

It was designed to restrain imperfect human beings entrusted with limited governmental authority.

And that brings us to the solution.

THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES.

REPRESENTATIVES GOVERN GOVERNMENT.

THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THEIR AUTHORITY.

If you genuinely want to restore the American Republic, I invite you to examine a solution that begins with the people—not another political promise from Washington.

ConstitutionalCounty.org.

Because restoring our Republic requires more than another election.

IT REQUIRES RESTORING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE… DRINK SOME WATER!

In 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts became lightheaded, fell, and injured his forehead.

His doctors attributed the incident to DEHYDRATION!

Now, we all know that without sufficient water, the human body becomes dehydrated. And without water long enough, a man will die.

But consider the irony.

Here is a Chief Justice who helped decide whether Congress could compel Americans to purchase health insurance.

Roberts acknowledged that Congress lacked that authority under the Commerce Clause.

But rather than let the legislation fail, he found another way to save it.

IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE!

He transformed a penalty into a tax!

Perhaps Roberts wasn’t merely dehydrated. Perhaps he was running low on CONSTITUTIONAL JUICE!

And perhaps Congress should stop trying to compel Americans to purchase health insurance until the Supreme Court justices learn to drink from the Constitution!

Because the lesson is simple:

WITHOUT WATER, THE HUMAN BODY DIES.

WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL FIDELITY, THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC DIES.

And if Chief Justice Roberts needs to replenish his constitutional judgment, I suggest he begin—

BY READING THE CONSTITUTION!

And as always, may truth reign supreme.

There was a time, recorded in the Old Testament, when men and women were entrusted with judging their fellow human beings, not because they possessed magnificent academic credentials or prestigious professional titles, but because they were expected to possess wisdom, discernment, truthfulness, and moral character.

Consider Samuel. Consider Deborah.

And consider Samuel’s sons, who inherited positions of authority but corrupted judgment through personal gain.

THE TITLE DID NOT MAKE THEM JUST. THEIR CONDUCT REVEALED WHAT THEY WERE.

Today, we have judges with impressive degrees, distinguished careers, and extraordinary institutional authority.

But I ask you: What good is a lifetime of legal education if a judge cannot distinguish between what an authority actually said and what he wishes that authority had said?

What good is judicial prestige if the exercise of judgment becomes subordinate to the preservation of governmental power?

A DEGREE MAY QUALIFY A MAN TO PRACTICE LAW. IT DOES NOT QUALIFY HIM TO ABANDON THE TRUTH.

And perhaps we should remember what the ancient standard demanded:

MEN OF TRUTH. HATING COVETOUSNESS.

Not men of titles.

MEN OF CHARACTER.