Roy Blunt's Lead In Throwing Out The U.S. Constitution?

A contentious and complex bill, the so-called Market Place Fairness Act, which would empower states to tax people outside of the state, is being rammed through the U.S. Senate, intentionally bypassing the regular order, proceeding to a full Senate debate without any committee hearing or mark-up, so that a variety of important constitutional questions and concerns can be ignored. Aiding and abetting in such public policy malpractice?  Senator Roy Blunt, the only member of the Senate GOP leadership to support it. 

He voted for the measure in test votes, and despite procedural abnormalities, also voted to bring the legislation before the full Senate. True, he may have viewed it as a vote as a “free vote,” that is, a vote they could take without repercussions from voters or their big donors. On the other hand, he may have signaled his intent to vote  today for the Constitution-threatening legislation. Either way is a failure of leadership. 

Doubt the constitutional contempt of those behind the legislation? David French, lead spokesman and lobbyist for the National Retail Federation, an organization which lobbies for the retail industry’s best interests, was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, “The industry is evolving very rapidly, and the law today is a 20th-century interpretation of an 18th-century document that is holding back the entire retail industry as it adapts to 21st-century consumer preferences and demand." 

That pesky “18^th-century document” to which he refers is the U.S. Constitution. That nagging “20^th-century interpretation” mentioned is Supreme Court precedent. The 21^st century evolution he alludes to is the means to give “big box” retail giants such as Wal-Mart another leg up on main street retailers. Put it all together and he argues that the Constitution is “holding back” Wal-Mart and others from completely dominating the main street-U.S.A. retail landscape; that our interpretation of the Constitution must change because of the Internet.

In the Internet age where distance between buyer and seller is irrelevant, Supreme Court rulings and constitutional issues at stake are quite meaningful, including due process and the regulation of interstate commerce.

Due process balances the power of the state against the rights of the individual, protecting the individual, and business, from state power. The Due Process Clause requires a minimal connection between an entity and a taxing jurisdiction to justify that jurisdiction imposing taxes. Without a need for some connection to the state, the state could tax and audit anyone anywhere—a massive expansion of government power.

The National Governor’s Association (NGA) also supports the legislation as a means for the states, ravenous for new revenue, to easily fill state coffers with more of taxpayers’ hard earned money. The NGA’s executive director, Dan Crippen, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, derisively called states with no sales tax “tax havens,” implying that the decision to not levy a sales tax was somehow unseemly and hence senators from those states should buckle under and vote for the legislation.

Missouri’s property tax is 65 percent less than New York’s. Should Missouri raise its relatively low property tax by 65 percent so that it can avoid being a property “tax haven” and make New Yorkers feel better about their high rates?  It is an absurd argument, yet one that Senator Blunt seems to support.

With the final vote in a couple hours we must hope that Missouri’s Senator Blunt will change his mind and protect all Americans not just large national retailers and not pursue a new Constitution for the Internet.