My defense of the SEDZI Act as follows, point by point in response, followed with my own thoughts.
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 states:
As Junkie points out for my benefit, it specifies the power of the Senate to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" but clearly, perhaps deliberately, avoids mentioning that
all taxes must be uniform throughout the country. Such a thing would be virtually impossible, as a literal interpretation of that wording would potentially find all targeted tax breaks in favor of certain businesses, certain incomes, etc, in violation of this clause. Such things aren't done with malice, they are done in a very specific and targetted fashion.
As with the SEDZI Act, in fact. There are clear requirements, which are as follows:
Junkie is correct, in my view, when he says that such a clause in the constitution was meant to prevent unfair and unfounded tax hikes on one region, or state, but not another. But the benefits of a Social & Economic Development Zone do not brazenly benefit one region but not another, they kick in only when several requirements, listed above, are met. Is a poor neighborhood, the majority of whom receive food stamp benefits, in violation of A1, S5, C1, just because it is in a concentrated area within one particular region?
Are the "rust belt" manufacturing companies that receive tax benefits for manufacturing companies receiving unconstitutional benefits, because the manufacturing companies are more strongly concentrated in certain areas of the Mideast Region?
The requirements for a creation of a SEDZ are fair, and specific. They're not based on geographic location, merely living standards and economic standards. If the law said "the Mideast Region will receive more SEDZs than the Northeast Region," Junkie may have a case to make about the benefits of the law being unfairly applied, but these benefits are universal across the country in the Zones, as these conditions can be met anywhere. It is
by mere coincidence if more SEDZs are created in a certain region than another.
I include these together as they both reference the same part of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 states:
Nothing in the SEDZI Act unfairly burdens businesses within a single market to compete with others. Tax benefits within the SEDZ are universal, and wage subsidization is provided on a limited basis to all that fit within the preconditions.
Indeed, the tax benefits are designed to improve competition within areas that have been economically depressed and left behind. I would even go so far as to argue that this clause does not
mandate "a single market where competition is free and undistorted" as it is merely within a Section regarding the
powers of the Senate, being one of many.
We all miss an important word: "
To provide an area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted."
I see no requirement there, what I do see is the power of the Senate to create, should it choose to do so "an area of Freedom, Security, and Justice without internal frontiers,"
and "a single market where competition is free and undistorted." I would certainly argue that the creation of an area where the economy is lifted up fairly, where jobs are secured and growth is encouraged, and individuals are helped from their dire straits, is "an area of Freedom, Security, and Justice."
The subsidies in the SEDZI Act are also provided in a colorblind way, and perfectly in line with Clause 1 of the 22nd Amendment:
The sustaining of jobs within a Social & Economic Development Zone, whether indirectly (through tax benefits to businesses) or directly (through wage subsidization) can
only be interpreted, in my view, to be a protection for those in employment, whether they be newly employed or otherwise.
I do not see why this should be grounds for dismissal of the law. Many real-world years have passed since the Bono cases, and in Atlasian time, that's decades. Our society is constantly evolving, our laws always changing, our Constitution is amended and stricken, and as such things deserve constant re-evaluation, and court cases decided eons ago should not be grounds for immediate dismissal of laws passed today.
A court's power of review cannot constantly be held tied by it's past decisions, of Justices that have long since passed.
In short:
1. The implementation of tax breaks to a specific area are met based on preconditions and standards that are identical, in terms of how they are implemented, to other federal benefits and tax hikes. Nothing specifies one section of the country over another, unlike what Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 is written with the intent to prevent.
2. I do not believe that Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 is necessarily written as a requirement, nor do I believe that it is one statement, but rather, two separate powers.
3. The beginning of Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution says "
The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution." The 22nd Amendment certainly grants the power to the Senate to protect public health and commerce by making policy to help those in employment, and would certainly limit the broad and outdated interpretation of A1, S5, C4.
That is why I believe the SEDZI Act is entirely within the realm of the Constitution.
