No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States ... No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility
-- Art. I, sec. 9, 10
What exactly is a "title of nobility?" Some have taken things to extremes and argued that "titles" like "esquire" are banned, though even they would have to admit that the Constitution only covers governmental action. In fact, the provision actually allows a member of the federal government to receive a title from a foreign government with the consent of Congress. Nonetheless, the prohibition clearly bans the United States even to give honorary titles akin to those supplied in Great Britain to members of the arts and so forth.
More importantly, we were not to have a land aristocracy, and a major goal of Thomas Jefferson was to ease the alienation of land -- liberalizing inheritance rules, removing "feudal" remainders in place. Finally, yes, even honorary "titles" were looked upon with disfavor, thus the simple "President of the United States," when some (including John Adams) thought a more glorious title might be appropriate.
The measure, now deemed obscure and obsolete, was definitely important to the people of the new republic. Revolutionary ideals looked with askance at playing favorites and special privileges ("class/caste legislation" was also a concern after the Fourteenth Amendment). This also led Jefferson and others to resist establishments of religion, including state sponsoring of church lands and so forth. These days we have government programs to provide such questionable largesse.
This all is useful as a matter of historical understanding though I am going somewhere here. The connection is the ongoing attempt to suspend the estate tax -- by the way via a creatively crude accounting trick (the measure will not kick in until 2009, a year will go by without the tax, and then we will go back to pre-2001 levels ... or something, since the whole matter is all so dubious) that is all too common these days (we thus have fiscal conservative ... Democrats). It seems, especially given some of the alternatives, that this particular excise (minor already even without creative tax accounting) is not a bad way to obtain some governmental funds. Some might think it a way to cut spending (cutting funds), but with Iraq et. al., get a clue.
So, the proposed cut it is a way to pass the burden in favor of the children of rich people. Children who benefit from the property passed on to them by their families. The term "death tax" is a bit off since we are dealing with passing of estates, but put that aside. Generally, questions of fairness and class pop up once again. Inheritance taxes traditionally was a way to control the direct passing of wealth between generations, partly under the philosophy that it was proper for the state to limit the perennial control of property/wealth within families. This has the taint of nobility to it -- a continual "wealth class," even if one somewhat more flexible than traditional feudalism. Wealth was to be more fluid in this country, while progressive taxation overall is deemed more equitable.
Sen. Lautenberg led the debate against the suspension of the tax, discussing that he would benefit, but rather have his wealth taxed and supplied toward the public good. He was a late addition in the campaign that saw a corrupt Democratic senator leaving his race for re-election, and is an old guard liberal who has been fighting on the front lines in his second go around -- knowing (around 80) he probably won't be up for re-election a few years down the line. Anyway, the promotion of the public good -- the support of government activism (the good kind) -- brings to mind a book I'm reading about another (at times bad mouthed) bout of activism -- Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction by Eric Foner and Joshua Brown. Talking about history more should know about ...*
Sen. Tom Carper (along with more well known his colleague, which seems a bit off, up for re-election in November) had an interesting take on the whole matter today. In part, he noted the creative use of the term "death tax," but added the idea of a "birth tax" seemed to him a useful metaphor too. That is, the portion of the debt each new baby is born into. A debt this measure will expand. Sen. Carper seems like a nice evenhanded sort of guy, though of course I have only had limited exposure (saw him on C-SPAN one or two other occasions). I guess one needs to be when sharing a state with Sen. Joe Biden. Carper et. al. used charts, something not allowed a few years back. I wonder who produces those things, impressive looking things, a bit harder to create than PowerPoint presentations.
Seems like a nifty business, if you can get it. Meanwhile ...
28A, Version 1, Not To Be:
Along with Mr. Specter and Mr. Gregg, the Republican senators who voted against cloture were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and John E Sununu of New Hampshire. ... The 47 Republicans favoring cloture were joined by two Democrats, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Not voting were two Democrats, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, and one Republican, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who was accompanying Mr. Bush in Omaha earlier today.
Sen. Byrd's anti-homosexual views were voiced during the DOMA travesty while Sen. Nelson is on record as one of those turncoat Democrats who at key times adds "bipartisan" cover to BushCo. His namesake in Florida is a mixed bag, his opposition to Alito therefore notable, but the Nebraska (site of Boys Don't Cry) one is particularly distasteful. The cloture move if anything can be seen as one last victory -- the point of such moves are clear (to bring something up to vote), but on some level it can be explained away as merely a procedural measure.
Such was Sen. Lieberman's argument when he voted for cloture to the Bankruptcy Bill. Anyway, the anti-homosexual measure here too tried to create a special protected class, and though the specter will continue to rise in any number of forms, it is good to get rid of the damn thing. Remember, though, those 47 in November. Nelson is also up for re-election. Proof that purely having Democrats in office will not be enough. Byrd is too ... imperfect hero, but has more going for him overall.
---
* Foner is known for a determinative work on the Reconstruction as well as being one of the more outspoken left leaning voices in American historical thought. The book is a straightforward account geared toward the regular reader with useful pictorial essays included to examine the effects of visual imagery/pictures on societal thought.
One annoyance ... the book does not go into the few state efforts (including in loyalist Maryland and West Virginia, the latter gradually) to abolish slavery during the Civil War before the congressional passing of the Thirteenth Amendment. Overall, good book.