Not Easily Apportioned
The end of chapter six proves that all direct taxes should be apportioned, whether easily apportionable or not. Many Courts have stated that the Founders didn’t intend for direct taxation to be difficult to administer. This same logic is being used today by those who are pushing for a wealth tax.
The Founders knew some direct taxes would be nearly impossible to be apportioned among the States and they wanted it that way.
In a previous post, apportionment was cited as coming from Section 2 of Article 1. This area of the draft is all about the make-up of the House of Representatives. Apportionment for direct taxes appears in this section because of the initial debate regarding how many representatives the legislature would have from each state.
The interesting details of the debate are in the book, but direct taxes became linked to the number of representatives. Of course, representatives are determined by population number.
Instead of moving the apportionment limitation from this area to Section 9, which deals with limits to Congressional power, they just left it in Section 2.
When the debate during the Constitutional Convention reached Section 9 of Article 1 (cl. 4), the draft just said, “No capitation tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census...”
Or Other Direct Tax
You have to keep in mind that the delegates during the Convention had already settled limiting Congressional power regarding direct taxation back in Section 2.
Section 9, Clause 4 had to do with capitation taxes, which are a form of direct taxation. They are head taxes where the objects of the tax pay the exact same amount or differing amounts based on one’s ability to pay.
It was at this point that George Read (DE) moved to insert after “capitation,” the words, “or other direct.” His motion passed and it became included in the clause to what we have now:
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census...
George Read wanted to make this change because he feared Congress could misconstrue the original clause’s meaning that it only said capitation.
In his notes, James Madison captured the reason for Read’s motion:
Mr. Read moved to insert after ‘capitation,’ the words ‘or other direct tax.’ He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise be taken to saddle the states with a readjustment, by this rule, of past requisitions of Congress; and that his amendment, by giving another cast to the meaning, would take away the pretext.
George Read didn't want past debts that some states owed to the federal government to be collected with a scheme of direct taxation. The updated clause meant they would have to adhere to apportionment, which would be impossible to implement.
Given the facts that the Convention had already dealt with direct taxation in Section 2 and then updated Section 9 to include “or other direct tax” should make clear the intent was for all direct taxes to be apportioned whether easily administered or not.
If the Framers wanted to restrict just those past debts from being directly taxed, they would have been specific in their wording. Instead, they used the most broad phrase possible, “or other direct tax.” In addition, they already dealt with direct taxation in Section 2.
To say that the Founders intended only direct taxes to be easily apportionable ignores Read’s motion to update the Constitution. It’s obvious they wanted the exact opposite of easily; namely, difficult or impossible to apportion.