Mark Levin still promoting an Article V convention. WHY?

[thanatos144]

Like always those suggesting real change to reign in this out of control government makes others piss themselves. To many sheep

 

[eagle1462010]

Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.
In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.

COMMENT

The abuses to power have already occurred. Woodrow Wilson created a MOB IN 1913 and trashed the Constitution. Took away STATE'S RIGHTS and gave in to the Bankers WHO CREATED FIAT MONETARY POLICIES which eventually led to the Great Depression.

Woodrow Wilson should be considered one of the Worst TYRANTS in our History.

He is the FATHER OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION. It was his actions that initiated the assholes of Wallstreet to F over every American and the World. They created Money out of thin air, and CRASHED THE SYSTEM.

Then Marxist number 2 FDR came in to save the day, and CREATED MORE PROBLEMS.

The Glass Steigal Act was then passed to stop it from happening again.

And in 2000 the IDIOTS got rid of another portion of Glass Steigal and the FIAT MONEY IN THE MARKETS GREW TO BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS. aka Derivatives in excess of 1,000 TRILLION WITH NO FACE VALUE.....................

Crashed us again in 2008...............

And so the Federal Reserve pumps money back into the markets. FIAT MONEY.......and Creates another FAKE RECOVERY, with FIAT CURRENCY..................

The next time the MARKETS PASS GAS AGAIN, and the house of cards FALL, will make the crash in 2008 look like nothing.....................

As the CURRENCY MANIPULATORS TRASH OUR WAY OF LIFE. Paying Politicians from both sides to do their bidding, while laughing all the way to the bank................

They are TRAITORS, and those who support them and give into them NO LONGER CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE ANYMORE.................They only care about their POCKET BOOKS and POWER..................

And they are taking America under...................

They will not fire themselves, or go against those who give them their money.

Leaving us NO OPTION OTHER THAN CONVENTION and FORCING THE CHANGE.

Given our current path, IT IS OUR ONLY CHOICE OF ACTION..................

So we'll have to RISK THE MOB TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

 

[johnwk]

I've always been a Constitutional guy, and believe in Limited Gov't and STATE'S RIGHTS.

You are preaching to the choir here.

But I'm appreciative on this issue, as it prompted me to do some reading to understand the points you are making.

And as I'm a Math guy, I chose to crunch REAL NUMBERS to the equation.

And I have always been one to identify the cause of our sufferings, just as our founders did when framing our Constitution. We would work well together! Math is not my best subject.

But getting back to the subject and the rule of apportionment, [the math] let me stimulate your thinking with regard to the rule of apportionment and how its circumvention has introduced a deadly poison into our system of government.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Now, let us apply this to the Electoral College vote of the states.

Last time I checked there were 18 States who paid more per capita in federal taxes than California, and yet, California’s Electoral College vote is far greater than these states, and in one instance [Wyoming] California’s representation is almost 17 times greater!
And what did our founders agree upon? They agreed under the rule of apportionment, that whenever Congress taxed the people directly, the tax would be an equal per capita tax, i.e., if a direct tax were laid today upon the people and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then Idaho’s because of California’s larger population, under the rule of apportionment it gets a larger representation in Congress and a larger Electoral College vote, which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, California gets to exercise 55 votes in Congress when spending federal revenue, but does not contribute a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive pinko voting strength as our Constitution requires.


Each of the following states contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California, but come up short in a proportionately equal representation:

New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Wyoming

According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop



And the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And thus, the voters of California, having an enormous 55 Electoral College votes, are tickled pink to vote for a “pinko progressive” president because they are set free from the Constitution’s equation requiring representation with proportional financial obligation. And this situation has obvious devastating consequences which were [allegedly] articulated by Alexander Tytler as follows:


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


Forewarned is forearmed!


And so, I ask, why does Mark Levin, who I do admire, not discussed the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it was specifically intended to protect us from the devastating effects of democracy, AKA two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner’s menu? Perhaps Mark has never taken the time to delve into and discover our founders’ intentions as I have done with regard to the rule of apportionment. Unfortunately, he ignores or has never received the emails I have sent to him on this very issue.

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

 

[eagle1462010]

I've always been a Constitutional guy, and believe in Limited Gov't and STATE'S RIGHTS.

You are preaching to the choir here.

But I'm appreciative on this issue, as it prompted me to do some reading to understand the points you are making.

And as I'm a Math guy, I chose to crunch REAL NUMBERS to the equation.

And I have always been one to identify the cause of our sufferings, just as our founders did when framing our Constitution. We would work well together! Math is not my best subject.

But getting back to the subject and the rule of apportionment, [the math] let me stimulate your thinking with regard to the rule of apportionment and how its circumvention has introduced a deadly poison into our system of government.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Now, let us apply this to the Electoral College vote of the states.

Last time I checked there were 18 States who paid more per capita in federal taxes than California, and yet, California’s Electoral College vote is far greater than these states, and in one instance [Wyoming] California’s representation is almost 17 times greater!
And what did our founders agree upon? They agreed under the rule of apportionment, that whenever Congress taxed the people directly, the tax would be an equal per capita tax, i.e., if a direct tax were laid today upon the people and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then Idaho’s because of California’s larger population, under the rule of apportionment it gets a larger representation in Congress and a larger Electoral College vote, which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, California gets to exercise 55 votes in Congress when spending federal revenue, but does not contribute a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive pinko voting strength as our Constitution requires.


Each of the following states contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California, but come up short in a proportionately equal representation:

New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Wyoming

According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop



And the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And thus, the voters of California, having an enormous 55 Electoral College votes, are tickled pink to vote for a “pinko progressive” president because they are set free from the Constitution’s equation requiring representation with proportional financial obligation. And this situation has obvious devastating consequences which were [allegedly] articulated by Alexander Tytler as follows:


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


Forewarned is forearmed!


And so, I ask, why does Mark Levin, who I do admire, not discussed the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it was specifically intended to protect us from the devastating effects of democracy, AKA two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner’s menu? Perhaps Mark has never taken the time to delve into and discover our founders’ intentions as I have done with regard to the rule of apportionment. Unfortunately, he ignores or has never received the emails I have sent to him on this very issue.

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

I do not know why Mark Levin doesn't respond to this information. While I respect Levin I do not always agree with him.

I believe he is Right about calling a convention, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his amendments.

I WANT THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR EVIL TO BE PUSHED.

Which is the RETURN OF STATE'S RIGHTS.............

The Red State Plan would quite simply be A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. Returning to the Founders intent. I would prefer this to other methods I've seen. But without it's IMPLEMENTATION, which is NOT POSSIBLE in our CURRENT GOV'T, it must be put into the system VIA THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I'm Ok with it. But the STICKER SHOCK of it could lead to TAX LEVELS NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN BEFORE, as we are in a Pile of RED INK.

It could lead to more taxation WITHOUT CUTS, that would further destroy our economy. However, it is NECESSARY to FACE THE TRUTH and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.

You are quite RIGHT. If California received a bill for over a 100 BILLION DOLLARS in 2012, they would go BAT SHIT CRAZY and DEMAND CHANGE.

It is obvious you have an issue with Levin, and it's understandable. However, SHOULD THE CONVENTION BE CALLED it does NOT MEAN HIS AMENDMENTS WILL BE ON THE TABLE.

I would NOT WANT SO MANY, aka THE MOB. Only KEY AMENDMENTS that would actually fix the rest anyway.

Red State back to the Founders is OK by me.................

17th Amendment is critical to me....................

Repeal of the Federal Reserve is Critical to me..............

3 PRIMARY ONES NEEDED. I have now added yours to my list of only 2.

 

[eagle1462010]

Madison agreed to an Amendment process.

Our country was DAMAGED BY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

So why can't we FIX IT WITH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

Yes! During the framing of our Constitution Madison was in favor of Article V, but after seeing what transpired during the convention of 1787 and being a bit more wiser, he was very distressed in calling another convention for the reasons he stated in the quote I gave you. This does not mean he did not support amending the Constitution, but only indicates a "general convention" was a very dangerous idea, and I agree with Madison for a number of reasons I have already stated.


JWK





If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

I've got to be the Devil's advocate here, as I understand your concerns and Madison's.

How do we fix it then?

How do we return to the Founders intent?

Since some of our CORE PROBLEMS were created in a feeding frenzy in 1913, what other prescribed method do we have to return it to it's proper order?

Since, they CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION to put in place Amendments that have caused the damage.....................

There is NO OTHER COURSE than to fix the DAMAGE VIA THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS.........................

The 17th Amendment can ONLY BE REPEALED VIA A CONVENTION...............

So whether we like it or not, you have NO CHOICE but to proceed to Convention as THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

I believe you wish to push the Red State Tax System, and rightfully so, through the CURRENT SYSTEM and it will FIX THE REST.....................

That has a SNOW BALLS CHANCE AT EVER HAPPENING.................

It has a better chance, via a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN CONVENTION.

The other areas MUST BE CHANGED BY REPEALING changes to the Constitution, aka the 17th.

Finally, I believe you think Levin is CREATING A MOB that will possibly ABUSE the CONVENTION. Which is a Legitimate Fear. So, if and when it occurs someway and somehow people are going to have to put a leash on it.

Not sure on the how to do that, but it would be necessary.

 

[boedicca]

Don't pay too much attention to Mark Levin man... he's just an entertainer.

And not a very good one at that. Sometimes, if you are lucky, very luck, on a good day, Mr. Beck will get teary eyed for ya.

The Liberty Amendment is #6 on the NYT Best Sellers list for non-fiction.

I bet you've never had a book sell as well.

 

[Pete7469]

You're misrepresnting the facts.

Amendments can be enacted without "letting the snakes" rewrite the COTUS.

He's not talking about having a room full of political whores working in secret. He's talking about millions of people openly advancing constitutional laws that no political whores could even stop.

When I see people condemn Levin's ideas I have to wonder what their agenda is.

Quote my words in which you assert I am misrepresenting the facts.

In case you missed it, Mark Levin is promoting an Article V convention to be called!


JWK




It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.

On the occasions I've listened to Levin since his book came out he has specifically addressed that a "convention" is not what needs to happen. He said the amendments he's proposed are merely ideas that can be altered as the people see fit. I don't have a link, it's just what I've heard the man say.

What I question is your agenda.

 

[johnwk]

You're misrepresnting the facts.

Amendments can be enacted without "letting the snakes" rewrite the COTUS.

He's not talking about having a room full of political whores working in secret. He's talking about millions of people openly advancing constitutional laws that no political whores could even stop.

When I see people condemn Levin's ideas I have to wonder what their agenda is.

Quote my words in which you assert I am misrepresenting the facts.

In case you missed it, Mark Levin is promoting an Article V convention to be called!


JWK




It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.

On the occasions I've listened to Levin since his book came out he has specifically addressed that a "convention" is not what needs to happen. He said the amendments he's proposed are merely ideas that can be altered as the people see fit. I don't have a link, it's just what I've heard the man say.

What I question is your agenda.

You stated I am misrepresenting the facts. Your insulting remark is unsubstantiated. As to my "agenda", I promote abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Pete7469]

Well Johnwk............I agree with you if you are for repealing the Federal Reserve act. I've been arguing against this since the 90's.

And I, after having engaged in an intensive research project at the University of Maryland which covered a review of the historical documents which gave birth to our Constitution, I summarized my finding as follows: “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

Our founders experienced the evil effects of paper money, and the theft made possible when notes were forced upon the people via “legal tender laws”. And that is why they forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender! So why has Mark Levin, who is considered a genius and constitutionalist in many circles, never mentioned the un-constitutionality of Federal Reserve Notes being made a “legal tender for all debts, public and private”. Are they not the vehicle used by which our folks in Washington plunder the real material wealth created by America’s businesses, industries and productive hard working Citizens? The head of the snake with regard to today’s dishonest money system is in fact Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which prevents the market place from rejecting worthless script which are not “safe and proper” as Madison remarked! Why does Mark ignore the head of the snake which is not the Federal Reserve System as such, but rather, Federal Reserve Notes having been made a legal tender which allows the dishonest money system to continue, along with its never ending thievery?

And when it comes to taxation, once again Mark Levin refuses to attack the head of the snake which is the allowance of Congress to tax profits, gains and incomes, and ignore the rule of apportioning all direct taxes. So, let us summarize our Constitution’s original tax plan.

Our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. But if a shortfall was experienced and Congress found it necessary to lay a general tax among the States, each State’s share of a total sum being raised would be in proportion to its representation in Congress. This was to correct an evil of democracy in which 51 percent of a nation‘s population may vote away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States is as follows:


States’ pop.
----------------X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
U.S. Pop.

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Now, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their state treasury and into the United States Treasury? The truth is, our founder’s tax plan creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase federal revenue brought in from indirect taxation and reduce the need for direct taxation.

Put this rule back in place and it would repair most of the damage caused by the 17th Amendment by encouraging each state’s congressional delegation while in Washington to live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption so as to avoid the direct tax!

Why does Mark Levin avoid talking about the brilliance and wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan, especially the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted as applied to direct taxation? Why does he propose to keep alive the head of the snake ____ a tax levied upon profits, gains, and “incomes” while ignoring the rule of apportionment?

JWK



"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not." ___ Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797

I've been in more discussion regarding "real money" than I care to recall.

The bottom line is that the entire world uses fractional reserve banking. It has it's flaws, but it has also led to massive economic growth.

"Real money", like gold is a resource. It's value can fluctuate. It's actually less stable than the asswipes printed by the Fed Reserve.

Levin does not get into that because it's not a legitimate concern.

 

[Pete7469]

Quote my words in which you assert I am misrepresenting the facts.

In case you missed it, Mark Levin is promoting an Article V convention to be called!


JWK




It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.

On the occasions I've listened to Levin since his book came out he has specifically addressed that a "convention" is not what needs to happen. He said the amendments he's proposed are merely ideas that can be altered as the people see fit. I don't have a link, it's just what I've heard the man say.

What I question is your agenda.

You stated I am misrepresenting the facts. Your insulting remark is unsubstantiated. As to my "agenda", I promote abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

If you took that as an insult, next you'll be calling me a racist. I've listened to the man, his ideas are just ideas. He has specifically stated that he's not calling for a "constitution convention" if you can post the sound bite where he has I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise you're full of shit.

 

[johnwk]

Madison agreed to an Amendment process.

Our country was DAMAGED BY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

So why can't we FIX IT WITH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

Yes! During the framing of our Constitution Madison was in favor of Article V, but after seeing what transpired during the convention of 1787 and being a bit more wiser, he was very distressed in calling another convention for the reasons he stated in the quote I gave you. This does not mean he did not support amending the Constitution, but only indicates a "general convention" was a very dangerous idea, and I agree with Madison for a number of reasons I have already stated.


JWK





If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

I've got to be the Devil's advocate here, as I understand your concerns and Madison's.

How do we fix it then?

How do we return to the Founders intent?

Since some of our CORE PROBLEMS were created in a feeding frenzy in 1913, what other prescribed method do we have to return it to it's proper order?

Since, they CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION to put in place Amendments that have caused the damage.....................

There is NO OTHER COURSE than to fix the DAMAGE VIA THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS.........................

The 17th Amendment can ONLY BE REPEALED VIA A CONVENTION...............

So whether we like it or not, you have NO CHOICE but to proceed to Convention as THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

I believe you wish to push the Red State Tax System, and rightfully so, through the CURRENT SYSTEM and it will FIX THE REST.....................

That has a SNOW BALLS CHANCE AT EVER HAPPENING.................

It has a better chance, via a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN CONVENTION.

The other areas MUST BE CHANGED BY REPEALING changes to the Constitution, aka the 17th.

Finally, I believe you think Levin is CREATING A MOB that will possibly ABUSE the CONVENTION. Which is a Legitimate Fear. So, if and when it occurs someway and somehow people are going to have to put a leash on it.

Not sure on the how to do that, but it would be necessary.

What I am thinking I have already expressed, and very much in detail and there is no point to this discussion or thread if posting what I think is ignored and/or misrepresented!

For example, in POST NO 12 I asked who would attend an Article V convention if one were called and it appears that : the very snakes, both federal and state who now cause our sufferings, will be in charge of the convention and give them the opportunity to make constitutional, the tyranny they now rain down upon we the people…

I also raised another important question in the thread regarding ”… how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?

The fact is, we don’t know the mode of ratification the convention will adopt to approve their doings, which could be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members or some other rule which ignores the current three fourths rule. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous consent by the States, the Delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

I have actually taken the time to study the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention , and while debating the provision for amending our Constitution [Article v], Sherman of Connecticut realized the proposed wording as it stood on September 15 were vague enough to allow equal representation of the States in the Senate to be overridden by the amendment process as well as the internal affairs of the states being infringed up. On September 15th he ”expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate. He thought it reasonable that the proviso in favor of the States importing slaves should be extended so as to provide that no State should be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equality in the Senate.” Sherman went on to propose with reference to Article V "that no State shall without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Sherman’s proposal was defeated, however, Morris moved to add ”that no State without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate” which was agreed upon.

The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which advocates of calling a convention claim guarantees an equal number to the states [that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.], is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process! But it left open the question as to each state’s representation if an Article V convention were called!

And now we come to the interesting question of determining the number of delegates that would be allotted to each state if an Article V convention is called and if our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?

The fact is, there is a compelling argument to be made that the above mentioned pinko progressive states would indeed be entitled to a representation at the convention in proportion to their population size! Does our Constitution not set a new rule by which representation shall be by the rule of apportionment which overruled the Articles of Confederation’s equal representation rule? And who will get to decide this question if raised after Mark Levin’s convention is called by Congress? Would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court?

Finally, it seems to be continually asserted by those calling for a convention that there is no way to restore our Constitution’s original provisions without calling an Article V convention. But that assertion is flat wrong. The truth is, restoring merely requires the people to rise up and defend what they support! See our Constitution’s 21st Amendment! And then study how the people took it upon themselves to get the 18th Amendment repealed. The following photos tell the tail! CLICK HERE

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[johnwk]

On the occasions I've listened to Levin since his book came out he has specifically addressed that a "convention" is not what needs to happen. He said the amendments he's proposed are merely ideas that can be altered as the people see fit. I don't have a link, it's just what I've heard the man say.

What I question is your agenda.

You stated I am misrepresenting the facts. Your insulting remark is unsubstantiated. As to my "agenda", I promote abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

If you took that as an insult, next you'll be calling me a racist. I've listened to the man, his ideas are just ideas. He has specifically stated that he's not calling for a "constitution convention" if you can post the sound bite where he has I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise you're full of shit.

Yes, Mark Levin has ”… specifically stated that he's not calling for a "constitution convention". What he proposes is an “Article V convention”, and that has been referred to as a “con con” and “constitutional convention” for years. Is that your sematic attempt to switch the subject and avoid the likely consequences of calling a convention in which our existing Constitution hangs in the balance? Do you simply reject Madison’s warning against calling an Article V convention?


“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville


Mark Levin is calling for an Article V convention, which is exactly what Madison warned is a dangerous idea.


As to the sound bite you wanted [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZD9xk50wmw]CLICK HERE[/ame] SEE: 2.48 minutes into the interview.

Finally, your foul language is adolescent and does not advance you position.


JWK




Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

 

[The T]

I've always been a Constitutional guy, and believe in Limited Gov't and STATE'S RIGHTS.

You are preaching to the choir here.

But I'm appreciative on this issue, as it prompted me to do some reading to understand the points you are making.

And as I'm a Math guy, I chose to crunch REAL NUMBERS to the equation.

And I have always been one to identify the cause of our sufferings, just as our founders did when framing our Constitution. We would work well together! Math is not my best subject.

But getting back to the subject and the rule of apportionment, [the math] let me stimulate your thinking with regard to the rule of apportionment and how its circumvention has introduced a deadly poison into our system of government.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Now, let us apply this to the Electoral College vote of the states.

Last time I checked there were 18 States who paid more per capita in federal taxes than California, and yet, California’s Electoral College vote is far greater than these states, and in one instance [Wyoming] California’s representation is almost 17 times greater!
And what did our founders agree upon? They agreed under the rule of apportionment, that whenever Congress taxed the people directly, the tax would be an equal per capita tax, i.e., if a direct tax were laid today upon the people and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then Idaho’s because of California’s larger population, under the rule of apportionment it gets a larger representation in Congress and a larger Electoral College vote, which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, California gets to exercise 55 votes in Congress when spending federal revenue, but does not contribute a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive pinko voting strength as our Constitution requires.


Each of the following states contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California, but come up short in a proportionately equal representation:

New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Wyoming

According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop



And the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And thus, the voters of California, having an enormous 55 Electoral College votes, are tickled pink to vote for a “pinko progressive” president because they are set free from the Constitution’s equation requiring representation with proportional financial obligation. And this situation has obvious devastating consequences which were [allegedly] articulated by Alexander Tytler as follows:


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


Forewarned is forearmed!


And so, I ask, why does Mark Levin, who I do admire, not discussed the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it was specifically intended to protect us from the devastating effects of democracy, AKA two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner’s menu? Perhaps Mark has never taken the time to delve into and discover our founders’ intentions as I have done with regard to the rule of apportionment. Unfortunately, he ignores or has never received the emails I have sent to him on this very issue.

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

I do not know why Mark Levin doesn't respond to this information. While I respect Levin I do not always agree with him.

I believe he is Right about calling a convention, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his amendments.

I WANT THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR EVIL TO BE PUSHED.

Which is the RETURN OF STATE'S RIGHTS.............

The Red State Plan would quite simply be A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. Returning to the Founders intent. I would prefer this to other methods I've seen. But without it's IMPLEMENTATION, which is NOT POSSIBLE in our CURRENT GOV'T, it must be put into the system VIA THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I'm Ok with it. But the STICKER SHOCK of it could lead to TAX LEVELS NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN BEFORE, as we are in a Pile of RED INK.

It could lead to more taxation WITHOUT CUTS, that would further destroy our economy. However, it is NECESSARY to FACE THE TRUTH and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.

You are quite RIGHT. If California received a bill for over a 100 BILLION DOLLARS in 2012, they would go BAT SHIT CRAZY and DEMAND CHANGE.

It is obvious you have an issue with Levin, and it's understandable. However, SHOULD THE CONVENTION BE CALLED it does NOT MEAN HIS AMENDMENTS WILL BE ON THE TABLE.

I would NOT WANT SO MANY, aka THE MOB. Only KEY AMENDMENTS that would actually fix the rest anyway.

Red State back to the Founders is OK by me.................

17th Amendment is critical to me....................

Repeal of the Federal Reserve is Critical to me..............

3 PRIMARY ONES NEEDED. I have now added yours to my list of only 2.

REPEAL the 16th must also be done. As it is? The tax code is being used to PUNISH achievement/achievers, and stifles growth. It is a tool government uses precisely for this purpose. The progressives know it too.

It would stop them DEAD in their tracks.

 

[johnwk]

And I have always been one to identify the cause of our sufferings, just as our founders did when framing our Constitution. We would work well together! Math is not my best subject.

But getting back to the subject and the rule of apportionment, [the math] let me stimulate your thinking with regard to the rule of apportionment and how its circumvention has introduced a deadly poison into our system of government.

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Now, let us apply this to the Electoral College vote of the states.

Last time I checked there were 18 States who paid more per capita in federal taxes than California, and yet, California’s Electoral College vote is far greater than these states, and in one instance [Wyoming] California’s representation is almost 17 times greater!
And what did our founders agree upon? They agreed under the rule of apportionment, that whenever Congress taxed the people directly, the tax would be an equal per capita tax, i.e., if a direct tax were laid today upon the people and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then Idaho’s because of California’s larger population, under the rule of apportionment it gets a larger representation in Congress and a larger Electoral College vote, which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, California gets to exercise 55 votes in Congress when spending federal revenue, but does not contribute a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive pinko voting strength as our Constitution requires.


Each of the following states contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California, but come up short in a proportionately equal representation:

New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Wyoming

According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 18 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop



And the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And thus, the voters of California, having an enormous 55 Electoral College votes, are tickled pink to vote for a “pinko progressive” president because they are set free from the Constitution’s equation requiring representation with proportional financial obligation. And this situation has obvious devastating consequences which were [allegedly] articulated by Alexander Tytler as follows:


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.


Forewarned is forearmed!


And so, I ask, why does Mark Levin, who I do admire, not discussed the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, and how it was specifically intended to protect us from the devastating effects of democracy, AKA two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner’s menu? Perhaps Mark has never taken the time to delve into and discover our founders’ intentions as I have done with regard to the rule of apportionment. Unfortunately, he ignores or has never received the emails I have sent to him on this very issue.

JWK

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

I do not know why Mark Levin doesn't respond to this information. While I respect Levin I do not always agree with him.

I believe he is Right about calling a convention, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his amendments.

I WANT THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR EVIL TO BE PUSHED.

Which is the RETURN OF STATE'S RIGHTS.............

The Red State Plan would quite simply be A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. Returning to the Founders intent. I would prefer this to other methods I've seen. But without it's IMPLEMENTATION, which is NOT POSSIBLE in our CURRENT GOV'T, it must be put into the system VIA THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I'm Ok with it. But the STICKER SHOCK of it could lead to TAX LEVELS NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN BEFORE, as we are in a Pile of RED INK.

It could lead to more taxation WITHOUT CUTS, that would further destroy our economy. However, it is NECESSARY to FACE THE TRUTH and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.

You are quite RIGHT. If California received a bill for over a 100 BILLION DOLLARS in 2012, they would go BAT SHIT CRAZY and DEMAND CHANGE.

It is obvious you have an issue with Levin, and it's understandable. However, SHOULD THE CONVENTION BE CALLED it does NOT MEAN HIS AMENDMENTS WILL BE ON THE TABLE.

I would NOT WANT SO MANY, aka THE MOB. Only KEY AMENDMENTS that would actually fix the rest anyway.

Red State back to the Founders is OK by me.................

17th Amendment is critical to me....................

Repeal of the Federal Reserve is Critical to me..............

3 PRIMARY ONES NEEDED. I have now added yours to my list of only 2.

REPEAL the 16th must also be done. As it is? The tax code is being used to PUNISH achievement/achievers, and stifles growth. It is a tool government uses precisely for this purpose. The progressives know it too.

It would stop them DEAD in their tracks.

Please do not take offense to what I am about to write. Using the phrase “states’ rights” seems to be a phrase our progressives just love, as it allows them to associate and condemn “states’ rights” with slavery, inferring state’s rights are patently evil. They have learned to control the debate by controlling language!

Another example would be our Washington Establishment pretending that our “dollar” has lost is value, when in fact Federal Reserve Notes have lost their purchasing power while our silver and gold dollars have not! They intentionally confuse dollars as being federal reserve notes so there is no distinction made between "dollars" and Federal Reserve Notes which in fact have no intrinsic value. Mark constantly refers to "dollars" when he is really talking about Federal Reserve Notes losing their purchasing power.


But getting back to “state’s rights”, I think it is more appropriate to refer to “powers reserve by the people of the United States by command of the Tenth Amendment, with the obvious alterations added to our Constitution under our Constitution’ amendment process.

Additionally, a simple repeal the 16th Amendment as proposed by those behind the “fairtax” [H.R. 25, which Mark Levin also supports] is a trap because Congress would still retain the power to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes as was done under the Corporate Excise tax of 1909, and upheld by the court as not requiring an apportionment. And so, if H.R. 25 was adopted along with a simple repeal of the 16th Amendment as proposed by its advocates, we would wind up with an across the board tax on articles of consumption and an across the board tax on the sale of labor, and this would be in addition to excise taxes calculated from incomes, not to mention existing excise taxes on such things as gasoline, alcohol beverages, tobacco products, etc. The “fairtax” is cleverly designed to broaden Congress’ taxing reach, and tighten the iron fist around the American Peoples’ necks, and that is why I use specific language to repeal the 16th Amendment as follows:


The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the evil power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[eagle1462010]

FOAVC* Frequently* Asked* Questions* Page

Based on our research into an Article V Convention, FOAVC has come to the conclusion that, as with the rest of the branches of government (state and national) described in the Constitution, the Article V Convention is similarly bound by all provisions and clauses of the Constitution. Thus, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to an Article V Convention meaning that all laws, regulations, court rulings and so forth which have been applied to Congress (the only other branch of government authorized by the Constitution to propose amendments to the Constitution) automatically and equally applies to the Article V Convention, its delegates and its powers with one important exception---Constitutional scholars agree that an Article V Convention is limited strictly and exclusively to proposing amendments to the Constitution, which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states before taking effect. The Convention itself possesses no legislative or taxing authority; it can only debate, formulate and propose amendments.

An Article V Convention is simply an alternative method of amendment provided by the Framers of our Constitution enabling the citizens of the United States to advance proposals for amendments to the Constitution without national governmental approval or oversight and nothing more. Article V was never intended nor does it authorize the formation of a new Constitution; rather, it serves to modernize and clarify the existing document as do the existing 27 Amendments

QUESTION: Can an Article V Convention "runaway" like a "constitutional convention" can?

ANSWER: No. Only a "constitutional convention" can runaway. The Article V Convention, as its name suggests, is held under the authority of Article V of the Constitution which means as with all branches of government, it is held to the same standards of law as Congress, the president or the Supreme Court. Thus, if a an Article V Convention were to attempt to "runaway", that is assume more power than assigned it by the Constitution, the delegates who would undertake such a coup can be arrested, tried and convicted under already existing federal criminal laws.


http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=faculty_lawreviews

Article V envisions roles in the amendment process for four distinct
sorts of gatherings, groups that I sometimes refer to in this paper as Article
V assemblies. The four are Congress, state legislatures, state ratifying
conventions, and conventions for proposing amendments. Article V grants
eight distinct enumerated powers to these assemblies-four at the proposal
stage and four at the ratification stage. At the proposal stage, Article V:

(1) grants to two thirds of each house of Congress authority to "propose"
amendments,
(2) grants to two thirds of the state legislatures power to make
"Application" for a convention for proposing amendments,
(3) grants to Congress power to "call" that convention, and
(4) grants to the convention authority "for proposing" amendments.27

At the ratification stage, Article V:

(1) authorizes Congress to "propose" whether ratification shall be by
state legislatures or state conventions;
(2) if Congress selects the former method, authorizes three fourths of
state legislatures to ratify;
(3) if Congress selects the latter method, impliedly empowers, and
requires, each state to call a ratifying convention; and
(4) empowers three fourths of those conventions to ratify.

26. THE FEDERALIST No. 43, supra note 1, at 228. Similarly, at the North Carolina
ratifying convention, the following colloquy took place:
Mr. BASS observed, that it was plain that the introduction of amendments
depended altogether on Congress.
Mr. IREDELL replied, that it was very evident that it did not depend on the
will of Congress; for that the legislatures of two thirds of the states were
authorized to make application for calling a convention to propose
amendments, and, on such application, it is provided that Congress shall call
such convention, so that they will have no option.

Rules about constitutional conventions in state constitutions - Ballotpedia

Existing State rules for convention.

 

[eagle1462010]

An article V convention can be called by the State Legislatures with 33 states requesting a convention to be called.

Each State will then choose Delegates to determine the Amendments to propose.

Once this is done, the Amendments will go to the States for Ratification. Requiring 38 States to Ratify a new Amendment.

While I'm sure you already know this, you have basically stated that the larger progressive states will send more delegates and try to FORCE THEIR VIEWS DOWN OUR THROATS AGAIN. My response to that is that in the STATE LEVELS they DON'T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING.

We have 27 States SOLID RED.
Only 17 States are blue.
With 6 States Split.

They simply don't have the votes in the end, and neither do we if we don't take 5 blue states in FINAL PASSAGE.

How many delegates would each state get for the Final Vote on which Amendments get sent to the States? Uncertain.............But it would be the rules set in the beginning. Best case rule, 1 vote per state. Worst case same numbers as Congressional Reps plus Senate per State. Right now the Congress is red should this occur, not giving the Dems the advantage.

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW My recent posts are in response to post 51.

[quoteFor example, in POST NO 12 I asked who would attend an Article V convention if one were called and it appears that : the very snakes, both federal and state who now cause our sufferings, will be in charge of the convention and give them the opportunity to make constitutional, the tyranny they now rain down upon we the people…][/quote]

From my readings, a lot of it very recently, No current elected official can be a delegate with only one exception..............If they choose to resign to be a delegate............Since, your the scholar on this, am I reading these others correctly?

In my last post, I surmised from my readings of many scholars on this issue that they would NOT BE ALLOWED MORE THAN CURRENT LEVELS via the House and Senate. Thus my last post was a Worst Case Scenario for the Convention.

Again, as my last post suggests, that currently the House and States are Controlled by the GOP.

Given this, there's no way they could pass their Prog Amendments.................

Finally, your fear on going the way of 2/3rd's and bypassing the States as Congress sees the people about to RIP THEM A NEW ONE VIA a Constitutional Convention.............If proposed by the States to begin with, how will they FORCE IT. Secondly, the GOP holds the House and would never let them have the votes to circumvent the 3/4ths rule.

 

[johnwk]

An article V convention can be called by the State Legislatures with 33 states requesting a convention to be called.

Each State will then choose Delegates to determine the Amendments to propose.

Once this is done, the Amendments will go to the States for Ratification. Requiring 38 States to Ratify a new Amendment.

While I'm sure you already know this, you have basically stated that the larger progressive states will send more delegates and try to FORCE THEIR VIEWS DOWN OUR THROATS AGAIN. My response to that is that in the STATE LEVELS they DON'T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING.

We have 27 States SOLID RED.
Only 17 States are blue.
With 6 States Split.

They simply don't have the votes in the end, and neither do we if we don't take 5 blue states in FINAL PASSAGE.

How many delegates would each state get for the Final Vote on which Amendments get sent to the States? Uncertain.............But it would be the rules set in the beginning. Best case rule, 1 vote per state. Worst case same numbers as Congressional Reps plus Senate per State. Right now the Congress is red should this occur, not giving the Dems the advantage.

You seem to base your support for calling a convention on the basis of “red state vs blue state”. I look at it a little different and ask myself which of our State Governments has been faithful to its own state constitution, and has refused to use government force to redistribute wealth?

How many state Governors and Legislatures willingly accept money from our federal treasury for functions not authorized by our Constitution’s legislative intent, which in turn enslaves those who receive such money, making state governments dependent upon the federal governments’ will? What do you think the No Child Left Behind Act was all about? Surely it had nothing to do with improving state government public education. To the contrary, it had everything to do with seizing federal control over the minds of our nation's school aged children, which is a power exercised in every despotic country!

Are you familiar with Common Core? See: Classroom chaos? Critics blast new Common Core education standards

The article ends:


Phyllis Schlafly of The Eagle Forum goes even further.

“Common Core means federal control of school curriculum, i.e., control by Obama administration left-wing bureaucrats,” wrote Schlafly. “The control mechanism is the tests (called assessments). Kids must pass the tests in order to get a high school diploma or admittance to college. If they haven’t studied a curriculum based on Common Core standards, they won’t score well on the tests.”



And what about the federal highway trust fund? How many times has this been used to blackmail the states into submission? Should we just ignore the wisdom of Hamilton who wrote the following maxim? A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL? ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


How many "RED" state legislatures have not used the force of state government power to steal the wealth productive members of their state have produced, and then transfer that wealth to privileged groups in return for their vote, which in turn helps to keep these thieves in power?

Red state Legislatures and Blue state legislatures have been feathering their own nests using the force of government for countless generations, and you think they would do the bidding of "We the People" if a convention were to be called?

The fact is, during the Convention of 1787 the delegates agreed that the new government they were creating would assume state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War! At present, state pension funds are a ticking time bomb and have an unfunded liability of about $3.5 trillion! Would the state delegates chosen to a convention by state legislatures not be tempted to grant extraordinary new powers to our federal government in return for the federal government assuming the various State unfunded pension debt liabilities? Have we not already witnessed bribery in the adoption of Obamacare? Are we not already hearing the clamoring by some of the states for the federal government to bail them out of their financial debts?

And if such a proposal is brought back to the States for our federal government to assume state pension fund liabilities, are we to believe the leadership of states with unfunded debt liabilities would not embrace enlarging the iron fist of the federal government over their people in return for their state debt being wiped clean? SEE: California on the Brink: Pension Crisis About to Get Worse

In any event, here is an excellent read on an Article V Convention from one of our Country’s conservative icons! Is Article V in Our Future? by Phyllis Schlafly, Aug 27, 2013

Part of the article reads as follows:

The most important question to which there is no answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention, or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?

Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.

JWK




Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

 

[eagle1462010]

I think you underestimate the States. While their is corruption everywhere these days, even in the States I believe the People and even the States are Fed up with Government Control. I believe they are tired of not having a voice in the matter as the Fed passes laws that effect them economically, and forces issues down their throats whether they like it or not. Also, a large segment of the Population is Fed up with the Fed.

Your example. Core. Comply or lose funds. OBEY. Which is against the Principles of FREEDOM ITSELF.

I have sisters who are teachers. They can't stand the Gov't telling them what to teach. They know their students weaknesses and strengths, but are now forced to TEACH A TEST, so their students can pass the test.

I agree that it is an example of Governments OVERREACH of POWER.

Big States will control the outcome..................

As I've already said, it would basically be the House numbers in which we have a majority. Not a large one, but enough to make a difference.

Secondly, as I've already stated. 27 States are GOP controlled. 6 in Limbo etc...... I believe it would be a small majority in the end for the GOP minded states. If we could get it passed to 1 vote per state then it would be fantastic.............Doubtful but great.

Your Fears are legitimate, and I know you are trying to avoid the possibility of the mob in the convention. But even if the mob takes control their, they will never pass anything as they simply don't have sufficient States to do so.

We are more Conservative minded in the country than it shows in elections. People are just simply tired of the BS that is now our Gov't. We vote for the lesser of evils all the time, to the point that so many stay home that the Dems got their majority and Marxist POTUS.

How do we fix this................The Rhino's and corrupt GOP members fight their own members for daring to GO AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. Thus tearing their own party apart for their own special interests. Which, if not controlled, could keep the Senate Dem controlled again so Reid and Piglosi can go on TV and make me grab a barf bag again.

The establishment will NOT FIRE ITSELF. It will not go against the MONEY MACHINE that funds their power. Leaving the only course of action remaining, to call for a Constitutional Convention.

Now to your article, from Town Hall. Excellent article, and I've read several others like it during this discussion. It mentions that the Congress expressly refuses to call the Convention.

On other sites I've read the same. 400 times it has been attempted. 400 times the Congress simply refuses to do it's constitutional duty. It's time to make them try it again. And when they fail to do their duty yet again, attack their position by ALL MEANS AVAILABLE. tv, RADIO, INTERNET, NEWSPAPERS AND EVERY IMAGINABLE MEANS.

Call and say ENJOY YOUR TIME REMAINING IN OFFICE, because YOUR FIRED NEXT ELECTION. And then back it up.

I don't see other options anymore. Our Gov't is completely out of control, and the Debt is INSANE. Our dollar is dropping in value, our prices go up, and the jobs aren't coming back. The Markets are pumped on FIAT MONEY AGAIN waiting to crash.

What we have coming is UTTER DISASTER.

Do we simply sit on our hands and say FUCK IT. Or do we at least attempt to save this nation.....