The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

How nice of you to once again post your unsubstantiated and groundless opinion and fail to address my specific points.

My opinion is substantiated and foundational. I've addressed every point you have made. You are wrong. No one that I am aware of, has appointed you steward over what is correct or incorrect, nor have you been given authority to proclaim your opinions valid over my opinions. Our opinions have to be supported with factual information, and you have provided ZERO factual information to suggest the convention would be done by apportionment, or that delegates could supercede the authority granted to them by the states who sent them. It's not in the Constitution, there is no Constitutional basis for it, and all it amounts to is fear mongering from people who want to maintain the status quo.

The questions I asked you earlier have still not been answered. Why are you pretending to be upset and angry over all-powerful federal government, and continued federal encroachment on individual liberty, and persistent ignoring of the Constitution by the powers in Washington... yet opposed to a Constitutional method of addressing the problem in the way our founding fathers gave us to do so? This stark contradiction of views is what makes me believe you are a fraud. A fake. A phony. Someone who wants to portray himself one way, but is really another. You've shown no signs of objective reasoning on this, you continue to raise superfluous nonsensical points that are totally irrelevant, and attempt to completely ignore everything I have presented. I believe you are either a liberal who thinks he is being clever, or a neo-statist in the mold of Karl Rove or John Boehner. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what you are, or if you ever answer my question. This is going to happen, one way or another.

 

[Boss]

Tell the voters you're going to take away their voting rights. I'm sure you'll enjoy being in the political wilderness for a generation.

Ironic this is coming from a son of a bitch who supported Nancy and Harry's ramming of a health care bill down the throats of the people against their will, when an overwhelming majority of voters were opposed. A fucktard who supports a president ruling by fiat like a goddamn king or emperor, completely bypassing the Congress and the People to impose his will. A retard who supports a Justice Department and Attorney General who brazenly ignores the laws as established by the people of states left and right.

I gotta hand it to you, Liberals have balls the size of Kansas.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just a reminder for those who worship at the alter of State's Rights

city government --> collective, government power
county government --> collective, government power
state government --> collective, government power
federal government --> collective, government power

Government is government is government no matter what the level. Simply because the constitution gave rights to state does not imply states protect individual liberties and rights. State government can abuse it's power and trample individual rights just as much the federal government.

Bravo! So we should just disband all forms of government and live in Anarchy as a society! That's the only solution, if all government is bad! Fucking IDIOT!

Unsurprisingly, you’re missing an excellent point.

All government is the same in that it will always pursue more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty, whether that’s a village government or the Federal government.

Consequently, it’s incumbent upon the people to be always mindful of their governments’ actions, to participate in the political process, and to seek remedy in the Federal courts when government acts in a manner offensive to the Constitution, local, state, and Federal.

 

[Toro]

Tell the voters you're going to take away their voting rights. I'm sure you'll enjoy being in the political wilderness for a generation.

Ironic this is coming from a son of a bitch who supported Nancy and Harry's ramming of a health care bill down the throats of the people against their will, when an overwhelming majority of voters were opposed. A fucktard who supports a president ruling by fiat like a goddamn king or emperor, completely bypassing the Congress and the People to impose his will. A retard who supports a Justice Department and Attorney General who brazenly ignores the laws as established by the people of states left and right.

I gotta hand it to you, Liberals have balls the size of Kansas.

Given that I supported none of these things and am not a liberal, you might have some credibility if you left your masturbatory Small Tent echo chamber and realize that "If you're not with us then you're against us" is a poor political strategy, especially since you drones are doing a really good job of alienating those who might otherwise support you with your pining for an idealized 19th Century Paradise that never existed.

 

[johnwk]

How nice of you to once again post your unsubstantiated and groundless opinion and fail to address my specific points.

My opinion is substantiated and foundational. I've addressed every point you have made. .

Addressing and engaging in a productive discussion on specific points made are two entirely things. Yes, you have addressed what I have posted but you have avoided a productive discussion on the specific points. I wrote:

No one on this end suggested convention delegates can change our existing Constitution. You state the obvious to avoid what the delegates can do should an Article V convention be called. And, they could write an entirely new constitution with an entirely new form of government, and vest powers in that new government as they see fit, and then ignore our existing constitution’s required ¾ state approval by which to effectuate their doings, and perhaps require a majority vote of our existing Senate to make their new Constitution the supreme law of the land. Even worse, they could require a simple majority vote of the people to effectuate the new constitution, and hail their new government as the people’s “democracy”, in which 51 percent of the voters would be left free to vote away the property and liberties of the remaining 49 percent of the nation’s population.

In regard to your notion about delegates acting “at the behest of state interests”, it is far more probable they would do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates. So who is it that will be selecting these delegates? Will it be those like myself who support and defend our existing Constitution along with the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or will the selection of delegates be left to those who have already spat upon their state constitution and despise the miracle our founding fathers produced? I suspect the latter choice would prevail and they would then be free to begin the process to undo our existing system of government, and make legal the “soft tyranny” Mark Levin often refers to. And the remarkable thing is that Mark Levin would have been part of the undoing of our existing Constitution.

So, is it not a fact a convention called under Article V is free to write and propose whatever they please?
And, would the convention not be free to also propose a method of ratification different than the ¾ rule contained in Article V?

Finally, is it not reasonable to believe those chosen to attend the convention will do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates?

BTW, you never gave your opinion on Mark Levin proposing to keep the Marxist inspired tax calculated from “incomes”, nor why he proposes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and also ignores our founders intended method to deal with deficits using the apportioned tax among the states.

JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

 

[johnwk]

Just a reminder for those who worship at the alter of State's Rights

city government --> collective, government power
county government --> collective, government power
state government --> collective, government power
federal government --> collective, government power

Government is government is government no matter what the level. Simply because the constitution gave rights to state does not imply states protect individual liberties and rights. State government can abuse it's power and trample individual rights just as much the federal government.

Bravo! So we should just disband all forms of government and live in Anarchy as a society! That's the only solution, if all government is bad! Fucking IDIOT!

Unsurprisingly, you’re missing an excellent point.

All government is the same in that it will always pursue more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty, whether that’s a village government or the Federal government.

I take it then that you, as I am, are an ardent supporter of our constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and respecting powers retained by "the People"?


JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[thanatos144]

Bravo! So we should just disband all forms of government and live in Anarchy as a society! That's the only solution, if all government is bad! Fucking IDIOT!

Unsurprisingly, you’re missing an excellent point.

All government is the same in that it will always pursue more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty, whether that’s a village government or the Federal government.

I take it then that you, as I am, are an ardent supporter of our constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and respecting powers retained by "the People"?


JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

You dont seem to be.

 

[Boss]

So, is it not a fact a convention called under Article V is free to write and propose whatever they please?

No, it's not. The delegates are sent with a specified purpose, the purpose the state called the convention for. Should they attempt to "go rogue" the state would recall them immediately from the convention. The state has all the authority here, just as Congress would have the authority if they undertook the amendment process. Could some lone Senator get up and propose some wacko idea during this process? Sure, but what would happen then? Would it become part of the Constitution? Is there ANY danger in it ever becoming part of the Constitution? NO! Even IF a supermajority supported the wacko idea, it would still need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and should they do this, it would not be such a wacko idea, by evidence of that.

Let's be clear, Article V is not some obscure thing that has been misinterpreted into the Constitution, it is quite simply, the process presented by the founders for amending the Constitution, and it contains two alternatives for this process. Either alternative is legitimate. There are two alternatives for a reason.

And, would the convention not be free to also propose a method of ratification different than the ¾ rule contained in Article V?

NO! The Constitution makes very clear, the process for ratification. The "method" of ratification can be determined by the state legislatures. They may decide to do this through a ballot initiative or by state congressional hearings, it's entirely up to the state as to how they go about ratification. But they cannot change the Constitutional provisions for the ratification process. (*unless: 3/4 of the states ratified an amendment to change the process for ratification.)

Finally, is it not reasonable to believe those chosen to attend the convention will do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates?

That is why they are selected and sent by the state legislature, so of course they would do their bidding. That is what a "delegate" does, generally speaking. But no state legislature is going to vote to send delegates off to a convention to propose something so radical that 3/4 of the states would never approve, it would be pointless to do so.

BTW, you never gave your opinion on Mark Levin proposing to keep the Marxist inspired tax calculated from “incomes”, nor why he proposes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and also ignores our founders intended method to deal with deficits using the apportioned tax among the states.

Because it's a sidetrack issue that doesn't pertain to the topic we are discussing. I have still not heard Levin proposing we keep the current tax system. He has been a strong advocate of both the Flat Tax and Fair Tax plans, but on the day you claimed he said this, I find nothing in the program about it. I have every show downloaded, so if you would like to give me a marker time, so that I may find these comments, I will be glad to review and respond, but it still has nothing to do with amending the Constitution.

A balanced budget amendment certainly does not grant Congress the Constitutional authority to NOT balance the budget... what kind of idiocy is this? Here is Levin's proposal, as presented in his book:

Spending
SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.
SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.
SECTION 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
SECTION 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.
SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.
SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Taxing
SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.
SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.
SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.
SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

And again, Levin points out that these are his proposals, they are not set in stone, he is not some hell-bent ideologue such as yourself, who thinks the whole world should bend to his will, regardless. He is presenting his ideas, as a starting point and basis to begin the conversation. These can be changed or altered during the process, depending on what others bring to the table.


Now... I have again answered every question you posted, as I have done this entire thread. You have yet to answer my question regarding your motives. When is that going to happen?

 

[johnwk]

So, is it not a fact a convention called under Article V is free to write and propose whatever they please?

No, it's not.

Well, I appreciate you giving your opinion but it conflicts with statements made by a number individuals well versed on the subject, e.g.:

"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

"[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue." __ Barry Goldwater said
A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?" ... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. __ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986

"After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."__ Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law

And, would the convention not be free to also propose a method of ratification different than the ¾ rule contained in Article V?

NO! The Constitution makes very clear, the process for ratification. The "method" of ratification can be determined by the state legislatures.

The Constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

As you can see, Congress gets to propose the method of ratification. Additionally, 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, the delegates of the 1787 convention arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did. And an Article V convention convened today and it too alter the method of ratification to make their doings the supreme law of our land, would it not be our existing tyrannical supreme court that would issue a ruling in the matter?

Finally, is it not reasonable to believe those chosen to attend the convention will do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates?

That is why they are selected and sent by the state legislature, so of course they would do their bidding. That is what a "delegate" does, generally speaking. But no state legislature is going to vote to send delegates off to a convention to propose something so radical that 3/4 of the states would never approve, it would be pointless to do so.

You never answered the question with a “Yes” or “No”. I’m assuming your answer is “Yes”. Those chosen to attend the convention will do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates. So, in effect, those chosen to attend the Convention will be chosen by folks in government to propose amendments and they will do the bidding of folks in government. Is that correct?

BTW, you never gave your opinion on Mark Levin proposing to keep the Marxist inspired tax calculated from “incomes”, nor why he proposes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and also ignores our founders intended method to deal with deficits using the apportioned tax among the states.

Because it's a sidetrack issue that doesn't pertain to the topic we are discussing. I have still not heard Levin proposing we keep the current tax system. He has been a strong advocate of both the Flat Tax and Fair Tax plans, but on the day you claimed he said this, I find nothing in the program about it. I have every show downloaded, so if you would like to give me a marker time, so that I may find these comments, I will be glad to review and respond, but it still has nothing to do with amending the Constitution.

You certainly are correct that the amendments Mark is promoting is a different subject than the rules and limits of an Article V Convention. However, I found it surprising that Marks balanced budget amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget, and it would supersede our founding fathers intended method to extinguish an annual deficit with an apportioned tax among the States so each state shares in the burden proportionately equal to its number of votes in the House i.e., an idea which commands representation with proportional financial obligation!

I also was shocked Mark is a fan of promoting the Marxist tax calculated from incomes. And, he never defined what “income” means under his proposal. Of course, this failure cleverly allows Congress to continue to manipulate the meaning of what is and what is not taxable “income”. Too bad he didn’t consult me before writing the two amendments mentioned above. I would have offered the wording to bring us back to our founders intentions on these two subjects.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[Boss]

Well, I appreciate you giving your opinion but it conflicts with statements made by a number individuals well versed on the subject, e.g.:

"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

I guess he didn't read the study I posted earlier from his own law school, which answers most, if not all, of his questions? No doubt, it might take SCOTUS to penetrate the granite-like skulls of morons like you, on what the Constitution says. But Article V has been used 27 times to amend the Constitution, and there has never been a problem with any of these "issues" you have raised.

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

I've already told you, the AG of Virginia is wrong. Yes, technically, he is correct, but he is still wrong. Look... If Congress decided to hold hearings on a proposal for amendment, and this process began, as it has 27 times before, then technically speaking, a member of Congress could run around the floor naked, clucking like a chicken! It's possible! It could happen! But realistically, it's not going to happen. Levin says the only way there can be a "runaway convention" is if the states are already in "runaway mode" when they call for one. The delegates are sent to do the bidding of the state, not willy-nilly propose things out of thin air.

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

Berger is correct, CONGRESS has no authority at a state-called convention. That is the point. The delegates, under direct instruction from the states who sent them, would make the rules and set the agenda, as set forth by the state legislatures. Congress' role is ministerial.

"[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue." __ Barry Goldwater said
A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?" ... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. __ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986

Hey, guess what? We've wound up with a government who doesn't recognize the Constitution and a SCOTUS who has interpreted it into something far removed from the founders intent, and our Republic can not continue! With all due respect to Justice Goldberg, this is not a "constitutional convention" but a convention to propose amendments. ANYTHING that comes out of the convention, must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There is your "mechanism" to prevent a runaway convention. However, it is extremely unlikely the states would sit idly by and allow their delegates to proceed with the process under any other purpose than why they were sent. Nor would the state be compelled to advance the rogue amendments on to ratification, they call all the shots here, the state legislatures.

"After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."__ Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law

Again, he is correct but wrong. Article V also allows congress to convene to propose the plural "amendments" and they never have proposed more than one at a time. Technically, they can, but it has never happened, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. In any event, all proposed amendments would have to be individually ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.

The Constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

As you can see, Congress gets to propose the method of ratification.

Which is also contradicting your point that the convention could decide this.

Additionally, 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, the delegates of the 1787 convention arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did. And an Article V convention convened today and it too alter the method of ratification to make their doings the supreme law of our land, would it not be our existing tyrannical supreme court that would issue a ruling in the matter?

We've been over the 1787 convention already. The delegates were sent by the states with authorization to write a new constitution if they had to. The SCOTUS has very limited power in case of such a convention, just as they have very limited power in case of a Congressional process for amendment. The political question doctrine comes into play. This is what SCOTUS has said about the Congressional process for amendment in Article V, and since it is equal in legitimacy to a state-called convention process, there is no reason to assume it does not also apply:

"Congress, possessing exclusive power over the amending process, cannot be bound by and is under no duty to accept the pronouncements upon that exclusive power by this Court."

You never answered the question with a “Yes” or “No”. I’m assuming your answer is “Yes”. Those chosen to attend the convention will do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates. So, in effect, those chosen to attend the Convention will be chosen by folks in government to propose amendments and they will do the bidding of folks in government. Is that correct?

Yes, delegates appointed by state legislatures are beholden to the state legislatures who appointed them, and can also be withdrawn by said legislatures at any time during the convention process, for any reason the state legislature deems necessary. There is no provision in the Constitution for any other entity besides "government" to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

You certainly are correct that the amendments Mark is promoting is a different subject than the rules and limits of an Article V Convention. However, I found it surprising that Marks balanced budget amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget, and it would supersede our founding fathers intended method to extinguish an annual deficit with an apportioned tax among the States so each state shares in the burden proportionately equal to its number of votes in the House i.e., an idea which commands representation with proportional financial obligation!

I also was shocked Mark is a fan of promoting the Marxist tax calculated from incomes. And, he never defined what “income” means under his proposal. Of course, this failure cleverly allows Congress to continue to manipulate the meaning of what is and what is not taxable “income”. Too bad he didn’t consult me before writing the two amendments mentioned above. I would have offered the wording to bring us back to our founders intentions on these two subjects.

Well, Mark Levin didn't call a convention and have it with himself, to argue the various particulars in his own head, then hash out the details and return his findings to his own state legislature inside his head, to be considered now for ratification... did he? Too bad you are removing yourself from this process before it starts, by objecting to the process. I'm sure when the required number of states convene a convention to consider these amendments, your wisdom and insight will be sorely missed, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Of course, then again... unless you would be a delegate from a state full of Anarchist Libertarians, or whatever the fuck you are, then you'd probably get recalled right off the bat.

 

[johnwk]

Well, I appreciate you giving your opinion but it conflicts with statements made by a number individuals well versed on the subject, e.g.:

"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School

I guess he didn't read the study I posted earlier from his own law school, which answers most, if not all, of his questions? No doubt, it might take SCOTUS to penetrate the granite-like skulls of morons like you, on what the Constitution says. But Article V has been used 27 times to amend the Constitution, and there has never been a problem with any of these "issues" you have raised.

You never quoted from the “study” and have merely asserted what is says. I would imagine by now you would have quoted from it if supported the various opinions you have posted.
Yes, Congress has sent a number of proposed amendment to the states for ratification which is allowed under Article V. But a convention to propose amendments to our Constitution which is also allowed under Article V has never been called and is a far different method to propose amendments to our Constitution. Two of the undesirable and perhaps very dangerous difference was noted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg
”There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.”
Your insulting name calling [“morons”] is not appreciated.

"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

I've already told you, the AG of Virginia is wrong. Yes, technically, he is correct, but he is still wrong. Look... If Congress decided to hold hearings on a proposal for amendment, and this process began, as it has 27 times before, then technically speaking, a member of Congress could run around the floor naked, clucking like a chicken! It's possible! It could happen! But realistically, it's not going to happen. Levin says the only way there can be a "runaway convention" is if the states are already in "runaway mode" when they call for one. The delegates are sent to do the bidding of the state, not willy-nilly propose things out of thin air.

Your opinion regarding Ken Cuccinelli is noted, but keep in mind what he indicates about an Article V convention is a view held by a number of other individuals well versed on the subject, some of whom I have quoted.

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

Hey, guess what? We've wound up with a government who doesn't recognize the Constitution and a SCOTUS who has interpreted it into something far removed from the founders intent, and our Republic can not continue! With all due respect to Justice Goldberg, this is not a "constitutional convention" but a convention to propose amendments.

An Article V convention has been dubbed a “constitutional convention”, and for short a “con con”, for generations. To argue so strenuously that it is not a constitutional convention as you do, suggests to me you are trying to disassociate the various dangers which many “conservatives” and “constitutionalists” have written and stated with regard to calling an Article V convention which has been dubbed a constitutional convention for generations.

"After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."__ Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law

Again, he is correct but wrong. Article V also allows congress to convene to propose the plural "amendments" and they never have proposed more than one at a time. Technically, they can, but it has never happened, with the exception of the Bill of Rights. In any event, all proposed amendments would have to be individually ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.

There is no similarity between Congress adopting a joint resolution with a proposed amendment or amendments and sending it to the States for ratification, and calling an Article V convention to propose amendments to our Constitution. Both James Madison and George Washington did not think calling an Article V convention was a good idea! In any event, SEE: Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 This is part of the method by which all amendments have been added to our Constitution.

The Constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

As you can see, Congress gets to propose the method of ratification.

Which is also contradicting your point that the convention could decide this.

There was no contradiction. The point I made had nothing to do with whether state Legislatures or State Conventions would ratify proposed amendments. My point was the ¾ required number of states needed for ratification could be changed by the convention as was done when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and required a unanimous consent of the States to be altered, but was changed by the Convention of 1787 and required a mere nine states for our existing constitution to take effect.

You certainly are correct that the amendments Mark is promoting is a different subject than the rules and limits of an Article V Convention. However, I found it surprising that Marks balanced budget amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget, and it would supersede our founding fathers intended method to extinguish an annual deficit with an apportioned tax among the States so each state shares in the burden proportionately equal to its number of votes in the House i.e., an idea which commands representation with proportional financial obligation!

I also was shocked Mark is a fan of promoting the Marxist tax calculated from incomes. And, he never defined what “income” means under his proposal. Of course, this failure cleverly allows Congress to continue to manipulate the meaning of what is and what is not taxable “income”. Too bad he didn’t consult me before writing the two amendments mentioned above. I would have offered the wording to bring us back to our founder’s intentions on these two subjects.

Well, Mark Levin didn't call a convention and have it with himself, to argue the various particulars in his own head, then hash out the details and return his findings to his own state legislature inside his head, to be considered now for ratification... did he?

But he has proposed a continuance of the Marxist tax calculated from incomes, and likewise proposes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, not to mention Mark’s proposal defies our founder’s intended method to extinguish deficits with apportioned tax among the States.

I also noticed Mark misses to fundamental issue regarding the Federal Reserve System. Our Founders intentionally forbid notes of any kind [which would include Federal Reserve Noes] to be made a legal tender for payment of debt as has tyrannically been done with Federal Reserve Notes.

SEE: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

Our founding fathers were firm believers in a free market system and allowing the federal government to declare a specific bank’s notes to be a legal tender would literally create a government approved money monopoly that would literally force people and businesses to accept notes which are worthless script in payment of debt, even if they were not “safe and proper”. The money system now in effect allows the plundering of the wealth which America’s businesses, industries and laboring class people have produced. If you get time I suggest you read Roger Sherman’s A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange. Sherman who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt which had been made a legal tender under the force of government. As one of the delegates to the Convention which framed our Constitution, he was therefore determined to prohibit our government from emitting bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting notes of any kind to be made a legal tender in payment of debt to avoid countless types of fraud which historically takes place without such prohibitions.

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.

 

[Boss]

You never quoted from the “study” and have merely asserted what is says. I would imagine by now you would have quoted from it if supported the various opinions you have posted.
Yes, Congress has sent a number of proposed amendment to the states for ratification which is allowed under Article V. But a convention to propose amendments to our Constitution which is also allowed under Article V has never been called and is a far different method to propose amendments to our Constitution. Two of the undesirable and perhaps very dangerous difference was noted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg
”There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.”
Your insulting name calling [“morons”] is not appreciated.

Oh, you don't like "moron?" Well why don't we call you what you are, a LIBERAL? You continue to quote a Liberal Supreme Court Justice who was arguing against a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. You obviously believe this Liberal is smarter than the founding fathers who chose to include the Article V option allowing state-called conventions in the Constitution. And this included Madison, by the way. I know you have some pull quotes to suggest otherwise, but I can cite pull quotes, or more specifically, Madison's own notes on the subject, which suggest he supported the option proposed by George Mason and others. However, the fact that this provision is included in the Constitution, is evidence they all agreed in principle with the idea.

As Mark Levin pointed out yesterday on his show, (it's as if he is reading this thread as show prep), much smarter people than you have studied this, and they know that the founding fathers had a long standing history with conventions called by states, and earlier, colonies. It happened all the time back in their day. They understood that parliamentary rules of procedure and other conventional organizational constructs existed for conventions, dealing with how delegates are selected and who does what, and there was no need to specifically detail every single aspect of this in the Constitution, because it was (and is) already established.

Your opinion regarding Ken Cuccinelli is noted, but keep in mind what he indicates about an Article V convention is a view held by a number of other individuals well versed on the subject, some of whom I have quoted.

And NONE of which are smarter and wiser than the founding fathers, who included this option in Article V of the Constitution.

An Article V convention has been dubbed a “constitutional convention”, and for short a “con con”, for generations. To argue so strenuously that it is not a constitutional convention as you do, suggests to me you are trying to disassociate the various dangers which many “conservatives” and “constitutionalists” have written and stated with regard to calling an Article V convention which has been dubbed a constitutional convention for generations.

Yes, it is a common misnomer. It is a convention to propose amendments. When states make application to the Congress for a convention, which 2/3 must do before Congress is obliged to call one, they must list specifically what the convention is being called to propose amendments for. Therefore, it is not a plenary or general convention, it is a defined and specific convention, dealing with a defined and specific subject. Yes, the language of Article V allows them the ability and flexibility, to call a convention on several subjects at the same time, but they still have to be cited in the application for convention submitted to Congress.

There was no contradiction. The point I made had nothing to do with whether state Legislatures or State Conventions would ratify proposed amendments. My point was the ¾ required number of states needed for ratification could be changed by the convention as was done when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and required a unanimous consent of the States to be altered, but was changed by the Convention of 1787 and required a mere nine states for our existing constitution to take effect.

But what you are doing is, taking an action that happened BEFORE the Constitution and Article V existed, and pretending it somehow has relevance AFTER the Constitution and Article V exists.

I don't have time to get into the rest of your nonsense. You really need to read the book and verse yourself on what Madison wrote, as well as George Mason, John Adams and Alex Hamilton, regarding this Constitutional provision. It WAS included in the Constitution for a reason, they DID support this, or it wouldn't exist.

 

[Bluedog]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

I support most of those ideas. Good stuff. Especially the repeal of the seventeenth amendment.

 

[johnwk]

I support most of those ideas. Good stuff. Especially the repeal of the seventeenth amendment.

Are you on board with Mark perpetuating the Marxist tax calculated from income? How about his balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and ignores our Constitution's intended method to extinguish a deficit with an apportioned tax among the States ___ an idea of our founders requiring Representation with a proportional financial obligation ___ an idea which Marxists, progressives and socialists fear and hate with a passion!


Additionally, I was shocked that Mark Levin a “constitutional scholar” misses the important and fundamental issue regarding the Federal Reserve System. Our Founders intentionally forbid notes of any kind [which would include Federal Reserve Notes] to be made a ”legal tender” for payment of debt as has tyrannically been done with Federal Reserve Notes.

SEE: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

Our founding fathers were firm believers in a free market system and allowing the federal government to declare a specific bank’s notes to be a legal tender would literally create a government approved money monopoly that would literally force people and businesses to accept notes which are worthless script in payment of debt, even if they were not “safe and proper”.

The money system now in effect allows the plundering of the wealth which America’s businesses, industries and laboring class people have produced. If you get time I suggest you read Roger Sherman’s A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange".

Sherman who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt which had been made a legal tender under the force of government. As one of the delegates to the Convention which framed our Constitution, he was therefore determined to prohibit our government from emitting bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting notes of any kind to be made a legal tender in payment of debt to avoid countless types of fraud which historically takes place without such prohibitions.

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.

 

[Boss]

Are you on board with Mark perpetuating the Marxist tax calculated from income?

There is nothing Marxist about it, the Congress is given authority to levy and collect taxes. We've had income tax since the 16th Amendment, have we been a Marxist country since then? Mark's proposal, and it is HIS proposal, is to restrict and limit the ability of Federal government to tax you more than 15%, as opposed the the currently unspecified amount they can tax you. Again, this is what Mark personally proposes, it's not written in stone, there has been no convention to discuss the matter, it's not going up for ratification, it's simply his suggestion.

How about his balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget..

Does the Constitution currently mandate they balance the budget? Again, you are condemning Mark for not suggesting something that already isn't in the Constitution. Odd! Especially since he specifically outlines a chapter regarding a balanced budget amendment, which ostensibly suggests that we mandate Congress balance the budget, hence the name. What you are likely referring to, is Marks section of the proposal which would give Congress the latitude to override the mandate of a balanced budget with a supermajority vote. He explains, this is so that in a time of national emergency or state of war, the Congress can have a means to do what is necessary at the time, rather than having their hands completely tied. Constitutionally, they wouldn't HAVE to balance the budget, but it would require a supermajority vote, and they would have to stipulate a timeframe for when they would bring it back into balance. Also, with the proposed amendment for state override of Congressional actions, if 2/3 of the states didn't also agree that Congress was within it's bounds to not balance the budget, this could be superseded by state vote. So it's basically a LIE that Mark is proposing an Amendment to make it Constitutional to not balance the budget.

Now, once you've started lying your pants off like a Liberal, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of your diatribe, because we get the gist of it. You are a Big Government Progressive who doesn't want to reign in the powers of the federal government one iota. You want to talk out of both sides of your mouth, and portray yourself as some kind of 'enlightened' conservative, but you are a fraud. You refuse to answer my questions about your motives, and you have offered nothing of a reasonable nature as an alternative to what Mark Levin has proposed. It's really quite pathetic, and I hope this is the best you people can do to combat what is heading your way, because this may not be nearly as difficult as we anticipated.

 

[johnwk]

Are you on board with Mark perpetuating the Marxist tax calculated from income?

There is nothing Marxist about it, the Congress is given authority to levy and collect taxes. We've had income tax since the 16th Amendment, have we been a Marxist country since then? Mark's proposal, and it is HIS proposal, is to restrict and limit the ability of Federal government to tax you more than 15%, as opposed the the currently unspecified amount they can tax you. Again, this is what Mark personally proposes, it's not written in stone, there has been no convention to discuss the matter, it's not going up for ratification, it's simply his suggestion.

Mark’s suggested tax reform perpetuates a fundamental building block of Marxism, socialism and today’s progressive movement. It is a tax which punishes and burdens the productive members of society and allows unproductive leaches and slugs to avoid contributing an equal share into our Common Treasury whenever Congress decides to tax the people directly. Mark’s tax reform proposal also violates the rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned which was part of the great compromise of the 1787 Convention which made possible the ratification of the constitution they framed. Our Constitution has never been amended to allow a direct tax without it being apportioned!

How about his balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget..

Does the Constitution currently mandate they balance the budget?

Mark Levin correctly tells his audience we need to follow our Constitution’s legislative intent. And he is correct because enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is summarized as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The fact is, our founding fathers intended Congress to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from internal excise taxes imposed upon judiciously selected articles of consumption. 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 of course corrects an evil of democracy under 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.

And so, Marks proposal totally ignores the legislative intent of our Constitution, particularly violating the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit if imposts, duties, excises, and a tax upon incomes which is not apportioned is found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures.

I’m not really interested in any of the excuses as to why Mark ignores enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution. I’m merely pointing out that he is, just like our current federal government is ignoring the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.

Now, once you've started lying your pants off like a Liberal, we can pretty much dismiss the rest of your diatribe, because we get the gist of it. You are a Big Government Progressive who doesn't want to reign in the powers of the federal government one iota. You want to talk out of both sides of your mouth, and portray yourself as some kind of 'enlightened' conservative, but you are a fraud. You refuse to answer my questions about your motives, and you have offered nothing of a reasonable nature as an alternative to what Mark Levin has proposed. It's really quite pathetic, and I hope this is the best you people can do to combat what is heading your way, because this may not be nearly as difficult as we anticipated.

You really need to calm down and have a beer. Name calling, baseless accusations and posting insulting remarks does nothing to advance your misplaced notions.

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.

 

[Boss]

And so, Marks proposal totally ignores the legislative intent of our Constitution, particularly violating the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit if imposts, duties, excises, and a tax upon incomes which is not apportioned is found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures.

I’m not really interested in any of the excuses as to why Mark ignores enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution. I’m merely pointing out that he is, just like our current federal government is ignoring the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.

What Mark's proposal doesn't ignore, is the Sixteenth Amendment:
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

So we have a case law precedent, and we have a ratified Constitutional amendment, which Mark is taking into consideration. Perhaps since he essentially suggests repealing the 17th, he thought it may be a bit ambitious to try for the 16th too, especially with the Pollock decision by SCOTUS. It's important to remember, when we talk about returning to original intent, it has to remain in context and with regard to things we have done since original intent, to fundamentally change our nation. For instance, original intent would again institute slavery... are you for that? Original intent would mean women can no longer vote... is that an idea you favor?

What you are, is a nutbag. You have this stubborn impossible and rigid viewpoint that you fully know will never be implemented as a matter of reality, and whenever anyone suggests something to counter it, you spring into "patriot" mode, citing the founding fathers and posting opinions of other nutbags through the years to seemingly support your nutbag ideology. What you are, is the most unusual critter in the Progressive Zoo. The most suitable label I can come up with, based on your rantings here, is Anarchist Libertarian Progressive.

 

[johnwk]

And so, Marks proposal totally ignores the legislative intent of our Constitution, particularly violating the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit if imposts, duties, excises, and a tax upon incomes which is not apportioned is found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures.

I’m not really interested in any of the excuses as to why Mark ignores enforcing the legislative intent of our Constitution. I’m merely pointing out that he is, just like our current federal government is ignoring the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agreed to.

What Mark's proposal doesn't ignore, is the Sixteenth Amendment:
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.

Thank you for your opinion but you offer nothing to substantiate that the 16th Amendment granted power to Congress to lay and collect a direct tax without apportionment. In addition, you apparently are not familiar with a number of S.C. cases confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

A few years later in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:


A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.

Bottom line is, direct taxes, are still required to be apportioned.

So we have a case law precedent, and we have a ratified Constitutional amendment, which Mark is taking into consideration. Perhaps since he essentially suggests repealing the 17th, he thought it may be a bit ambitious to try for the 16th too, especially with the Pollock decision by SCOTUS. It's important to remember, when we talk about returning to original intent, it has to remain in context and with regard to things we have done since original intent, to fundamentally change our nation. For instance, original intent would again institute slavery... are you for that? Original intent would mean women can no longer vote... is that an idea you favor?

The truth is, both case law and the legislative intent of our Constitution command that direct taxes shall be apportioned. There has been no repeal of our Constitution’s command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

What you are, is a nutbag. You have this stubborn impossible and rigid viewpoint that you fully know will never be implemented as a matter of reality, and whenever anyone suggests something to counter it, you spring into "patriot" mode, citing the founding fathers and posting opinions of other nutbags through the years to seemingly support your nutbag ideology. What you are, is the most unusual critter in the Progressive Zoo. The most suitable label I can come up with, based on your rantings here, is Anarchist Libertarian Progressive.

I think I suggested that you calm down and have a beer. Name calling, baseless accusations and posting insulting remarks does nothing to advance your misplaced notions. If you disagree with something I posted as being factual, state your objections and provide your documentation, just as I have been doing. You should take Mark Levin’s example of providing documentation to support his contentions.

The bottom line is, the rule of apportioning both direct taxes and representatives is still very much part of our Constitution, and even our Supreme Court has confirmed this fact. Perhaps Mr. Levin will do a segment on the rule of apportionment and the debates which led up to this ingenious protection being placed in our Constitution. In any event, our founders intended Congress to use the apportioned tax when its normal taxing powers were found insufficient to meet Congress’ exigencies, e.g. see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from …….

You may also want to read what Representative Williams had to say during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:

"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."


JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[Boss]

The truth is, both case law and the legislative intent of our Constitution command that direct taxes shall be apportioned. There has been no repeal of our Constitution’s command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (not my opinion, not your opinion):
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now have a big tall glass of STFU!

 

[johnwk]

The truth is, both case law and the legislative intent of our Constitution command that direct taxes shall be apportioned. There has been no repeal of our Constitution’s command that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (not my opinion, not your opinion):
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now have a big tall glass of STFU!

I suggest you read what you posted. It says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It does not say: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed [see my above documentation] that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned.

Are you really suggesting Congress does not have the power to lay and collect a direct tax among the States to extinguish an annual deficit as our founders intended?

JWK