The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

I'm suggesting that Constitutional power of Congress to tax has been changed through ratification of an amendment to the Constitution, since the time of our founders. You see, these men were smart enough to understand that times change and the people might want to try something different down the road, like emancipating slaves and letting women vote. So they set up a system and process by which we could do that, and they gave us two option as to how we go about that. Both options are equal in legitimacy, and one is just as valid and 'safe' as the other. I'm also suggesting you are a fraud, who has no intention of answering my questions regarding your motives, because you are hiding what you really are. This is why you have now attempted to drag the topic off into another direction, and make silly unsupported arguments. The thing you need to realize is, I don't care. I really don't give a damn about your baseless opinions and political doubletalk, and neither do those who are going to push for a state-called convention to amend the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

I'm suggesting that Constitutional power of Congress to tax has been changed through ratification of an amendment to the Constitution, since the time of our founders.

What you indicated was the ”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…”

I know our Washington Establishment’s propaganda machine has been brain washing the American people about the Sixteenth Amendment for generations. But, the fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment. But this power was within Congress’ taxing prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment and this is established in Flint vs. Stone Tracy decided prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment.

In the Flint case a tax calculated from incomes [the corporate excise tax of 1909] was held to be constitutional because it was indirect and not requiring an apportionment. What made the tax calculated from incomes [corporate profits and gains] indirect was that it was imposed upon a government granted privilege of being a corporation, and the tax was levied against the privilege making it indirect while the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the income earned under the privilege granted by government. The court stated:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Supreme Court had already ruled in Flint - that Congress did have power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without apportionment. In fact, the 16th Amendment granted no new power to Congress as stated by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

As to taxes which are direct, I provided you with sufficient quotations from the Supreme Court [ see post 478] confirming direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.

Now, aside from all that, do you agree Congress has power to extinguish an annual deficit with an apportioned tax among the states, and that doing so would be within the very intentions of our founding fathers?


JWK

 

[Boss]

But, the fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment.

Now you are talking in circles. You: It doesn't say they can tax incomes, it merely states incomes, they can tax! What the fuck are you even trying to say? What point are you attempting to make? You claim that nothing has changed original founders intent of taxing without apportionment, and I give you the text of the 16th Amendment, to which you claim I have been brainwashed by someone. Then you reel off into some rant about direct vs. indirect taxation, and pull quotes which we have no idea of context, links to irrelevant cases, to make the point of WHAT, exactly?

Everyone knows we have an income tax, and we have a 16th Amendment which authorizes it. It's a direct tax, and it is not an apportioned tax. All Levin proposes is a flat tax of 15%, as opposed to the progressive tax code and massive IRS bureaucracy used to enforce it, among other things. Oh, but this won't do for you! Why? Because you are an idiot moron who is parroting what he has heard from elites in the ruling class, who do not want to lose their power. Out of the other side of your mouth, comes some nonsensical idiocy that is trying to sound libertarian, but doesn't make coherent sense.

In any event, this is but one of several proposed amendments, and doesn't have anything to do with the arguments regarding a state-called convention to amend the Constitution. You've abandoned that argument to make some inane point, which I have no idea what it is, other than you just want to be recalcitrant. Bottom line: I get it! I understand you oppose Mark Levin's idea, and had rather maintain the status quo. You're fine with having runaway big government, because it gives you a platform to lament and pontificate for anarchy and impossible ideas that will never come to fruition, even if others agreed with you.

 

[johnwk]

But, the fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment.

Now you are talking in circles. You: It doesn't say they can tax incomes, it merely states incomes, they can tax! What the fuck are you even trying to say? What point are you attempting to make?

You appear to be somewhat confused about what I actually wrote. I never wrote what you indicate above. What I did write was:

“…the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment.

Keep in mind that there are but two categories of tax; direct and indirect. Direct taxes under our Constitution are required to be apportioned among the States while indirect taxes are required to be uniform throughout the United States.

An “income tax” is a generic named type of tax known to our founding fathers but was not included in Congress’ taxing powers, and is not mentioned in the 16th Amendment. So, the question is, how was it constitutional for Congress to tax incomes prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment and do so without apportioning the tax among the States? The answer is, Congress has been granted a power from the very beginning to lay and collect “excise” taxes. An excise tax is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment!

An excise tax as historically understood does not tax the person, but is a tax levied upon the manufacture and sale of specifically selected articles of consumption, upon articles considered to be luxuries and upon activities considered to be a privilege. And thus, as elaborated upon in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) a tax calculated from income [profits and gains] was held to be constitutional and not requiring an apportionment. The court states:

Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the tax imposed in the act under consideration.

The court also points out:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Court had already ruled, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. But, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment and the Flint case shows how that may be done.

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!

Your repetitive insults and foul language directed my way does not add to a productive discussion, but it does give “conservatives” and constitutionalists a bad reputation.

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[/b--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.[/I]

 

[Boss]

Look, dimwit... HERE is what the 16th 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.

Now how in the hell does it say that Congress can't collect income tax, and that it can't be done without apportionment? You're claiming it doesn't say this, but there is the text of the goddamn amendment!

Direct taxes under our Constitution are required to be apportioned among the States while indirect taxes are required to be uniform throughout the United States.

This is simply NOT TRUE. Income tax is a direct tax, it is a direct tax on incomes, from whatever source derived, and is taxable without apportionment, according to the 16th Amendment. You might not like that, I might not like that, the courts may not like it, but that is what the Constitution says. Pretending that some court case from 1911 has some bearing on a Constitutional Amendment ratified in 1913, is laughable to me. In fact, let me take this opportunity... Bahahahahahahahahaha!

MORON!

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...blah blah blah

It doesn't 'perpetuate' a damn thing, it removes the MARXIST WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION tax code, and replaces it with a FLAT TAX. How in the hell are we supposed to tax people who earn no income? How the hell do people who earn no incomes, contribute their "fair share" into our common treasury? Should we abolish the 13th and 14th Amendments and reintroduce slavery? Granted, the government doesn't need to be funding much of what it currently funds, and I am all for trimming that down as much as humanly possible, but even our founding fathers realized the government needed a way to pay for what it does. Again, you offer no sensible alternatives here, you just rant on and on like a goddamned idiot.

 

[thanatos144]

But, the fact is, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment.

Now you are talking in circles. You: It doesn't say they can tax incomes, it merely states incomes, they can tax! What the fuck are you even trying to say? What point are you attempting to make? You claim that nothing has changed original founders intent of taxing without apportionment, and I give you the text of the 16th Amendment, to which you claim I have been brainwashed by someone. Then you reel off into some rant about direct vs. indirect taxation, and pull quotes which we have no idea of context, links to irrelevant cases, to make the point of WHAT, exactly?

Everyone knows we have an income tax, and we have a 16th Amendment which authorizes it. It's a direct tax, and it is not an apportioned tax. All Levin proposes is a flat tax of 15%, as opposed to the progressive tax code and massive IRS bureaucracy used to enforce it, among other things. Oh, but this won't do for you! Why? Because you are an idiot moron who is parroting what he has heard from elites in the ruling class, who do not want to lose their power. Out of the other side of your mouth, comes some nonsensical idiocy that is trying to sound libertarian, but doesn't make coherent sense.

In any event, this is but one of several proposed amendments, and doesn't have anything to do with the arguments regarding a state-called convention to amend the Constitution. You've abandoned that argument to make some inane point, which I have no idea what it is, other than you just want to be recalcitrant. Bottom line: I get it! I understand you oppose Mark Levin's idea, and had rather maintain the status quo. You're fine with having runaway big government, because it gives you a platform to lament and pontificate for anarchy and impossible ideas that will never come to fruition, even if others agreed with you.

directly on point. this has very little to do with marks book and everything to do with marks seeming disdain for paulbots

 

[Boss]

Still trying to figure out how "taxes on incomes" are not "income taxes?" Or how a "tax on income" is not a direct tax? I guess there is some convoluted theory of how we could tally up all the incomes earned in a particular state, tax that at a certain rate, then each citizen would pay his or her apportioned sum... but what about people who don't earn an income at all, or those who only earn a small income? Debt prisons? Indentured servitude? Maybe we just line them up in front of an open ditch and put a bullet through their head? What about disabled vets who can't work and earn incomes anymore, because they had their legs blown off fighting for their country? How are they going to pay their apportioned tax liabilities? No answers on any of this from johnwk, he just wants to mindlessly rant like a fool, and then get his feelings hurt because someone calls him one.

 

[johnwk]

Look, dimwit... HERE is what the 16th 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.

Now how in the hell does it say that Congress can't collect income tax, and that it can't be done without apportionment? You're claiming it doesn't say this, but there is the text of the goddamn amendment!

I already addressed this issue in POST NO. 484. I wrote:

“…the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment.

Keep in mind that there are but two categories of tax; direct and indirect. Direct taxes under our Constitution are required to be apportioned among the States while indirect taxes are required to be uniform throughout the United States.

An “income tax” is a generic named type of tax known to our founding fathers but was not included in Congress’ taxing powers, and is not mentioned in the 16th Amendment. So, the question is, how was it constitutional for Congress to tax incomes prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment and do so without apportioning the tax among the States? The answer is, Congress has been granted a power from the very beginning to lay and collect “excise” taxes. An excise tax is an indirect tax and does not require an apportionment!

An excise tax as historically understood does not tax the person, but is a tax levied upon the manufacture and sale of specifically selected articles of consumption, upon articles considered to be luxuries and upon activities considered to be a privilege. And thus, as elaborated upon in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) a tax calculated from income [profits and gains] was held to be constitutional and not requiring an apportionment. The court states:

Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the tax imposed in the act under consideration.

The court also points out:

The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what the Court had already ruled, that Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment. But, the Sixteenth Amendment mentions nothing about “income taxes”! It merely states that Congress may tax “incomes” without apportionment and the Flint case shows how that may be done.

I also told you Your repetitive insults and foul language directed my way does not add to a productive discussion, but it does give “conservatives” and constitutionalists a bad reputation.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

but what about people who don't earn an income at all, or those who only earn a small income? Debt prisons? Indentured servitude?

There was a time in our country when even the unemployed were expected and required to contribute their fair and equal share in meeting the expenses of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.

But to answer your question, the fact is, under our founder’s original tax plan, whenever Congress decided to lay an apportioned tax among the states it was to calculate each state’s share of the total sum being raised and then send a bill to each state and allow them to raise their share in their own chosen way and then transfer it into the United States Treasury, which is in harmony with federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

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 the above is in harmony with our founder’s intentions, 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 …….

Mark Levin’s tax proposal does not return us to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. But it does perpetuate a fundamental building block of our progressive domestic enemies ___ a direct tax upon individuals which is not apportioned among the states and is used to plunder what America’s businesses, industries and labor have produced which is then transferred to Obama’s free stuff crowd who live on the public dole and sell their vote to continue living on the public dole.
JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8HRGWKCRc]FREE BACON[/ame], we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[Boss]

But to answer your question, the fact is, under our founder’s original tax plan, whenever Congress decided to lay an apportioned tax among the states it was to calculate each state’s share of the total sum being raised and then send a bill to each state and allow them to raise their share in their own chosen way and then transfer it into the United States Treasury, which is in harmony with federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Right, but the 16th Amendment changed all that. Now, I am not saying, and Levin is not saying, that the 16th Amendment is glorious and should remain forever untouched, but it is what it is. We can repeal it, but we need something to replace it with, because the government does need some way to fund it's liabilities. Regardless of what we do now, we have massive liabilities that will have to be paid by some means. We can't pretend those don't exist, or they would go away if we suddenly repealed the 16th Amendment. I see nothing you are proposing to remedy this problem, just more puke from a libertarian anarchist position, that doesn't make practical sense.

Levin proposes a plethora of amendments to address the "Obama Free Stuff Party" and remove the federal bureaucrats from the decision-making process on this stuff, returning control to the states and people instead. If Congress passes something like Obamacare, and we don't like it, we can repeal it! If SCOTUS makes a ruling that we feel is unconstitutional, we can reject it! We're no longer held hostage to the Washington crowd and those who put them in power. Has he come up with PERFECT plans and PERFECT ideas that can't be tweaked or adjusted? Hell no! He admits this himself, this is just the first step in the process. You want to act as if every word he wrote is chiseled in stone, and being presented for ratification at this time, and that's just a dishonest perspective. Now, Levin is prepared to defend every amendment he has proposed, and he illustrates this in his book by going back to things stated by the founding fathers and the arguments they made. However, the purpose of a convention would be to raise the issues you are raising here, to discuss these things amongst ourselves and come up with the best plan. So far, you are kind of short on ideas, I am not seeing anything you are posting that would be anywhere near tenable or workable today, maybe they were 100 years ago, but times (and the Constitution) have changed.

Nevertheless, we can't get to the point of discussing ANY ideas until we agree on the process by which we can do so. The current system is broken, you realize this, you see it just like I see it. But it seems your "solution" is to run your mouth and advocate for anarchy, which just isn't going to happen. Nor are we suddenly going to wake up and be Paul-bots, with the epiphany that we must turn into defiant and rigid libertarians. These fantasies you are having are just shy of becoming a mental illness like Liberalism, but you don't seem to realize that.

 

[johnwk]

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”?

 

[johnwk]

But to answer your question, the fact is, under our founder’s original tax plan, whenever Congress decided to lay an apportioned tax among the states it was to calculate each state’s share of the total sum being raised and then send a bill to each state and allow them to raise their share in their own chosen way and then transfer it into the United States Treasury, which is in harmony with federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Right, but the 16th Amendment changed all that.

That is not true! Congress is still vested with a power to lay and collect a direct tax among the States, and this very power was intended to be used to extinguish a deficit should Congress find its other powers of taxation [imposts, duties, excises, which also apparently includes an excise tax calculated from incomes] insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures. Our founders were not stupid men and provided the direct taxing power for emergency situations and tied it to apportionment, just as representation was tied to apportionment.

OUR CONSTITUTION’S FAIR SHARE FORMULAS



State`s Pop.
___________ X total House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps
U.S. total pop



State`s population
_________________ X deficit or shortfall = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population



Now, let me introduce you to a real balanced budget amendment that is in compliance with our founder’s intentions.

The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.



“SECTION 1. 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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would end Congress’ ability to financially punish successful businesses and hard working wage earners while allowing the unproductive to escape contributing an equal share in supporting government. The words would also end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which they now use to divide the people while picking the people’s pockets.


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit:


States’ population

---------------------------- X ANNUAL DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each state’s Congressional Delegation, whenever a direct tax is laid among the States to raise a specific sum, shall return home with a bill proportionately equal to its voting strength in Congress, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation! or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect one year after the required number of States have approved it.


JWK


“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

 

[Boss]

Phyllis Schlafly is quite simply, wrong. I see now where you obtained your talking points, she makes nearly every one you've presented here, and she is just as wrong as you were when you made them. I've already explained why rules of apportionment cannot apply to state entities ordained to call for conventions. The convention cannot be called directly by the populations, they are only available to be called by state legislatures, state entity, sovereign states. They are guaranteed equal sovereignty, therefore, each state gets one vote in the final consideration of anything the state convention does. The Constitution states clearly, the Congress SHALL call the convention if 2/3 state legislatures request it, and they do have to request a specified topic for the convention, she was correct about that. SHALL is not an option Congress can take, it is ordered they MUST call a convention, they aren't "asked to" although the language, respectful of Congressional powers, does state it is a "request" by the states.

Once the convention is called, a place and time are established by Congress, and the role of Congress becomes completely ministerial... that means they administer, they are a 'secretary' of sorts. They have no input into the workings of the convention at all, neither does the Supreme Court. As Harvard reviews this, it would fundamentally usurp the spirit and intent of the provision in Article V, to have it any other way. When the state requests the convention, they have to cite the subject matter. If one state wants a convention to consider term limits and another wants a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, they can't both count toward the 2/3 requirement, so the states have to request the same subject matter, and Congress will group them accordingly. This in of itself, would prevent ANY sort of rogue runaway convention, it wouldn't be authorized for such a reason, unless 2/3 of the states wanted to call a convention to consider rewriting the entire constitution. Since they are not authorized to call such a convention under Article V, they couldn't do this, even if they wanted to.

Phyllis Schlafly was a strong opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, and much of her "constitutional opinions" regarding state-called conventions, comes from her time as an activist against this movement. She is part of the establishment GOP elite, and very well connected with Big Oil and the Texas wing (Bush) of the GOP. These are people Mark is now calling "Neo-Statists" because they essentially want to keep Big Gov, so they can exploit the power when they win, as they did under Bush. To me, from my perspective, the "neo-statists" are more dangerous than the liberal left. More stupid, but more dangerous too.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Liberty Amendments

Hardly.

Some are more the tyranny of the majority ‘amendments,’ particularly the idiotic notion of ‘overruling’ Supreme Court decisions via referenda.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Liberty Amendments

Hardly.

Some are more the tyranny of the majority ‘amendments,’ particularly the idiotic notion of ‘overruling’ Supreme Court decisions via referenda.

Wrong as usual.

The ability to overrule the most potentially tyrannical branch is a standard consistent with liberty.

Guys like you only object because you prefer the tyranny implicit in some of the SCOTUS brain dead "decisions."

 

[Boss]

The Liberty Amendments

Hardly.

Some are more the tyranny of the majority ‘amendments,’ particularly the idiotic notion of ‘overruling’ Supreme Court decisions via referenda.

This point should also be corrected to "tyranny of the SUPERmajority" which is why we're a republic and not a democracy.

 

[johnwk]

Phyllis Schlafly was a strong opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, and much of her "constitutional opinions" regarding state-called conventions, comes from her time as an activist against this movement. She is part of the establishment GOP elite, and very well connected with Big Oil and the Texas wing (Bush) of the GOP. These are people Mark is now calling "Neo-Statists" because they essentially want to keep Big Gov, so they can exploit the power when they win, as they did under Bush. To me, from my perspective, the "neo-statists" are more dangerous than the liberal left. More stupid, but more dangerous too.

I too was an opponent of the so called "Equal Rights" amendment, and your insults directed at Phyllis are quite revealing. It seems you have an uncontrollable and impetuous propensity to smear those you disagree with. I’ll bet Mark Levin was also against that amendment, and for good cause.

As to Mark Levin engaging in name calling which you mention as "neo-statists", I could make that very claim about him since he promotes the continuance of the "neo-statist’s" embraced tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes; he ignores our Constitution’s rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States; he promotes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, and it also ignores the very method our founders put into the Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits with an apportioned tax among the states; and finally, let us not forget that Mark Levin makes no attempt to break the back of the thieving Federal Reserve System by pointed out Federal Reserve Notes have been made a “legal tender” in defiance of our founder’s expressed intentions, and in so doing have created a money monopoly which is controlled and manipulated by a private banking cartel and is used by "neo-statists", to plunder the wealth which our nation’s businesses, industries and working class people have produced. Having said that, I will not claim Mark is a neo-statist. I believe his intentions are well meaning. But he has overlooked some of the most important protections our founders wrote into our Constitution that if reestablished and enforced, would work to remove the tools used by our Washington Establishment to steal the wealth which the American People have created.

Is it not obvious to you that today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket? If you really want to assist in the People taking back their government, you ought to start working to remove the tools which corrupted politicians use to plunder American’s wealth.

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]

I too was an opponent of the so called "Equal Rights" amendment, and your insults directed at Phyllis are quite revealing. It seems you have an uncontrollable and impetuous propensity to smear those you disagree with. I’ll bet Mark Levin was also against that amendment, and for good cause.

I'm sure he was, as was I, and I am not "smearing" Phyllis, but the constitutional arguments against a state-called convention are the same, just as they were the same when it was suggested for a balanced budget amendment in the 80s, just as it was when states threatened a convention over what became the 17th. Every time it is brought up, this same set of 'concerns' is raised, and Mark explains he was also opposed to such a convention until recently. What changed his mind is, the fact the founding fathers did put this provision in there for a reason, and the fact that this reason is currently being realized.

Wringing our hands, worrying about what damage a convention might do to our precious constitution, is kind of stupid to do while our constitution is being shredded before our very eyes. At this point, what do we have to lose? The Constitution is not being followed, Congress isn't suddenly going to come to their senses and reform themselves. Future presidents are going to point to Obama as they bypass Congress to implement their personal agendas, SCOTUS is going to continue to redefine the Constitution as it pleases, and the will of the States is going to continue to be ignored, as well as the people. You're not proposing any viable alternative to Mark's idea, just raising the same old tired red flags that are always raised when someone suggests this type of convention.

As to Mark Levin engaging in name calling which you mention as "neo-statists", I could make that very claim about him since he promotes the continuance of the "neo-statist’s" embraced tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes;

There is no other way for the US to raise the kind of revenue it needs to pay the liabilities at this point. We don't export enough to levy tariffs and export duties, as we may have been able to do in 1787. Profits, gains and income, are already being taxed, Mark isn't proposing something new. The "continuance" is because there isn't another realistic option, other than transferring over to a consumption tax, which I would be in favor of, repeal the 16th, abolish the IRS and institute a national sales tax and be done with it. But I don't believe I am in the majority on that idea, and neither does Mark. Therefore, we have to work within the confines of what we currently have, which is an income tax. He suggests as flat tax rate across the board, which is a marked improvement over the current tax code. You suggest maintaining status quot, and bitching about it some more. In concert with the new flat tax, Mark also suggests strong limits on spending based on GDP, which virtually ALL free market economists agree with.The flat tax of 15%, the limits on spending, and the "sun-setting" provision for all government programs in three years, is monumental change from what we have now. Again, your proposal is to do nothing, and bitch some more.

he ignores our Constitution’s rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States;

No one is ignoring anything. We have a 16th Amendment which is in effect, it supersedes what the founding fathers established. You are the one who is either ignoring the 16th, or claiming it has been misinterpreted. Again, you apparently wish for the status quot, and continue to bitch and complain about it.

he promotes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget

Only if there is a super majority who support not balancing it. This is so that, in the event of a disaster or war, our Congress does have some degree of leverage with regard to the budget, their hands are not completely tied in such a case. And again, if Congress were to abuse this provision, the States can repeal Congressional actions with supermajority votes. Again, you apparently favor Congress not adopting ANY budget, the president not submitting ANY budget, and the whole thing just being operated by continuing resolution in lieu of an actual budget, because that is what has been happening the past 6 years. Mark's amendment says, if they fail to submit a budget, every department and agency gets an automatic 5% across the board cut in funding.

, and it also ignores the very method our founders put into the Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits with an apportioned tax among the states;

AGAIN... The 16th Amendment does this, nothing is being "ignored" by anyone but you.

and finally, let us not forget that Mark Levin makes no attempt to break the back of the thieving Federal Reserve System by pointed out Federal Reserve Notes have been made a “legal tender” in defiance of our founder’s expressed intentions, and in so doing have created a money monopoly which is controlled and manipulated by a private banking cartel and is used by "neo-statists", to plunder the wealth which our nation’s businesses, industries and working class people have produced.

And again, you offer absolutely NO alternatives, you don't want to try something bold to change things, you want to maintain the status quot and continue to bitch, whine, and moan. You get your rocks off daily, by being able to pontificate about the evil private bankers, big business, evil capitalists, plundering the wealth of the working class... like some goddamn liberal occupier drone.

Having said that, I will not claim Mark is a neo-statist. I believe his intentions are well meaning. But he has overlooked some of the most important protections our founders wrote into our Constitution that if reestablished and enforced, would work to remove the tools used by our Washington Establishment to steal the wealth which the American People have created.

He's overlooked NOTHING. The man is a genius when it comes to the Constitution, and I'll put his opinions up against yours any day of the week. You are doing nothing here but revealing that you are really a fucking two-faced liberal, who is chicken shit to admit you are. Somehow, you have managed to convince yourself you are a "libertarian" or something, but this stupid mindless ranting about stealing the wealth of the working American, has KARL MARX written all over it. You are so busted!

Is it not obvious to you that today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket? If you really want to assist in the People taking back their government, you ought to start working to remove the tools which corrupted politicians use to plunder American’s wealth.

Already did it! We've been replacing moderates and demagogues for the past decade, we just sent a crop of Tea Party patriots to Washington in 2010, and what has it accomplished? Where are the results? Now, we can follow your lead, sit around and bitch and moan about things, talk out of both sides of our mouth and pretend we're "libertarians" while carrying the water for the Marxists, and complain some more about the status quot in Washington, but that isn't going to fix the problem either. The ANSWER is for the people to rise up and take their power back, through a state-led initiative outlined in the Constitution, and given to us by the founding fathers, for just such an instance as we face today. But first, we have to marginalize people like you, who really have no solution to offer, just more bitching and moaning.

 

[johnwk]

I too was an opponent of the so called "Equal Rights" amendment, and your insults directed at Phyllis are quite revealing. It seems you have an uncontrollable and impetuous propensity to smear those you disagree with. I’ll bet Mark Levin was also against that amendment, and for good cause.

I'm sure he was, as was I, and I am not "smearing" Phyllis,

That is difficult to believe since instead of limiting your comments to your disagreements with what Phyllis Schlafly wrote in Is Article V in Our Future? you decided to attack the messenger and not her message. You wrote:

She is part of the establishment GOP elite, and very well connected with Big Oil and the Texas wing (Bush) of the GOP. These are people Mark is now calling "Neo-Statists" because they essentially want to keep Big Gov, so they can exploit the power when they win, as they did under Bush. To me, from my perspective, the "neo-statists" are more dangerous than the liberal left. More stupid, but more dangerous too.

And this is the same thing you have been doing to me all through this thread. The fact is, many of the arguments against calling a convention in which the very folks who now cause our miseries would be in charge, and that would include those appointed by our existing politicians to the convention and would do their bidding at the convention, are valid concerns.

Mark Levin’s reason for his change of mind on calling a convention makes no sense whatsoever when one considers that the very politicians who now cause our sufferings at the federal and various state levels, would be given a free hand to make “legal” the tyranny and despotism they have rained down upon we the people. Why would Mark Levin want to give an infestation of neo-statists the opportunity to re-write our Constitution and then be in charge of ratifying what they re-wrote?

As to Mark Levin engaging in name calling which you mention as "neo-statists", I could make that very claim about him since he promotes the continuance of the "neo-statist’s" embraced tax calculated from profits, gains and other incomes;

There is no other way for the US to raise the kind of revenue it needs to pay the liabilities at this point.

You, sir, are flat wrong. Our Constitution’s original tax plan allows Congress sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue. I pointed this out in Post No. 492 which was titled “The fair share balanced budget amendment”. I wrote in the very first paragraph ” That is not true! Congress is still vested with a power to lay and collect a direct tax among the States, and this very power was intended to be used to extinguish a deficit should Congress find its other powers of taxation [imposts, duties, excises, which also apparently includes an excise tax calculated from incomes] insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures. Our founders were not stupid men and provided the direct taxing power for emergency situations and tied it to apportionment, just as representation was tied to apportionment.

But our “neo-statists" do not like the wisdom of our founder’s original tax plan because it forcefully encourages Congress to follow sound fiscal policies to avoid the apportioned tax in which each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand if Congress spent more than is brought in from Congress’ various indirect methods of taxation.

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 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.

Marks proposal to keep alive the very tax system which has worked to our nation’s financial ruin is unexplainable, and you support this evil system of taxation?

he ignores our Constitution’s rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States;

No one is ignoring anything. We have a 16th Amendment which is in effect, it supersedes what the founding fathers established. You are the one who is either ignoring the 16th, or claiming it has been misinterpreted. Again, you apparently wish for the status quot, and continue to bitch and complain about it.

The 16th amendment did not withdraw Congress’ authority to lay and collect an apportioned tax among the states, nor by its wording alter the documented intentions of our founders that any direct tax laid among the states would be by the rule of apportionment. The amendment merely confirms Congress has power to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without apportionment, which is a power processed by Congress since the ratification of our Constitution! And with respect to your insulting remark about the status quo, and bitching and complaining about it, Mark Levin and you are looking to keep alive the status quo of the very tax tool now used by neo-statists to steal the wealth which our nation’s businesses, industries and productive citizens have created. I on the other hand support and defend our Founding Father’s original tax plan which was built upon principles which do not change with the passage of time.

he promotes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget

Only if there is a super majority who support not balancing it.

Yup! Is that not making it constitutional to not balance the budget?
Mark Levin’s proposed balanced budget amendment is very much like the fraudulent balanced budget amendment proposed in the 1980s, and is nothing more than a feel good approach which in effect allows Congress to continue creating annual deficits and defies our founder’s no nonsense approach using a apportioned tax to extinguish an annual deficit.

, and it also ignores the very method our founders put into the Constitution to be used to extinguish deficits with an apportioned tax among the states;

AGAIN... The 16th Amendment does this, nothing is being "ignored" by anyone but you.

AGAIN … the 16th Amendment did not remove Congress’ power to lay and collect a direct tax among the States! Congress is still vested with a power to lay and collect a direct tax among the States, and this very power was intended to be used to extinguish a deficit should Congress find its other powers of taxation [imposts, duties, excises, which also apparently includes an excise tax calculated from incomes] insufficient to meet Congress' expenditures. Our founders were not stupid men and provided the direct taxing power for emergency situations and tied it to apportionment, just as representation was tied to apportionment.

and finally, let us not forget that Mark Levin makes no attempt to break the back of the thieving Federal Reserve System by pointed out Federal Reserve Notes have been made a “legal tender” in defiance of our founder’s expressed intentions, and in so doing have created a money monopoly which is controlled and manipulated by a private banking cartel and is used by "neo-statists", to plunder the wealth which our nation’s businesses, industries and working class people have produced.

And again, you offer absolutely NO alternatives, you don't want to try something bold to change things, you want to maintain the status quot and continue to bitch, whine, and moan. You get your rocks off daily, by being able to pontificate about the evil private bankers, big business, evil capitalists, plundering the wealth of the working class... like some goddamn liberal occupier drone.

Once again you intentionally misrepresent my position and post insulting remarks to smear me. The truth is, I support our founders expressed intentions which is to forbid Federal Reserve Notes being made a legal tender for all debts public and private. I support the market place determining what notes are “safe and proper” which is what our founders agreed upon. 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.

Having said that, I will not claim Mark is a neo-statist. I believe his intentions are well meaning. But he has overlooked some of the most important protections our founders wrote into our Constitution that if reestablished and enforced, would work to remove the tools used by our Washington Establishment to steal the wealth which the American People have created.

He's overlooked NOTHING. The man is a genius when it comes to the Constitution, and I'll put his opinions up against yours any day of the week. You are doing nothing here but revealing that you are really a fucking two-faced liberal, who is chicken shit to admit you are. Somehow, you have managed to convince yourself you are a "libertarian" or something, but this stupid mindless ranting about stealing the wealth of the working American, has KARL MARX written all over it. You are so busted!

How nice of you to not only misquote me, but once again use foul language and insult me. I have repeatedly referred to stealing the wealth which American’s businesses, industries and working people have produced. This is what your neo-statists do under the guise of taxing and spending. They transfer the wealth produced by our productive members of society to fatten the fortunes of their well-connected friends. The latest example being the green energy swindling deals of Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc. And what has our Court mentioned in regard to this kind of crap?

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Congress’ Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

As to your contention that Mark is a genius when it comes to our Constitution, he may be, but he apparently has overlooked the genius of our founder’s rule of apportionment, their tax plan, and the absolutely necessity of forbidding notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.

Is it not obvious to you that today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket? If you really want to assist in the People taking back their government, you ought to start working to remove the tools which corrupted politicians use to plunder American’s wealth.

Already did it! We've been replacing moderates and demagogues for the past decade, we just sent a crop of Tea Party patriots to Washington in 2010, and what has it accomplished?

The tools used by our Washington Establishment to steal the wealth created by America’s businesses, industries and working class people are nothing more than a dishonest taxing system and a dishonest money system. I happen to believe our founders got both these issues correct when framing our Constitution, which is not what Mark Levin is promoting. His remedy ignores the wisdom of our founders thinking on both these issues which was based upon principles that do not change with the passage of time.

JWK

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered ___ attributed to Thomas Jefferson

 

[thanatos144]

John you're just going to have to get over the fact that mark knows more about the Constitution then Ron Paul