“taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote”
Can you be more clear where this is in the Constitution?
Thats only $446.56 difference between CA and WY.
Why the hit piece on Mark? He’s one of the good guys.
Very insightful. You should call in and question him on it.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
All the commentary above regarding apportionment of the Electoral College according to per capita taxation is utterly ignorant rubbish.
Do the figures cited include income taxes collected under authority of the 16th Amendment?
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.
You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.
Thus, the reason Mr. Levin did not say anything about this in his explanation of the workings of the Electoral College is for the simple reason that it is not in the text of the constitution.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
Since the census was authorized for both representation and direct taxes, and since the same census representation is the basis for the Electoral College distributions, it is implied that direct taxes is the reason for the Electoral College?
-PJ
other than the fact you are incorrect and have totally ignored passage of the 16th amendment, what’s your point.
Pretty funny when a hack tries to call out ‘the great one’. You aren’t even in the same league
I believe Mark is correct. Perhaps he may check in on this thread?
Ask me if I care.
You know, this kind of off-the-wall looney tunes vanity post ought to be unwelcome on Free Republic; hosting absurdities like this potentially opens the entire site to ridicule.
Ping!
Is your point in any way relevant to Levin’s point?
Levin ping!
Congress today levies no direct taxes on the states. Quite the opposite. The Federal government today heavily subsidizes state governments.
The 16th amendment changed it.
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.
Prior to the 16th Amendment ... No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.