Posted on 01/09/2015 1:14:34 PM PST by dontreadthis
Edited on 01/09/2015 2:38:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
All previous conventions were held under the Articles of Confederation, and under the Articles, everything was done on a One State/One Vote basis. This would be the first convention to be held under the Constitution, and since 1962 the Supreme Court's "One Man/One Vote" rule has applied to every governing body under the law except for the Senate, which Article V specifically exempts. This is why the assumption of Dr. Natelson and the ALEC Document that One State/One Vote would be the rule is not necessarily true. Personally, I favor a One State/One Vote rule because I believe an Amendments Convention is a "primal act of the Republic", but in the end it will boil down to whether the 1962 Reynolds decision can be applied to an Amendments Convention or not. That is why it will end up in court. Read my essay Federalism: Yesterday and Today for more details.
A constitutional convention is a convention of the States not people, just as the federal union is first and foremost a union of States not people.
Madison would disagree with you. He believed the Union was formed by the "Whole People" in their separate political societies (the states), and the states were the agents of the Whole People, not the actual parties to the agreement. This is why Madison chose state ratifying conventions elected by the people, not state legislatures, as the tool for ratification. When Madison, as an old man, challenged John Calhoun on his theory of nullification, he reiterated those principles.
This point is absolute critical to conservative/ republican control of the convention.
Conservative Republicans will not control the convention. The convention will be representative of America at that particular place and time. Keeping the Left out will be impossible both politically and logistically.
If they get their Federal employees in black robes to issue an edict that edict Must be ignored because Federal Employees HAVE NO JURISDICTION over Constitutional Conventions. NOBODY DOES EXCEPT THE ATTENDING DELEGATES
If such an edict comes down, it cannot and will not be ignored. If you go back to my earlier post of the "transcript" of the secret meeting of congressional power brokers, you'll note that Article V gives Congress access to a choke point in the process. Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. A convention that ignores Congress and -- more importantly -- the Supreme Court would be considered an "outlaw convention" that would produce "invalid amendment proposals", and the process under Article V would give Congress the legal wiggle room to ignore anything out of such a convention. There are rules within Article V, and everybody has to follow them.
We are more in agreement than you think. My ground rules for an Amendments Convention are: One State/One Vote, selection of delegates by state legislatures, and the convention setting up its own rules of operation. That's what I want, as does Dr. Natelson, ALEC and the Convention of the States movement. Getting that is going to be a political struggle. If you go back to my "transcript", you'll see that constitutionalists must organize to prevent Congress from imposing Orrin Hatch's 1991 "Constitutional Convention Organizing, Conduct and Stonewalling Act" (as I like to call it) on the convention when Congress is forced by the Constitution to call it.
The Supreme Court is another matter. I know that justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will hit the Library of Congress and research original intent. They may even agree with you and me. But I can't guess what the other justices will do.
What I and many others propose is a TRUE flat tax, 10%-15% of income, no “fairness” exceptions with the ONE possible exception of a poverty line below which no tax is required. No other exceptions. Throw out the 75,000-page tax code. EVERYBODY pays a flat tax of, say 10%, whatever is codified (not greater than 15% IMO). And NO FORCED WITHHOLDING - I also agree with that.
The “consumption” tax in theory might even be better if it were simple and no loopholes, but repealing the 16th Amendment seems so far fetched to me that pushing for the consumption tax seems like a trap of another layer of taxation.
Besides that, getting agreement on “the final point of sale” also seems elusive and somewhat confusing. Many think it should be value-added. That would be a disaster. Your view is a “final point of sale” tax. But what is the final point of sale? What about a manufacturer that sells to both both private consumers and private companies where some companies consume the product and some resell and some do both? What about R&D purchases by a company some of which are consumed by the company and others go to beta sites who pay for it?
That’s just scratching the surface. I mean I know there are state sales taxes which seem to work I guess. But the difference between what the states do and what the feds could potentially do is like day and night. The feds will look for every loophole they can find and some of those “consumption” taxes could be very well be hidden to the average Joe because it was upstream.
I honesty do not know how the states do it and get around these issues. Nevertheless, the first hurdle, which I think is the game breaker, is repealing the 16th Amendment, which is a long, long shot at best. Because of that, I don’t think we should even be talking about this “consumption tax.”
Instead, I think we should be focused on a Constitutional Amendment that would require a SIMPLE, FLAT, NO-EXCEPTION, income tax, FIXED at somewhere around 10% for EVERYONE except those below a FIXED poverty line, which poverty line could only be amended by Congressional act.
Start with that. Then if at some point you could somehow get enough true votes to repeal the 16th Amendment and something was in place that barred the exceptions and loopholes and was a truly simple one-time-only “point of sale tax”, I’d be willing to listen.
I think though that if the proposed flat tax were implemented (preferably by Constitutional Amendment so an equivocal, self-interested Congress couldn’t change it in a few years) there would be such a economic boost to the average American in a short time, with the added benefit of nuking the current hopeless tax code and eviscerating the IRS, that there might be little support for the other. At least for awhile.
Agreed plus the added problem of repealing the 16th Amendment without which the rest of the discussion is useless IMO because nobody wants ANOTHER tax upon the one that already exists.
I kind of go into some of this on post #122.
As I said earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that Congress will do its duty and call a convention when the count for Mark Levin’s movement hits 34. The optics of stonewalling the states would be disastrous in an election year. But they’ll try to find a way to control it.
You've pointed out something huge. Today a small movement is pushing for an Amendments Convention. A few publications are covering it, but they're trying to frighten people by obfuscation and disinformation. In some cases, the journalist in question simply doesn't know his facts. The term "constitutional convention" scares people which is why Levin uses Convention of the States and Judge Napolitano uses Amendments Convention.
We need a massive investment in education about this topic. Without it, frightening the people becomes an easy task, and Congress will have a field day in attempting to control the process.
” Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. A convention that ignores Congress and — more importantly — the Supreme Court would be considered an “outlaw convention” that would produce “invalid amendment proposals”, and the process under Article V would give Congress the legal wiggle room to ignore anything out of such a convention. There are rules within Article V, and everybody has to follow them.”
You mean they will declare it an outlaw convention just like the last ‘outlaw convention’ of 1787 which did not stick to the rule established by congress and the states in calling it.
Truth be know i fully expect that the lawless and corrupt Federal employees may try to extend their hands into the convention process but we must ignore their influence and move ahead anyway. The whole point of Constitutional convention is to bypass them, we must respect that propose and force Washington to respect it too should it be necessary.
Let me respectfully disagree with that.
There is an old adage that applies here: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." A closed-door convention would give our current political power structure in Washington and its Mainstream Media servants the opportunity to cause mischief and scare people.
"Why are the doors closed? A group of right wing whack-jobs and tea-baggers have seized control of 39 state legislatures, they're meeting in secret, and they're going to take away your rights. They may even be plotting to take away your government checks!"
We need two educational efforts. The first is right now, where the people need to be educated as to just what an Amendments Convention can and can't do. The fear factor needs to be reduced, not just to defeat the Washington power structure, but to defeat Schlafly and the Birch Society, who both mean well but don't know what the hell they're talking about.
The second is during the convention. I don't care if Ed Schulz or Rachel Maddow covers the convention for a TV network with less than a hundred thousand viewers. But I do care about C-SPAN, and I care one hell of a lot about Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.
There is one other reason. In 1787, there was a sense of deference in American society. Americans were content to let men they perceived as their "betters" do their thinking for them. If Gen. Washington and Dr. Franklin said the doors to the convention should be closed, then they should be closed. That sense of deference and trust no longer exists. The fact that enough states applied for a convention is proof itself that there is no longer trust, much less deference. There needs to be coverage of the convention, and the process must be transparent, else the lack of trust will envelop the convention itself.
As I pointed out, if an Amendments Convention decides to ignore Congress and the Supreme Court and meet anyway under its own rules in defiance of those two institutions, it would be considered a "meeting" and not a "convention" legally recognized under the Constitution. Nobody will stop that meeting, but its work will be ignored. Article V hands certain choke points to Congress, and Congress will take advantage of that.
How to "force" Washington to respect it moves into an area where the government has the advantage via a standing army, the NSA, drones, WMD's and a Mainstream Media slavishly devoted to it. To apply "force", we need to begin an educational effort right now to cut the ground out from under the Washington establishment. To its credit, the Convention of the States movement is doing that right now.
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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.I don't see any congressional choke points.
BEGIN
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
END
One choke point is in the Proposal phase. I'm not going to go into the debate as whether the states are required to name a subject in their applications for a convention or not. Congressional practice for the past 200+ years is that they do. But we'll let that lie.
Congress is the judge as to subject and timeliness of applications from the states. Congress has never officially enacted these standards into law, and the ABA Report has said plainly that Congress should do so. The reason Congress doesn't enact these two standards into law, but treats them as unwritten precedent, is that Congress doesn't want the states to have a handle for standing in a court battle. The process is arbitrary, and because of that, Congress can come up with excuses to choke off a convention. Congress did that in 1913, but it found a way to do it legally. That's the long story of the 17th Amendment told elsewhere.
The second choke point is in the Disposal phase. When presented with an amendment proposal, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. Congress can't simply refuse to act. But the key here is whether the amendment has been proposed by a valid process. In the case of an Amendments Convention, if Congress chooses to interfere with the process and the Supreme Court agrees, then a convention operating outside these rules could be considered invalid by Congress. Congress would be within its rights to ignore the work of a convention it considered an outlaw convention.
There was a potential chock point in the Ratification process, but a federal district court in Idaho closed that off in 1982 when the ERA crashed and burned. Congress can't go around and arbitrarily change its own window for ratification.
“How to “force” Washington to respect it moves into an area where the government has the advantage via a standing army, the NSA, drones, WMD’s and a Mainstream Media slavishly devoted to it. To apply “force”, we need to begin an educational effort right now to cut the ground out from under the Washington establishment. To its credit, the Convention of the States movement is doing that right now.”
I see your point and concede that the Washington establishment thou a display of despotism and force could stimmy the judgement of our States in Convention.
I do not however believe that they would be able to do so, particularly after our Starts start holding votes or radicalizing conventions involving the people directly.
The press can bury this story for as long as they want but the people will get the message when they actually vote, and they will expect that vote to mean something. Just as the Citizens of Arizona did.
As for the military, that is a rather extremely unlikely Scenario the result of many years and conventions of States attempting to enforce the Constitution, during which a period we would have to have done precisely as you had suggested in informing the public of the Constitutional crisis. I doubt very few in the world would not know about whats going on here and many of them will have taken sides.
It is practically beyond immigration that Washington would let it even go down that path much less get to that point before conceding to do their duty. The damage to our Elites own prised reputation as democratic leaders would be irreparable.
Instead the Washington Elite will at the beging as soon as it is clear they cannot stop us try anther way to control or hijack the process of which there are many.
Congress is just beginning to smell gunpowder in the air, which is why the Clerk of the House has been deputized to monitor the situation. The Archivist by his own procedures doesn't communicate with Congress until a threshold has been reached, and Congress doesn't want to be blindsided.
We're at a cat-and-mouse phase in the struggle. We're moving quietly, and Congress now wants to monitor our movements. That's actually good. A badly reasoned and precipitous move on the part of a panicked and blindsided Congress could lead to chaos and even bloodshed. Cool heads need to prevail.
The cat-and-mouse phase will lead to a "chess" phase as we get closer to 34 applications. Both the state legislatures and Congress will be moving carefully to preserve their own interests. I'm heartened that the Convention of the States movement is at least 5 chess moves ahead of Congress right now. Let's hope it stays that way!
When the 34th application hits Congress, the "bare-knuckle brawl" phase begins. This will be about power, not finesse. This will be about legal facts on the ground, not legal theorizing. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the education effort will pay off.
As pointed out earlier, Federalist 85 is clear on the matter that Congress is compelled to call the convention, and plays no other part. To me, this is not a vote on a resolution as Wikipedia called it, but more of a mere announcement that the threshold was met.
Congress is a book-keeper on the matter. I don't know how it came to be that a vote is required to actually make the call.
-PJ
But Congress doesn't do anything without a vote unless someone can say, "Without objection, it is so ordered." Every action taken by Congress that involves something in the amendatory process is handled by a Joint Congressional Resolution. There is a vote because that's how it's done. Up until now, it's pretty much been a formality.
I'd like to see the same kind of simple formality when 34 states apply to Congress for a convention citing Georgia's language taken from Levin's book. In fact I think we'll see a unanimous vote, but there will be a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes.
My "transcript of the secret meeting" was intended to be both revelatory and funny. The real game begins when Congress gets it into its head that it can control the convention.
The Rebate/Prebate is not a tool to buy votes.
It is a tax cut.
It cannot be used for one group over another, it must be the same for everyone, why? Because the FairTax leads to repeal of the 16th. And without the 16th, tax laws fall back on the uniformity clause. So say if some future session of Congress tried to give more Rebate to one group over another, they would face a quick lawsuit over the Constitutionality of doing such things.
So the Rebate will always be the same for everyone.
Here’s what the Rebate says:
UNDER A NEW TAX CODE THAT OPERATES WITHOUT THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND RAISES TAXES BASED ON SPENDING, IT IS DESIRED THAT NO AMERICAN PAY TAXES FOR THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING. HOW CAN THIS BE DONE?
THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING ARE BASED ON SPENDING AT OR BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. WE CAN THINK LIFE ESSENTIALS ARE TAKEN CARE OF WITH SPENDING AT OR BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. MORE CONCISELY THINK ESSENTIALS SPENDING = POVERTY LINE SPENDING.
WHEN AN AMERICAN IS SPENDING ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE, THEY MUST PAY CONSUMPTION TAX. WHEN THEY SPEND AT OR BELOW THE POVERTY LINE THEY PAY NO TAXES. NOTE THAT HIS APPLIES TO INDIGENT PERSONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE SAME WAY AS IT APPLIES TO BILLIONAIRES. EACH GETS THE SAME REBATE CHECK. NO ONE IS DIFFERENT IN THE ESSENTIALS OF LIVING.
In order to ensure people do not pay taxes on spending at or below the poverty line, a mechanism of government is needed. That mechanism is a tax REBATE as a return of taxes paid for essentials. It is also called a PREBATE because some people in poverty cannot wait for their monthly tax return as they need cash now.
Let’s see an easy example for a family of four. The poverty line for 2014 is $23,850 or $1988 per month. It is presumed that a family of four will spend $1988 each month for the essentials of living. It is also presumed that a billionaire will also spend $1988 on essentials. The billionaire will spend more but the essentials are the same for the billionaire as for a poor pensioner.
The National RETAIL Sales Tax or NRST is the consumption tax element of the H.R. 25 (FairTax legislation) and is set at 23%.
We remind ourselves of the goal that no American should pay tax (NRST) for the essentials of living meaning at or below the poverty line.
When an American family of four spends $1988 on necessities or essentials, they had to pay the 23% NRST consumption tax inside that $1988 or $457. A billionaire with a family of four will also pay $457 tax on their first $1988 of spending. Both the poor family of four and the billionaire family of four will pay at least $457 in NRST. And that must be rebated to keep the goal of no American paying taxes on essentials of living.
The Rebate is a tax cut because it returns taxes paid to the taxpayer. The larger the Rebate, the larger the tax cut. And it’s the same tax cut for everyone.
For those that are so confused that they join in putting out garbage that the Rebate is a freebie subject to abuse, I would like to hear one real sensible example of that. It won’t happen because there are no such examples.
> “...not just to defeat the Washington power structure,...”
I would prefer to use the phrase “not just for States to restore balance with the Federal power structure, ...”
> “...but to defeat Schlafly and the Birch Society, who both mean well but don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”
Exactly spot on. The Birch Society is nothing except a bad example that MSNBC and the like would love to chatter up 24/7.
And Phyllis Schlafly is a good writer with a damaged brain brought about by years of drinking the treated Potomac River.
But the point was that States need not reveal their internal deliberations per the Constitution. I agree that it would be near impossible to keep it all a secret and your point is a very good one that CSPAN is key.
> “Is there a rationale to suggest that in 1787, the framers made Congress a clearing house for Article V solely for logistical reasons? Maybe they thought it was simpler for individual states to notify a single Congress instead of all the other states, and then let Congress notify all the states when the threshold was met?”
You have it exactly right. It was far simpler for the states to use Congress as the concierge for the state applications.
If Article V had been written to allow states to call their own convention, then it would have been a show of disunity.
To show unity between the states and Congress, the clause was written unambiguously that “Congress must call”. This empowers the states but forces them to accede to Congress in treaty.
The clause that allows Congress to decide the mode of ratification to the state legislatures or state conventions empowers Congress to decide of the motives and intents of the state legislators are with the people or not. This is a balancing clause.
Balancing state power and federal power as well as balancing powers among federal branches was a key element in crafting the Constitution. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment severed the balancing restraints between states and federal government.
You need to read one of the books you said you didn't read. If someone pays no taxes, they still get the prebate.
‘You’ say? Once ‘I’ allow? Who are you talking about?
Anyone who plans on writing the new tax code.
No one can stop it once it starts and IT WILL START!
That's the problem. And a prebate IS the start. No one understands the current tax code. Sorry, but using widows and orphans to win a debate is an emotional ploy to sell something, not a cogent argument. Charity belongs where it was prior to 1914...in the heart and in the church, not in the tax code.
I agree, which it also what Beard says. The gov’t is in so many areas where it has no business being. From banking (e.g., SBA, Student Loans) to transportation (Amtrak), there is nothing in the Constitution that says these are legitimate areas for the gov’t.
What? Like what, a military, a legal system...what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.