Posted on 02/16/2014 6:09:45 PM PST by JOHN W K
In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!
CLICK HERE to listen to Mark explain the Electoral College, omitting how taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote, which in turn omits the importance of why our founders tied taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment.
Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent nimbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!
For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:
State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.
State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop
In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.
In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!
As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:
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 each state 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
Now, picture for a moment if California had to pay an apportioned share of Obama’s 2013 federal deficit based upon its 55 Electoral College votes. Do you really think California would remain a blue State and vote to re-elect another socialist/progressive like Obama? It seems only too obvious that the people of California would not be too happy to have to deplete their own pocket to fund Washington’s profligate spending and borrowing, and would quickly realize there is no such thing as a free cheese wagon which Obama would have us all believe there is.
But the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And it is ignored by not only our Republican Party Leadership, but also by Mark Levin along with every other “conservative” radio talk show host I know and includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley … etc. But they will discuss every form of tax reform [a national sales tax, value added tax, the “fairtax”, a flat tax, etc.,] all of which keep the iron fist of government around the necks of the American people, but never our founder’s original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, especially the brilliance of its rule of apportionment.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
That he does - on more than just this board too.
He’s got a jealous hard-on against Levin and spends a lot of time bashing him and his positions.
Do all "conservatives" support that position?
JWK
I might not have anything at all against such a policy... It's just not what the Constitution requires.
Yep, all good quotes from the Founders.
Unfortunately, not one of them supports your notion that somehow or other the Constitution requires apportionment of electors to states in proportion to their contribution to total taxation. Which it most emphatically does not.
SEE: Article II, Section 1:
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:
And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard --- each state's population size.
What do you have against the rule requiring representation with a proportional financial obligation?
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”?
JWK
It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.
Sorry pal, I agree that the language of the 16th Amendment specifically negated the Apportionment rule.
I don’t like it, and I’m confident this country would be far better off had the 16th and 17th Amendments not become part of the Constitution.
That said, Mark Levin is spot on.
I have somewhat specialized in constitutional criminal procedure since completing law school, but I’m quite up to speed on the other relevant portions of the Constitution as well.
I’m not claiming to always be correct without some research, for there are some very complicated (unneccessarily complicated) issues.
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.
Congress, from the very ratification of our Constitution, had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes” without apportionment and this was not only established in Springer vs. United States when the Court upheld an un-apportioned tax on incomes imposed during the Civil War, but the Court also examined and explained what made the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 (a tax calculated from profits and gains) “indirect” and not requiring apportionment, see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
Keep in mind that to this very day, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned as stated by the Court! 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 latter 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.
The truth is, the requirement that Representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned nas never by changed, nor has Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 been repealed and declares:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
JWK
I do miss his posts.
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.