Posted on 09/14/2013 3:33:06 PM PDT by JOHN W K
Mark Levin would be wise to have a long talk with the folks at the Mises Institute (mises.org) like Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and Peter Klein. They would be able to advise him on a way to structure taxes that would respect liberty and be economically beneficial.
Why don’t you call him....or better yet ping him.
Perhaps he is actually a ‘statist’ who is leading a disinformation campaign for bh0? On the other hand, perhaps he chose 11 amendments that he thinks have the best chance of passing the state legislatures?
Perhaps neither of the above? Or perhaps both of the above?
I like Levin [very much], but he’s probably ignorant of economics as most lawyers are.
later
JWK
If Mark Levin can succeed in drawing interest to a Constitutional Convention, and that interest actually bears fruit, then this is the sort of question that can be raised during same.
Mark Levin is at the very least, putting forth solutions, along with a way to discuss those solutions. Nothing he presents should be considered written in stone. But, we must start somewhere. And Mr. Levin is leading the way.
And you're the resident expert on it? We're all ears, lets hear it........
Yes! Spoken like a true agent of “THE CROWN”! King George III would be proud!
Follow the link at the top of the thread.
JWK
And here I was led to believe the top ~30% of the pyramid pays ~90% of the taxes. The bottom ~70% pays little or nothing. Patronage is in control of the tax system now and soon it’s gonna become impossible to change it. Too many little people don’t even have to work to make a good living anymore with tax credits, welfare and whathaveyou. Way too many are riding in the wagon and way too few are pulling it.
JWK
If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which labor, business and investors have worked to create.
Mark is advocating a process. He is not wedded to any single amendment as worded. I am not sure I’m comfortable with each either but nobody else is doing a damned thing.
Mark Levin is doing his part. What are you doing other than posting vanities on a conservative website?
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
But since there no way that the rich can presently afford to pay for Congress's irresponsible spending, it would be up to the rich to do the following. The rich would have to police Congress to make sure that Congress complies with Justice John Marshall's official clarification that Congress is prohibited from spending tax dollars on anything that it cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and other constitutionally mandated expenses.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
One of several cheap shots:
. . . does Mark Levin’s proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation offer real change, . . .
Just what did Mark propose? Do you care?
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.
Ask Levin
Mark has his own reasons for avoiding issues. His daily infomercials, which I often find informative, are an enormously valuable marketing tool for which he is paid! Who else gets paid to sell his own products three hours each day? I'm a capitalist. No one needs to listen to his harangues. Levin's ideology may be more tactical than strategic.
I suspected, and had confirmed in Mark's Liberty and Tyranny, p37, that our framers intentionally omitted term definitions from our Constitution. Try to find one! There is but one narrowing of one word overused by the British, which I'll leave for the reader to find. The one exception proves the rule. Mark quoted a Madison letter to a friend and colleague, in which Madison explains this. It reminds of a principle assumed by astrophysicist called 'time invariance of physical law'. If one looks at light from stars and galaxies transmitted ten billion years ago, the only way to analyze the meaning of what that light reveals is to assume physical laws haven't changed. Madison explained that the only way to understand our Constitution, which was written presuming the eternal truth of ‘Natural Law’, which was the foundation of our Declaration and Constitution, is to use the language and law common to our founders and framers when they wrote the document.
Mark, unfortunately, repeated the misdirection, one about which he is certainly familiar, since he wrote about it, that “Our Constitution doesn't define who are natural born citizens because they didn't define the term.” Mark also, just recently, in an interview with Hannity after an embarrassing exchange with someone at a book signing, stipulated, talking about Ted Cruz, but the stipulation would apply to McCain if it were true, that “The 1790 Naturalization Act makes Cruz (and McCain), eligible without any doubt.” His statement is not true, and I find it hard to believe he, more a Constitutional Scholar than Obama, who never claimed natural born citizenship, that Mark doesn't know the truth. He is also well aware of separation of powers, and that Congress has no authority to re-interpret the Constitution.
The 1790 Naturalization Act was entirely repealed in 1795, signed by the same President Washington, with the new act containing the same legal context, Article 1 Section 8 uniform naturalization rules, but the stipulation that children born to citizen parents “across the seas” (out of U.S. sovereign jurisdiction), were made ‘citizens. No mention of natural born citizens appears in U.S. Code since the mistake in the 1790 Act was corrected. One can surmise that Congress realized that using Article I Section 8, a 'naturalization' provision, to affect Article II Section I, 'natural born citizen' and its presidential eligibility stipulation, was seen to be the conflict that it is. Were the 1790 Act not repealed, Congress could redefine who was eligible to be president.
The same trick, citing the 1790 Act, was deployed by Obama’s Constitutional Law professor, Supreme Court wannabe, Larry Tribe, and by the sad product of the Congressional Research Service's Jack Maskill in three remarkably error-filled efforts to cloud the issue of Obama’s ineligibility.
Why would I listen to Levin? Mark's Landmark Legal Foundation gets most of its business from conservative clients. Karl Rove and Jihadi Grover Norquist could probably shut down Landmark Legal. They certainly know Obama is illegitimate, but watched McCain fight law suits and Congressional hearings from 2001 on. McCain's questionable legitimacy was well published in the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, Chicago Trib... It is a tangled web which may never be untangled, but if Levin were to weigh in, with his following, many Republicans would be removed from the dole, and probably Levin as well. It cannot be a coincidence that the media and Republican movers float one naturalized citizen after another, Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Cruz, for 2016 when we have so many who are natural born.
Why didn't Republicans promote the justifiable constitutional amendment to make McCain eligible? Democrats did! Clair McCaskill, Obama’s 2008 campaign co-chair, and Obama sponsored Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’ Democrats also sponsored four amendment bills , two by John Conyers and one each by Menendez and Frank, which would have made Obama eligible. Democrats wanted McCain to be their opponent, and Levin, who is unequivocally hostile to McCain, is implicated in the cover-up, much as I suspect he would rather not be.
I will buy Levin's new book, but believe the words of Levin's former boss apply: “Trust but Verify”. My take is that he doesn't feel he could defend the economics of the proposal eliminating the graduated income tax, and trying to defend that particular thesis would cost him more influence. Clearly, he doesn't understand, or won't address eligibility. But many of his suggestions seem very worthy of careful examination. Not having read the book, but having listened to his daily recitations about it, his exposure of the Constitutional mechanism may be end up at the most valuable contribution, and one he attributes to a retired judge and professor from Montana (I don't recall the name, but he was the source for Levin of the clarification). If his infomercials make him rich, and he keeps his audience, more power to him.
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.