Really?
Posted on 05/13/2014 5:52:30 AM PDT by JOHN W K
SEE: Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam
In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.
If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax which is in our Constitution be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?
The liars are at it again, pretending their objectives are noble, but their ultimate aim is to convene a convention so those who now hold power at the federal and state level may rewrite our Constitution and make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional.
How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example 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 the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-
For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.
Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures ? I haven’t. But Mark Levin wants a convention so he can promote his socialist flat tax which he now does with one of his “liberty amendments”.
A flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners.
Hey Mark, does your flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does your socialist tax on profits gains and other “incomes” end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! Tell us Mark Levin, how about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes? Does your flat tax end that and class warfare? No! Or, would your flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So why are you comfortable with a flat tax which in turn is a component part of a despotic federal government? I know why….you are part of the Washington Establishment which works to defeat the miracle our founding fathers created.
If you were really sincere about supporting our founding fathers Mark, you would be promoting a return to our Constitutions ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate with the following H.J.RESOLUTION:
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: 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.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
ROFLOL!
And those are elected by....?
As I understand it, the Article V convention meets to address specific items. Its topics can neither be added to nor deleted from. Every state agreeing to the Article V convention must have passed language almost identical.
==
So, what are items that these state legislatures who are calling for the Article V are tending to present?
The items seem to vary from state to state.
==
The current Constitution grew out of a similar convention that met to correct and review some items in the previous convention. Behind closed doors, the attendees came out with a new constitution.
That is what bothers many: once the doors close, will the agenda change and will the results be changes to The Constitution go beyond the intent of the Article V?
==
Additionally, it seems that the attendees are ‘appointed’ by the state governments, not elected by the populace. The ‘people’ have little say, but as SCJ Roberts said, ‘you voted for these people, so you have to live with whatever they do.’
==
I do not trust the concept, unless and until the Article V pushers publish a list of the ONLY agenda items that ALL attendee states have agreed to consider.
So far, each state has been voting on its own lists.
I don’t trust politicians even at the state level to pass a list of constitutional changes that benefit the populace over the politicians’ agendas.
The FED only enforces laws they want, now. How is that going to change, even if an Article V convention does pass a list of consitutional changes?
==
Unintended consequences.
An Article V could be rife with them.
/johnny
/johnny
For the first time since joining FR, I am scratching my head about the apparent ignorance on an issue among many FReepers. I suspect a great many people have not read or are not familiar with Levine's proposal/book.
This is generally a bullet smart, patriotic and active crowd. I'm proud to associate myself and participate. But as I scroll through some of the comments here, it is apparent, we (collectively) need to humbly educate ourselves on this issue. WE are pushing in all directions here. As such, I presume the Tea Party faithful must be doing the same. It might explain why this is taking so long to gain traction.
Really?
It’s worth a shot. I appreciate Levin starting the conversation on this. Nothing ventured nothing gained and all that. What other options are there? We have a corrupt political class whose only purpose is to perpetuate itself, and a runaway judiciary which abandoned all precepts of proper constitutional interpretation. In the end there are only two outcomes:
1) The convention of the states succeeds and we get the amendments that restore our Republic.
2) It fails in which case we’ve lost nothing and we continue our decline with a second amendment solution as our backstop.
It’s a win/win either way.
The Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, they arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.
The convention, if called, could propose that a mere majority of the States are needed for ratification and this would be in line with progressives who call our system a "democracy" rather than a constitutionally limited system of government.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
You’re encountering the stealth liberals that populate FR. Article V terrifies them outright because it is the first, solid, incontrovertible pushback they’ve ever encountered and don’t quite know how to deal with it.
Johnny Boy here is a perfect example. He is completely immune to facts and history. Typical leftist being outed.
Then its already done?
problem solved,? budget balanced,? flat tax?, all done? and time to move to other problems?
Great news. I need to listen to Mark more often to keep up on ‘the news’ That Mark is magic.
/johnny
JWK
Per post 69. “The convention, if called, could propose that a mere majority of the States are needed for ratification”
WTF! This guy claims to know the constitution and then writes this?
Hey. Don’t argue with him. Like any good lib the constitution says what he says.
Big deal
A number of states (Dems) passed laws giving all there POTUS electors votes to the national popular vote winner.
Does that mean those states will change the whole system for all the other states too?
This is Fantasy island waiting for the magic unicorn to save us all.
It does not such thing!
Here’s a thought: Since the COS is an effort that is spearheaded by state legislatures whose proximity to the electorate is considerably closer than anyone in DC I think it could reasonably be argued that whatever the COS comes up with could truly be considered the ‘will of the people’ more so than the Washington establishment.
Assuming that the end result is detrimental to the United States as a whole, we could sit back and say, “Okay this is what people want and we’ll move on from there.” Either way the logjam of the status quo is removed which affords us the political, societal and cultural avenues to consider other options. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of the stalemate of the current political climate.
Either way we have an obligation to try.
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.