Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

On this evening’s show, 5/23/2014, Mark Levin talked about the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, but he never mentioned how the apportionment of both taxation and representation became the moving parts of the Great Compromise. So, let me fill in the parts Mark Levin left out.

During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of how each State would be represented in Congress became a matter of heated debate and deciding upon rules which fixed each State’s representation created an impasse during the Convention. On July 2nd of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan for how the States would be represented in Congress. Then, on THURSDAY July 5th 1787, IN CONVENTION, Madision’s Notes records the following:

Mr. GERRY delivered in from the Committee appointed on Monday last the following Report.
"The Committee to whom was referred the 8th. Resol. of the Report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the 7th. as has not been decided on, submit the following Report: That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote."

This proposal sparked some of the most important debates of the Convention regarding representation and the manner in which the federal treasury would be filled. All those who now complain of our federal government’s excesses and unjust taxation, ought to read these debates which eventually led to the great compromise of the Convention under which taxation and representation were thoughtfully tied by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by the various State population sizes!

On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which fell directly upon the people and their property.

The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any general tax among the States which reaches the people or their property, and the other rule applies to each state’s number of allotted representatives in Congress.

State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.

State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population

Now why does Mark Levin continually ignore apportionment as applied to taxation?

Here are some of our founders expressed intentions regarding apportionment as applied to taxation:

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 those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government 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

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

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.

When Mark Levin talks about the Great Compromise of 1787 which has two inseparable components – taxation and representation – and he leaves out that a State’s allotted representation under the Great Compromise is tied to a financial obligation, the very essence of the Great Compromise is distorted! This does not mean it was intentionally distorted, but none the less it was distorted!

If you take the time to read Madison’s Notes as I have you will see that prior to July 2nd the Convention had a heated discussion concerning taxation and how the States would be represented in a national legislature. And on July 2nd Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”

On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

Here is what followed:

Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.

Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.

General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [FN*] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a [FN2] taxing Exports.

Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

__________

Now, is it not quite misleading, when discussing the Great Compromise, to omit the founders intentionally tied both taxation and representation under the rule of apportionment?

JWK

“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” 3Elliot’s 41

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.