And what is the point of your long winded post and citations?
You realize of course the individual who reads the commentary on this website is presumed to have sufficient education to discern for themselves what the read in going to a reviewing the material linked to for each citation.
It certainly is not my nor anyone's place to do their interpretations for them. Or would you rather play the propagandist that tells everyone what they should believe.
You failed to explain to us what you would have us learn from the quotes you posted.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
As to the authorized direct tax contained in our Constitution, sorry you object to the emergency direct tax upon the states intended to be used in case of emergencies, such as an annual deficit created by Congress.
Ones mans normal course of fiat money banking, is another's emergency I guess.
But forcing members of Congress to return to their state with a bill for their state’s apportioned share of an annual deficit created by Congress establishes a moment of accountability my friend
Only if you can convince Congress Critters to sponsor, introduce and vote for a direct tax that even the founders found short on the revenue side for even the miniscule federal budgets of that era.
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
- Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."
- "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."
You do have at least one sponsor and a bill introduced into the House or Senate don't you? Please let us know what it's bill number is.
I can't seem to find such a document in any legislative session of Congress since your statements and conjectures of the:
"American Constitutional Research Service Before the
Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
June 1995"
by founder "John William Kurowski" (John W K).
submitted on your own to the House Ways & Means Committee for their perusal and appropriate action.
Where is the legislation you have convinced at least one member of Congress to support?
As far as I can see, said committe may have filed it in the nearest trash can. Certainly doesn't seem to have generated any interest or comment where it means something, among the representitives of Congress who are charged with enactment of legislation and proposing Constitutional amendments for the states to ratify.
So far you have provided not answer to this fundamental question.
What are the introduced bill numbers or number, so we can provide appropriate support to this legislation of yours?
Can’t seem to find anyone. Sorry, they all seem to be signing on to your plan which they see as a means to rape the American People in a more efficient manner than they now do!
But I though you would enjoy this:.
AmericanHero1792 wrote the following in POST 92at Hannity.com in a thread titled So, Boortz does support the socialist friendly Fair Tax proposal:
"So.....what is actually Fair about the FairTax?
1. It increases the revenue to the Federal Government. 2. It increases the scope of the Tax and broadens its taxing power 3. It increases the ability for invasion of private property of individuals who purchase anything. 4. It eliminates the pitfalls of income tax Fraud by the Federal Government against the defense of private citizens under due process in courts of law. 5. It eliminates all tax exemptions of businesses in America while shifting the burden of taxation onto individuals. 6. It puts every citizen onto the socialist payroll 7. (Since it doesn't mandate the repeal of 16th Amdendemnt) it legalizes a direct tax on people's property without provisions of apportionment.
The FairTax Act (HR25) is the fairest legislation ever written by legislators in favor of the Federal Government.
Case Dismissed.…"
Have a nice evening old man. Too bad we do not see eye to eye on this issue as together we could have made for a very moving force.