Replies

What’s your point? That delegates will not be orderly? Will not follow rules? Who cares? Other than expense accounts who cares? All that matters is what amendments they propose.

They are only there to produce PROPOSALS. That’s not an opinion. That’s a constitutional fact.

Do you think delegates are going to be given carte blanche to camp out and make a career out of being a delegate? Who will pay for their time, meals, per diem, lodging and transportation?

Again that is not an opinion, that is a fact based question of reality.

When Warren Burger wrote that letter in 1983, conservatives did not hold the number advantage in states as they have in the past decade. Although Reagan won in 1984 with 49 states, the states themselves were divided between parties with independents and Reagan Democrats swinging the balance to Reagan. There was no impetus for conservatives to push to call a convention. What would they propose? A flag burning prohibition? A school prayer right? Again this is not an opinion, it is a summary of facts of the era.

Socialism within the United States and the progressive caucus were relatively mute compared to today. Again that is fact.

The FairTax as a thoroughly reseached replacement for the tax code was nonexistent in 1983, the role of the 17th amendment and its correlation with state subordination to the federal government was not clearly seen. Once again these are facts.

I would guess Warren Burger was referring to a time when the Constitution was not under attack as it is now. That is an opinion. Granted that now there is a tenth amendment that should be tested. That is also an opinion. But neither of these opinions are relevant to calling for a convention.

But what of the 64,000 page tax code and its strangulation of American industry and its global competitiveness? If in 1983 when Burger wrote his opinion, Reagan was cutting marginal tax rates by more than half. These are facts.

Had Reagan had the FairTax ready for launch, I am sure he would have pushed to repeal the 16th so that we would not ever be subjected to two systems of taxation. This is an opinion.

In sum, you are basing your ‘free-for-all’ fear on an outdated document with handwaving and flippant imprecise remarks. The letter is more an off-the-cuff set of short comments than a full analysis. This is an opinion of an opinion.

Today we have real needs to repeal amendments. This is an opinion. We have a severely weakened global competitive position that would be reversed almost overnight by enacting the FairTax and repealing the 16th. This is a fact (and not a projection but a real lowering of costs by tax elimination on exports). We have states that are bankrupt and are begging for bailouts from the federal government, meanwhile dependent on stimulus funds. This is a fact. The repeal of the 17th would steer states back to economic independence. This is an opinion but a well reasoned one.

We also have an out-of-control Central Bank in the Federal Reserve. This is a fact. We could engineer a new role of a central bank and ensure it endures for generations by amendment. This is a well supported opinion.

In 1983 we had been off the gold standard for a decade and had not yet seen the egregious leverage abuses by the Federal Reserve and their member banks in the credit markets. This is a fact.

In short the facts are that the 16th amd 17th amendments have clearly burdened and interfered with commerce and state economies. The fact is clear that the monetary system of the United States has failed and fallen under abuse. There are no constitutional safeguards in place to regulate the value of money. That’s a fact.

In sum we have an opportunity to implement fair, simple and effective taxation, protections for sound money and empowerment of states, all of which are impeded either by existing flawed amendments or require a new amendment.