Posted on 01/09/2015 1:14:34 PM PST by dontreadthis
Edited on 01/09/2015 2:38:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Article VYou can bet there will be a fight as we get closer to a Convention of States. Check it out:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Rep. Steve Stivers’ (R-OH) amendment to the House Rules passed by a vote on the House Floor this week, according to a press release published by Rep. Stivers’ office. The rule will provide a system with which to track, count, and organize Article V applications to Congress.
“I am pleased my colleagues supported my addition to the House Rules this week,” Stivers said. “I believe a Balanced Budget Amendment is the only way to stop out-of-control government spending. I hope the passage of this rule will put us one step closer to fiscal responsibility and the inclusion of the BBA in the United States Constitution.”
Rep. Stivers’ press release went on to explain the rule in detail:
“Specifically, the rule creates a process for the intake of the petitions through the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and gives the Clerk’s Office the responsibility of making the petitions electronically available and organized by the subject, state of origin and year of receipt. This will allow Congress, as well as the American people, to better track the progress of specific Article V efforts. Prior to Stivers’ rule update, no formal process for cataloging the petitions existed.”
I am not reading any of your books because it’s obvious that such books misinformed you.
I worked with the architects of the HR 25 legislation. I know how the new tax code works. I need not read what someone writes about what ‘they think’ it means.
> “If someone pays no taxes, they still get the prebate.”
Give me one example, just one. Show me one adult who does not spend and I am not talking about the miniscule number of people who are homeless. Even the homeless buy things.
So give me just one group, one category of a substantial number of people that will receive a check and pay no NRST at the retail counter.
I asked you before and you did not answer the question because you don’t have an answer which means your’re posting nonsense.
But you can redeem yourself by identifying one group of substantial numbers, say like 500,000 THAT DON’T PAY TAXES UNDER THE NRST AT THE RETAIL COUNTER. Tell me how they eat, how they provide themselves shelter. Even panhandlers pay the NRST unless they always get their food from trash dumps. Even drug dealers, prostitutes and thieves have to buy things and pay NRST. Even tourists have to buy things and pay the NRST.
EVERY BUYER IS A TAXPAYER.
Those who buy retail but don’t pay tax are guilty of tax evasion and that evasion applies to the seller as well. It’s easy to set up stings with sellers. The new tax code is much much easier to enforce.
So you tell me who doesn’t buy anything and tell me what kind of numbers we are talking about.
You won’t answer that just like you didn’t answer before.
But try, give just one example of a substantial group that buys nothing at the retail level.
They're not my books, they're written by Neal BOortz. I just took the time to read them.
I know how the new tax code works.
What new tax code? There is no Fair Tax on the books, so how could I show you anyone who currently gets a prebate. What I said was that if someone does not have earned income, they get a prebate...similar to the way welfare recipients get a welfare check. You're changing the argument to me saying someone would not pay a NRST...I never said that. I'm talking about earned income, not paying a sales tax. Agreed...every buyer under a national sales tax would pay the tax. What I said was someone with a low income gets a subsidy (prebate) so they have the funds to buy something and pay the tax as part of the purchase, the amount of which varies by earned income level. That's what I object to. Unless you are infirmed or incompetent mentally, I don't want the gov't giving you a check. Let the church or charities do it. You have the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, BUT it's not the gov't responsibility to pay you to get it.
Oh, and since you're the expert: Answer my question about taxes on intermediate goods. If I buy wood to make furniture that I then sell, do I pay a sales tax on that wood under your tax? If so, and with something as simple as a loaf of bread having 67 steps, how is collecting 67 taxes "much easier to enforce"?
That is an excellent post. If we ever put together an FAQ list for this project, that text needs to be in it.
My opinions are based on the historic record. If you disagree, point out from the record where I am wrong. The constitution as amended means what it says. Nothing in the record requires same subject applications. So what if dozens of amendments have piled up since the 19th century? The requisite number of applications for a convention was reached decades ago. Fact.
Here is the give and take debate surrounding what became Article V at the Federal Convention.
It is the purpose of the convention, not the applications, to propose amendments. Cite the historic record to prove me wrong.
<>Congress doesn’t want to be blindsided<>
Congress knows that which it wishes to know.
The reasons a modern convention would benefit from a news blackout and oaths of silence from delegates are the same today as in 1787.
Article V contains a distinct, extra-congressional grant of power to the states. It is not subservient to congress, it is superior to congress, the president and scotus. It is not justiciable.
The federal convention of 1787 specifically removed reference to limiting the state amendment convention to a single topic. Congress cannot legitimately require same subject applications.
There are dozens of applications sitting in a file in the office of the Archivist of the United States. The passage of time does not defeat the efficacy of applications. An application is an application and must be counted.
Just as today, the institutions we lived under in 1775 and 1786 were incapable of self-reform. Both situations demanded extra-governmental action to secure liberty.
Any construction of Article V, including Rep. Steve Stivers’ rule change that gives congress de facto ability to limit or defeat the application process, that renders the constitution unamendable through lawyerly double-speak, is as dangerous now as it was in earlier times.
So which will it be, a repeat of the horror of war, or peaceful resolution?
When we get there, we should begin with the low hanging fruit. The first order of business should be congressional term limits. One or two terms for senators, four for House members.
Neil Boortz is not a person who wrote the legislation. He is a commentator, nothing more.
>>> “What new tax code? There is no Fair Tax on the books, so how could I show you anyone who currently gets a prebate.”
Ok, people can see you’re running away now and trying to obfuscate. The new code is predicated on the current legislation word for word. The legislation shows exactly who qualifies for a Rebate.
>>> “What I said was that if someone does not have earned income, they get a prebate...similar to the way welfare recipients get a welfare check.
The FairTax Code does not allow for incomes to be considered, only spending.
But now you have raised a group to discuss, “welfare recipients”.
Welfare recipients pay the NRST tax under the new code, same as everyone else because they must spend. And they receive a Rebate the same as a billionaire, no difference.
And there are many billionaires who have no “earned income”, yet they must spend for their essentials.
>>> “You’re changing the argument to me saying someone would not pay a NRST...I never said that. I’m talking about earned income, not paying a sales tax.”
You mention the Church and charity, yet you lied right there above. Here’s what you wrote in the second line of post #138:
“If someone pays no taxes, they still get the prebate.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3245244/posts?page=138#138
I will continue to respond to your lies so that others reading can be rightly informed versus having you wrongly inform them. I don’t want readers to end up misinformed and confused as you are.
The Rebate is a refund of taxes, not income. And now you’re talking about “income” as you posted in #138. Again you posted these conflicting statements:
Post #138: “If someone pays no taxes, they still get the prebate.”
Post #142: “I’m talking about earned income, not paying a sales tax.”
You are shifting to the subject of “earned income” from the subject of “paying taxes”. This is typical of someone who feels they are cornered in an argument and will not stand corrected.
The new code will not have anything to do with ‘income’ except for a small accounting report requirement from employers so that a person’s social security payments will be recorded for the SSA. Social Security and Medicare will continue under the new code unless repealed by Congress.
>>> “Agreed...every buyer under a national sales tax would pay the tax.
At least you have some learning ability.
>>> “What I said was someone with a low income gets a subsidy (prebate) so they have the funds to buy something and pay the tax as part of the purchase, the amount of which varies by earned income level. That’s what I object to.”
More confusion. Now you call the Rebate/Prebate a “subsidy”. That’s just wrong. The Rebate is a tax refund and is the same for everyone of a certain family size; it’s uniform within family size.
Low income persons include those who receive only a social security check as their sole source of income. You object then to Social Security recipients receiving a refund on their taxes paid.
>>> “ Unless you are infirmed or incompetent mentally, I don’t want the gov’t giving you a check. Let the church or charities do it. You have the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, BUT it’s not the gov’t responsibility to pay you to get it.”
This is completely off-topic. This has nothing to do with the new code that is to come.
>>> “Oh, and since you’re the expert: Answer my question about taxes on intermediate goods. If I buy wood to make furniture that I then sell, do I pay a sales tax on that wood under your tax? If so, and with something as simple as a loaf of bread having 67 steps, how is collecting 67 taxes “much easier to enforce”?”
Well well well...now it becomes clear. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEW CODE TO COME IS ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS!
Ok now, I am happy to inform you and others reading because this is a very important point. The ‘National Retail Sales Tax’ or NRST has the word RETAIL in it. If you understand that word, then all of your questions regarding your above post are answered.
The NRST is not a VAT! (Value Added Tax like in Europe) A VAT is levied at each stage of production or supply. The VAT is a hidden tax, hidden from consumers except for the final VAT they pay at the cash register. But they don’t see all the other VATS in the chain.
The NRST is paid ONLY at the retail end of the supply, production and service chains. All of us who are active economically to bring a product or service to market are never taxed for such activity. The ***consumer*** meaning the retail spender/buyer, only those who spend to buy the retail product or service pay tax, no one else.
All business taxes, corporate taxes, B2B taxes are all abolished and the tax effect is moved to the end of the chain where it is SEEN by the consumer. Consumers will react in shock at seeing the federal tax added and made visible to them for the first time. The NRST is TRANSPARENT, no more smoke and mirrors. The NRST rate is voted each year by Congress so all voters can see how members of Congress voted. That’s a ‘good’ thing.
Enforcement is much easier for many reasons. One big reason is that only about 3000 corporate retailers sell 70% of the consumer retail products and services in the USA. And most of their sales transactions today are electronic which means it is easy for tax enforcers to detect evasion. For example, a tax enforcer could buy a computer at Best Buy or Amazon and easily trace the transaction to the NRST payment.
Another reason tax enforcement is much easier under the new code to come is because it takes TWO parties in a sales transaction, a buyer and a seller rather than just ONE party to an income tax filing under the income tax code. It is easy to set up a sting on a seller or a buyer under the new code to come.
The HR 25 legislation is brilliant, wins every argument and is beneficial to Americans of every background.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr25/text
Only progressives, socialists, leftists, the misinformed, lovers of income tax, etc. will argue against HR 25. Such detractors will always attempt to scare the public with their ‘monsters in the closet’ arguments when in fact there are and can be no such monsters.
I’ll tell you what is the real ‘monster’ in our lives. It’s the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax.
Great post! Sorry to not have seen it before but happily to be reading through it now.
I would like to offer the following:
Whereas Article V is intended to provide pathways for both the Congress and/or the States to originate Amendments to the Constitution, there should not be and there is no implicit or explicit assumption that either of these pathways should be inferior/superior to the other.
The pathway through which Congress originates Amendments includes committee hearings, committee votes, and floor votes. Congress has no requirement, and moreover there is no consideration that only single subject Amendments are to be considered. In effect, Congress has as many committees as it needs if it wants to consider a wide variety of potential Amendments, whether narrow or broad in scope. Again, the eventual fate of any or all of these potential Amendments is determined in part by committee votes and floor votes.
It should be reasonable to assume that because the States do indeed equally share this “Amendment Origination Power” with Congress, that the States, after having met the 2/3 requirement, will THEN begin deliberations among themselves. Congress’ “Amendment Origination Power” does not require a super-majority vote trigger in order to begin committee deliberations.
There is no indication per Article V that initiation of the States’ “Amendment Origination Power” is dependent upon anything other than the 2/3 requirement. Once triggered, the deliberative process begins in consideration of Amendments both narrow and broad.
Any other understanding of the States’ pathway to an Amendment is an indication that they do not share equally with Congress in the “Amendment Origination Power”.
Thanks.
Lots of good Article V discussion on this thread!
And yes, if things play out anything like that around 10/1/2015, down will be up, and up will be down!
And, I hope that the States do indeed claim the high ground.
Thank you again for your reply.
Great post again.
I agree with you in theory and principle. You are absolutely correct. But when there is conflict, how can it be resolved?
We cannot simply say ‘there can be no conflict’.
As an analogy one can say that private property rights are inviolate. However, when a property owner is run over, invaded, whose house is broken into, what recourse does the property owner have? The obvious ones are sheriffs, courts and self-defense.
If Congress encroaches or violates its limits to states applying under Article V, what is the recourse? What settles the conflict?
The obvious answer is the United States Supreme Court.
And hence the term ‘justiciable’ becomes relevant.
Some other alternatives are civil and state disobedience to federal dictates. I think that is a bit far-fetched. Even farther fetched is a war.
In the case of McDaniel vs. Cochran, we can see what conservatives are up against in terms of federal power and position. But even though that case was a loss for Conservatives, it was not a win for the establishment. It cost them dearly within their own ranks and even their own families. They ceded the moral high ground and in so doing their solidarity is weakened whereas the solidarity of their opponents is strengthened.
Many losses and retreats are net gains when weighed in the balance of weakened will among establishment opponents.
I advocate following general tactics similar to those of Nathanael Greene:
“Excel in dividing, eluding and tiring opponents by long campaigns; in actual conflict force opponents to pay heavily for a temporary advantage, a price that they cannot afford.”
Part of those tactics involve strategic retreats.
In the end, a tireless will, a neverending march leading to a chase where Conservatives are those being chased with Conservatives escaping, regrouping and turning back to launch a quick surprise attack, then running away to escape again, dividing paths of escape, turning back and regrouping, repeating this approach again and again and again, leads to the pursuers exhaustion and weakness.
It is a battle of wills.
The establishment has the advantage in New York and Washington DC. They have the Central Bank, national media as propaganda, unions, dependency (bribery) mechanisms of free stuff, and many federal courts.
Conservatives have the advantage in the countryside and the will to assert Article V. That will to assert Article V will decide the contest.
Yep...that's what they said in Canada just before they went to a national sales tax. If you own a lodge in Canada and buy things for your lodge at the local retail store, they are subject to the national sales tax.
Actually, I think you're lying now:
Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Trying to tell everyone here that the prebate is a refund is simply a lie. A refund, as you mistakenly call it, presupposes you've paid something in the first place. As stated above, the monthly check is independent of income, but rather based on poverty guidelines. According to the President's panel:
The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would "make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government".[8][38] Estimated by the advisory panel at approximately $600 billion, "the Prebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
The details the amount of the prebate can be found at the source mentioned above. Most discussions assume a 23% sales tax. It also appears that tax is on top of any state and local sales taxes. The source also admits that the prebate will be different in Hawaii and Alaska because of cost of living differences. So, once again, there are exceptions "to the rule", opening a door for someone to alter the amount of the prebate. A Flat tax has no exceptions, which is why I like it over one where politicians can mess around with a prebate.
We can continue going round and round on this, but you're not going to change your position because you have a vested interest in the legislation you helped write. I'm not going to change mine because, as a retired college professor with a Ph.D. in economics, I understand the theory behind both and the economics is simply better for the Flat Tax from my point of view. There's no point trying to show you the errors of your way, so we're done.
As I said before, I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
>>> “Yep...that’s what they said in Canada just before they went to a national sales tax. If you own a lodge in Canada and buy things for your lodge at the local retail store, they are subject to the national sales tax.”
What? The USA is not Canada.
>>> “Actually, I think you’re lying now:”
>> “Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”
What are you talking about? The above is not the HR 25 legislation.
If you want to talk about the FairTax, try sticking to the subject.
>>> “The details the amount of the prebate can be found at the source mentioned above. Most discussions assume a 23% sales tax. It also appears that tax is on top of any state and local sales taxes. The source also admits that the prebate will be different in Hawaii and Alaska because of cost of living differences. So, once again, there are exceptions “to the rule”, opening a door for someone to alter the amount of the prebate. A Flat tax has no exceptions, which is why I like it over one where politicians can mess around with a prebate.”
That was the boondoggle Tax Reform Panel headed by democrat Senator John Breaux who is now a Tax Lobbyist with Patton Boggs. That Tax Reform Panel was bogus, driven by a democrat agenda. IT WAS NOT PART OF THE LEGISLATION.
So you are a democrat? A lover of the Income Tax that you would cite lies to back up your own lies?
Ok so you revealed yourself. Whereas before you were misinformed and ignorant, now you can add partisan and democrat to that mix.
Now it’s clear what you are, for everyone here to see.
And you don’t have a PhD in economics, I can see that in a few sentences of your writing.
I was going to suggest you chat with a federal judge, off the record of course, to get a professional's view of the law concerning this issue. and why your understanding of the law is defective. Then I was going to ask you to chat with a congressman who is also a lawyer and bounce the judge's opinion against his. They would both explain it to you face-to-face in greater detail and at a speed much faster than my fingers can type. Unfortunately, I have a feeling you'd cross your arms in a defensive posture and refuse to listen to their legal advice.
You're very stubborn. But that stubbornness is not going to get a convention called. Only the current COS effort is going to get a convention called.
I'm done with this issue.
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.