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.”
Nothing has ever prevented the House/Senate judiciary committees from knowing the count of applications in the office of the Archivist.
IOW, Congress knows that which it wishes to know.
Congress doesn’t especially want it publicized that it has long violated another Article, this time Article V of the constitution.
“Madison’s Salary Grab” is an unjustified derogatory term for an amendment designed to keep congress honest and close to the people. To no one’s surprise, the 27th Amendment is ignored, just like Article V.
I think its bunk as article 5 says nothing of a single subject convention and indeed the last convention made a mockery of the very concept.
Just as the idea of a single subject can be just much as it has been used over the last 200 year to inquire the always inherently separate calls of 48 States for convention on the abrtary judgement that they were somehow separate.
If that be the rule then congress may perceptually ignore the calls for convention, for even if the acts were all exactly identical in language and form there is nothing to force congress to recognize them as “together in subject” or any other respect.
The states have always had dissipate interest that even if they should remain silent on those issue, the sheer amount of time to get 34 clocks to strike would be used by congress as to declare them separate.
I think it is possible that there is only one prudent course of action, that while we may hope congress with this new act may be fair, we should nonetheless urge our legislators to keep their own count with open threat to organize and go forthwith with convention anyway without congress.
The worse that may happen is that a number of liberal states should not join this convention just like Rode Island missed the last convention in 1787. We should only be so lucky as we all know a convention would in no way be improved by their inclusion.
So let us trust but verify, and be prepared to act without the cooperation of the very government this convention process is designed to bypass.
By doing this, doesn’t it exclude seniors who are receiving SS and no longer pay income taxes? This, IMO, is a very bad idea.
It's called "inertia". Someone in fact could have picked up the phone and called the Archivist. The problem was that Gregory Watson was flying under the radar of the congressional power barons when he quietly gave seminars to state legislators about the "Salary Grab" Amendment and other amendments sitting out there that had not received the necessary number of ratifications. Not even a significant newspaper saw fit to document what Watson was up to.
IOW, Congress knows that which it wishes to know.
Congress would have wished to know about this, but sometimes inertia just gets in the way.
Keep in mind that in 1967 it was Dirksen who broke the news to the Senate that 32 petitions were on record for a convention to overturn Reynolds. Nobody else in Congress thought it was important enough to check up on, and it was one of Dirksen's pet missions to get a convention for that topic.
Congress doesn’t especially want it publicized that it has long violated another Article, this time Article V of the constitution.
You belong to the school of thought that Congress should have called a convention back in the 1890's. Nobody in Congress or the federal judiciary agrees with you on that issue. Only a few professors of constitutional law do, while 99% do not. The Single Subject Standard is settled precedent as I mentioned in another post in this thread, unless a state is willing to go to federal court and litigate this issue. Walker got in touch with the attorneys general of the states in 1998 to see if there were any interest in suing Congress on the grounds you favor. Not one was interested.
“Madison’s Salary Grab” is an unjustified derogatory term for an amendment designed to keep congress honest and close to the people.
Lighten up. The term is ubiquitous within the legal profession, and it is foolish to get your temper up on my reference to it in that term.
To no one’s surprise, the 27th Amendment is ignored, just like Article V.
You're correct about the 27th Amendment. The federal courts have refused to grant standing to anyone to sue in attempts to enforce it. There appears to be a gentleman's agreement between Congress and the courts.
A word of advice. If you know any lawyers who have litigated constitutional issues or professors of constitutional law, run your idea past them. They'll give you an explanation similar to the one I gave. I got it from the late John Armour, a constitutional lawyer who used to be a frequent contributor to FR under the handle "Congressman Billybob".
[ Prior to 1913, the gov’t ran on taxes on imports. You don’t think those costs are passed on to consumers? ]
Yes it was, but only those who bought imported goods, those who only bought domestic didn’t have to pay tax... think china and out trade situation now....
Gee, maybe tons of jobs would move back...
The average American back then would pay little federal taxes because they mostly only bought local produced goods and services.
Plus when the federal government’s ONLY source of income is something that passes over the border... gee you think THEN they would enforce the damned borders??????
Do me the favor of reading the post #30 links.
The date on the cartoon pretty much says how it fits in today’s society. Those citizens were paying taxes through higher prices because of the import taxes and quotas, regardless of how they thought about it.
Interesting. So, with Obozo's 7 trillion dollar budget and 300 million people, a family of 4 would have to pay $100,000 in taxes. Yep, that's much better than an income tax.
A flat tax is still an economic slavery tax. It is involuntary. Nor does it ‘catch’ acts outside of ‘income’ (IE: ‘under the table’, illegals, unemployed, retired, etc.). All of the prior whom still utilize services, but no longer ‘pay’ per the income/flat tax. Income taxes are anti-5th (Takings), anti-13th and wholly antithesis to a Free people.
The Fair Tax, or consumption tax; w/out the prebate (yes, I know it’s a political thing ONLY), is the only ‘fair’ and Constitutional way to go.
I’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong.
Really? Why do you think the steel, oil, aluminum, grain, and just about any other company argues for import taxes and quotas on imported goods? It because it lowers supply and, hence, raises prices. Is there any real difference between higher prices and higher taxes? I think not.
Bingo. Why would you trust the gov’t for ANY book-keeping when it lives off baselines vs. the rest of the biz world (whom would we tried and JAILED for the sh!t Congress gets away with...IMHO, I see NO authority in the Constitution for Congress to exempt itself from ANY Law it passes unto the People)
Why not make it the same as the States, it MUST balance its books; to be paid equally by each State based on it’s Representation.
Even if we don’t have the 17th, you damn sure that way the States will keep their Senators ‘in-line’
Yes...Then, maybe, that family of 4 would have 2 sets of eyes on their Reps, and 2 hands on the lever come voting time instead of being lulled by EITC, NFL, Dancing w/ XYZ.
Maybe, woman w/out hubby would think 2x/3x/etc. before shacking up w/ man w/ nookie on the brain...knowing there’d be NO ‘safety’ net from unwilling taxpayers to be Uncle sugar to her brood....
It’s amazing the scrutiny ones gets when one starts picking the pockets of others under the color of Law.
Yes, it wasn’t THAT long ago that actions HAD consequences that didn’t pick the pockets of everyone else in town/Nation.
I assume that it's not by vote, because a vote can fail.
So how, exactly is a Convention called by Congress?
-PJ
There will certainly be voices in Congress questioning whether Congress can refuse to call a convention. Hamilton's language in Federalist #85 is peremptory, however. Congress has no discretion in the matter. It must call.
The optics of refusing to call a convention when properly requested by the states would be suicidal for Congress, so they'll call the convention.
I'm asking because I hope there is no way for "Congress" to use this ambiguity to get around actually calling the Convention.
Wikipedia says about joint resolutions:
In the United States Congress, a joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires approval by the Senate and the House and is presented to the President for his approval or disapproval. However, joint resolutions used to propose amendments to the United States Constitution do not require the approval of the President.Generally, there is no legal difference between a joint resolution and a bill. Both must be passed, in exactly the same form, by both chambers of Congress, and then must — with one exception — be presented to the President and signed by him/her (or, re-passed in override of a presidential veto; or, remain unsigned for ten days while Congress is in session) to become a law. Laws enacted by virtue of a joint resolution are not distinguished from laws enacted by a bill.
What's to stop the House from not passing the resolution? What's to stop the Senate from preventing cloture and never even getting to a vote?
-PJ
I go with the least intrusive, least complicated tax requiring the least tax code. What essentially defangs the IRS and reduces it to a relatively small office. I don’t really care about anything else.
IMO, the flat tax fits that bill better than the “consumption” tax or “sales” tax.
No one really seems to know if this “consumption” tax (I hate the term “fair” tax - it doesn’t mean anything - what we need is simplicity, not “fairness” in taxation. “Fairness” is what got us 74,000 pages of tax code.) would be a value-added tax at each stage of the supply chain which would really allow micro-managed intrusion by the government into our supply chain).
The other problem with pushing this “consumption” tax is if you don’t FIRST repeal the 16th Amendment, all you’ve done is added a new level of taxation and government intrusion upon an already existent one. Don’t see any benefit there.
Could Congress stonewall an Amendments Convention? Absolutely. Hamilton's language in Federalist #85 is peremptory, but if Congress doesn't want to play, then there is a problem.
Some believe that an appeal to the Supreme Court could force Congress to do its duty. This is based on the Powell decision from the late Sixties when the Court ordered the House to admit Adam Clayton Powell. Others believe that the Court would declare it a political question, saying that if the people want an Amendments Convention so badly, they will vote out the scoundrels that are standing in their way.
But the optics would be ruinous for Congress. Congress would be saying in effect, "We spit at the Constitution. We spit at the states. We spit at the people. We have control, and we're not giving it up under any circumstances. We'll declare martial law and use nuclear weapons on our own people before we'll give up control. So there!"
After a statement like that, implied or otherwise, Congress would have to seek shelter on a military base. They wouldn't be safe anywhere else.
I have a different view of how things will play out. Jacq will probably give me hell tomorrow morning about a post on one of his earlier threads, so I'm going to take the time to write up how I think this is going to play out politically. It will infuriate both sides of the issue.
The screen name Jacquerie seems rather apt right now.
-PJ
I have a movie on Showtime at 9 PM (Pacific), but I should probably start this scenario right after.
Bottom line: Congress will call the convention, but they will try to control it. I'll have more details in the morning.
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.