The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Politics4us on May 23, 2014, 08:37:05 pm
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3159324/posts
Jim Robinson allows almost daily attacks on Mark Levin from John W K, even though Levin has contributed money to FR and is a respected conservative, yet Jim Robinson banned people during the 2012 presidential election for saying that they would support Mitt Romney. Idiot.
-
So? Is Levin off-limits?
Does he still cut people off and call them "jerks"? He and Savage are two of the rudest people in talk-radio, unless the caller is kissing his ass.
-
Never seen Levin's appeal. He writes a good stick, but his show is dire.
-
I would not ban Levin's positions, writings from FR or elsewhere.
I find his position regarding updating and modifying our Constitution to be largely a self-serving vehicle to sell books, with a "hook."
-
So? Is Levin off-limits?
Does he still cut people off and call them "jerks"? He and Savage are two of the rudest people in talk-radio, unless the caller is kissing his ass.
You are missing the point, and I know you're a Republican establishment hack who is annoyed by Levin. I said Levin is a respected conservative leader who has contributed to FR, and for Jim to ban people who he disagrees with, while allowing John W K to attack Levin with daily threads is ridiculous.
-
Never seen Levin's appeal. He writes a good stick, but his show is dire.
His show is entertaining, and he's smart and knowledgeable.
-
I would not ban Levin's positions, writings from FR or elsewhere.
?
-
His show is entertaining, and he's smart and knowledgeable.
Maybe I have been unlucky with the streams I have caught. It's possible. But he lectures too much for my taste.
-
He (John W K) actually calls Levin's Liberty Amendments Socialist here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3158989/posts
Looking through his articles, he has a few screws loose. He strikes me as one of those who try to make the argument a court is illegal because the flag has gold fringe on it. He copies and pastes various blocks of text but it seems he really doesn't understand much of what he is saying or just doesn't read it all. He actually claims here no where in the 16th Amendment is income taxes mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3154540/posts
Quote from the 16th Amendment to set him straight:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
He also has a habit of personally attacking Jenny Beth Martin (is he her ex or something?)
Example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3149888/posts
-
You are missing the point, and I know you're a Republican establishment hack who is annoyed by Levin. I said Levin is a respected conservative leader who has contributed to FR, and for Jim to ban people who he disagrees with, while allowing John W K to attack Levin with daily threads is ridiculous.
You're new here. I'm not "Republican establishment" though the Tea Partiers like to pigeon-hole conservatives who disagree with them with that moniker.
Maybe Jim sees through Levin's self-serving ideas, such as his dreamland "Liberty Amendments," which, as someone has already said, is nothing but a blatant pandering to his thronesniffers to buy his book.
-
?
I would not ban Levin or his attackers.
You would ban Levin's attackers? If so, how FR of you.
-
He (John W K) actually calls Levin's Liberty Amendments Socialist here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3158989/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3158989/posts)
Looking through his articles, he has a few screws loose. He strikes me as one of those who try to make the argument a court is illegal because the flag has gold fringe on it. He copies and pastes various blocks of text but it seems he really doesn't understand much of what he is saying or just doesn't read it all. He actually claims here no where in the 16th Amendment is income taxes mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3154540/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3154540/posts)
Quote from the 16th Amendment to set him straight:
He also has a habit of personally attacking Jenny Beth Martin (is he her ex or something?)
Example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3149888/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3149888/posts)
Now that you have attacked me, how about addressing what I have actually posted. Quote my words and then post your objections.
In regard to Mark Levin's "liberty amendments", e.g. his balanced budget amendment, it would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not extinguish deficiencies with an apportioned direct tax as our Founder's intended. In fact, his amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis.
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary
-
I said Levin is a respected conservative leader who has contributed to FR, and for Jim to ban people who he disagrees with, while allowing John W K to attack Levin with daily threads is ridiculous.
There is a reason there are a whole lot of former Freepers on this board that no longer have anything to do with that board, either by the hand of JR and his Mods or our own, having realized that board devolved into toxicity.
JR can ban whomever he wants for whatever reason he likes, all it does is grow our membership here.
Who cares if it is ridiculous? We have a new home to call our own and invest our time and money.
-
Who the hell started this thread up about some insignificant nobody? If you leased a car when this thread began in '14, it would be time to turn it in now.
(https://www.chevyhhr.net/gallery/files/1/7/5/1/zombie_bump.jpg)
-
Holy bad acid trip flashback Batman....
-
Now that you have attacked me, how about addressing what I have actually posted. Quote my words and then post your objections.
In regard to Mark Levin's "liberty amendments", e.g. his balanced budget amendment, it would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not extinguish deficiencies with an apportioned direct tax as our Founder's intended. In fact, his amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis.
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary
Now??? Dude.... that was over three years ago. WTF? Are you a Sagittarius, perchance (better late then never)?
-
How odd.
So, are you still attacking Levin?
-
Now that you have attacked me, how about addressing what I have actually posted. Quote my words and then post your objections.
In regard to Mark Levin's "liberty amendments", e.g. his balanced budget amendment, it would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not extinguish deficiencies with an apportioned direct tax as our Founder's intended. In fact, his amendment would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis.
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary
Did you read the book or just the Salon opinions on it.
Please show how exactly the requirement for Congress to not spend more than it takes in is as bad as you vaguely hint that it is.
-
He (John W K) actually calls Levin's Liberty Amendments Socialist here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3158989/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3158989/posts)
Looking through his articles, he has a few screws loose. He strikes me as one of those who try to make the argument a court is illegal because the flag has gold fringe on it. He copies and pastes various blocks of text but it seems he really doesn't understand much of what he is saying or just doesn't read it all. He actually claims here no where in the 16th Amendment is income taxes mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3154540/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3154540/posts)
Quote from the 16th Amendment to set him straight:
He also has a habit of personally attacking Jenny Beth Martin (is he her ex or something?)
Example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3149888/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3149888/posts)
@AbaraXas
One of the first discussions I ever got into over at FR was with people that have this warped mentality.
They also tried to claim the military in it's current form is illegal too.
He should be a fun one.
-
Now??? Dude.... that was over three years ago. WTF? Are you a Sagittarius, perchance (better late then never)?
I happened to come across this forum in which a poster attacked me instead of what I posted. I was hoping the poster would elaborate on the comments made.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from **** hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
-
How odd.
So, are you still attacking Levin?
Calling into question a position he takes is attacking him? If it makes any difference to you, I also applauded him for pointing out the fraudulent nature of a proposed balanced budget amendment concocted in the House.
JWJ
-
I happened to come across this forum in which a poster attacked me instead of what I posted. I was hoping the poster would elaborate on the comments made.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from **** hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
Got bored and Googled your screen name didn't you?
It's ok we all do it.
-
Calling into question a position he takes is attacking him? If it makes any difference to you, I also applauded him for pointing out the fraudulent nature of a proposed balanced budget amendment concocted in the House.
JWJ
Hate to break it to you...but you attacked him...repeatedly.
Oh and the Liberty Amendments are so far away from Socialist they aren't even on the same Continent.
-
I happened to come across this forum in which a poster attacked me instead of what I posted. I was hoping the poster would elaborate on the comments made.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from **** hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
Welcome to TBR...this thread was several years ago..I don't even remember it...
-
A new troll to play with. Thanks Mom.
Welcome to TBR...this thread was several years ago..I don't even remember it...
-
I happened to come across this forum in which a poster attacked me instead of what I posted. I was hoping the poster would elaborate on the comments made.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
JWK
There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from **** hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.
Come on. Admit it. You really are a Sag.... right?
-
A new troll to play with. Thanks Mom.
So let me get this straight. JWK from JR's site is upset that is MG full of MGD experienced a B and E?
-
So let me get this straight. JWK from JR's site is upset that is MG full of MGD experienced a B and E?
Seeing as how the FNG is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP
-
So let me get this straight. JWK from JR's site is upset that is MG full of MGD experienced a B and E?
Maybe he's suffering from withdrawal of S and M.... :shrug:
-
Did you read the book or just the Salon opinions on it.
Please show how exactly the requirement for Congress to not spend more than it takes in is as bad as you vaguely hint that it is.
Now why would I attempt to do what you ask when I actually promote Congress balances the budget on an annual basis, and without any loopholes, which is not what Levin's liberty amendment would do?
What I support is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually compel Congress to balance the budget on an annual basis, and would also end our federal government's love affair with the socialist/communist tax calculated from profits, gains, tips, wages and other "incomes". It would also restore that part of the Founder's Great Compromise requiring "representation with a proportional financial obligation" whenever a direct tax is laid.
JWK
-
Levin is a smart guy and knows how to connect the dots, but he is rude, self serving and at
times unprincipled.
-
Levin is a smart guy and knows how to connect the dots, but he is rude, self serving and at
times unprincipled.
...none of which is the topic of this thread. This very, very old thread.
-
...none of which is the topic of this thread. This very, very old thread.
@Sanguine
You should turn me in for trying to hijack a Mark Levin thread with a comment on Mark Levin.
-
...none of which is the topic of this thread. This very, very old thread.
Baby, we are going to drive this topic so far off the rails you'd think a Democrat was at the stick.
-
Welcome to TBR...this thread was several years ago..I don't even remember it...
And I didn't know it existed until I stumbled upon it early this morning. The personal attack on me, and not upon what I wrote, encouraged me to see what's up. Hopefully the conversation will become more productive and focus on subject matter rather than personal attacks.
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our social democrats’ plan for “free†college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
-
...none of which is the topic of this thread. This very, very old thread.
And just what is the topic of the thread?
JWK
-
And I didn't know it existed until I stumbled upon it early this morning. The personal attack on me, and not upon what I wrote, encouraged me to see what's up. Hopefully the conversation will become more productive and focus on subject matter rather than personal attacks.
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our social democrats’ plan for “free†college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
Well our members are usually more welcoming than this..perhaps they remember you from FR..I really don't so I can't explain the attacks...but I always welcome new members.
-
FYI Dipstick,
The person who you feel maligned you is no longer with our little group.
So move on or be gone.
-
Well our members are usually more welcoming than this..perhaps they remember you from FR..I really don't so I can't explain the attacks...but I always welcome new members.
Probably has something to do with the manner in which he made his arrival and the fact that he brought back from the dead a 3 year old thread as his way of saying "hello".
-
Now??? Dude.... that was over three years ago. WTF? Are you a Sagittarius, perchance (better late then never)?
Meh, not even worth the time to try to remember a thread from that long ago. I cited my sources. That suffices here. Not going to be baited into some ancient thread from some nobody freeper. (especially against Levin whose credentials are known and respected).
-
Probably has something to do with the manner in which he made his arrival and the fact that he brought back from the dead a 3 year old thread as his way of saying "hello".
Yah maybe that... or maybe he is just and azzhole.
-
FYI Dipstick,
The person who you feel maligned you is no longer with our little group.
So move on or be gone.
Mark Levin is still promoting amendments to our Constitution which would acutally make constitutional, various things our Founders sought to forbid. Does that conversation not deserve the attention of those who support and defend our written Constitution and its legislative intent?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
-
Now why would I attempt to do what you ask when I actually promote Congress balances the budget on an annual basis, and without any loopholes, which is not what Levin's liberty amendment would do?
That is exactly what his Amendment would require...a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation.
Specifically what is wrong with limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling or limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.
Please be specific. Don't dissemble.
That's about as Conservative as you can get.
What I support is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would actually compel Congress to balance the budget on an annual basis, and would also end our federal government's love affair with the socialist/communist tax calculated from profits, gains, tips, wages and other "incomes". It would also restore that part of the Founder's Great Compromise requiring "representation with a proportional financial obligation" whenever a direct tax is laid.
"Fair share" is Lib speak for "tax the rich". Nothing is going to "compel" the Congress except brute force at this point to balance the budget. They haven't even felt compelled to do their fiduciary duty and pass a budget in 9 years now. What makes you think they will be compelled on their own to balance a budget.
As for your proportional financial obligation...47% of the country pays nothing in taxes each year and the top 505 of wage earners pay nearly all of it.
Where is your "fair share" or "proportional financial obligation" figure into that?
BTW I notice this "Fair Share" tax thingy seems to be something you ginned up on your own and tried to pimp over on the Hannity Forums last April.
http://forums.hannity.com/entry.php?1560-The-Fair-Share-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-reform-is-not-complicated (http://forums.hannity.com/entry.php?1560-The-Fair-Share-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-reform-is-not-complicated)!
How'd that work out for you over there?
-
Mark Levin is still promoting amendments to our Constitution which would acutally make constitutional, various things our Founders sought to forbid. Does that conversation not deserve the attention of those who support and defend our written Constitution and its legislative intent?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
No he does not. And no matter how many times you reapt your BS it won't make it so.
I dare say knows more about the Constitution than this entire forum (including you) combined.
-
Mark Levin is still promoting amendments to our Constitution which would acutally make constitutional, various things our Founders sought to forbid. Does that conversation not deserve the attention of those who support and defend our written Constitution and its legislative intent?
JWK
I have a suggestion....Take your Levin Hate Boner back to wherever you came from
-
Baby, we are going to drive this topic so far off the rails you'd think a Democrat was at the stick.
You've got a point. *****rollingeyes*****
-
No he does not. And no matter how many times you reapt your BS it won't make it so.
I dare say knows more about the Constitution than this entire forum (including you) combined.
I agreed with you, but he claimed Cruz was a natural born citizen and he knows damn well
Cruz is not, which is why I called him unprincipled. Don't get me wrong I mostly like Levin
but I do not trust him.
-
Meh, not even worth the time to try to remember a thread from that long ago. I cited my sources. That suffices here. Not going to be baited into some ancient thread from some nobody freeper. (especially against Levin whose credentials are known and respected).
I concur. But.... this thread is like a train wreck. You .... just.... can't....look.... away. LOLOL
-
I agreed with you, but he claimed Cruz was a natural born citizen and he knows damn well
Cruz is not, which is why I called him unprincipled. Don't get me wrong I mostly like Levin
but I do not trust him.
Not even gonna start that debate again right now and show you again where you're wrong. Save that for another day.
I'm curious to see if the n00b actually has the knowledge to get into the weeds on this or if he's just a superficial smear artist.
-
Not even gonna start that debate again right now and show you again where you're wrong. Save that for another day.
Agreed, I'm tired of that debate.
-
"Fair share" is Lib speak for "tax the rich".
What you seem to miss is our founders agreed upon fair share formulas: one determining each state's number of representatives; the other determining each state's share of any direct tax laid. Socialists love their one man one vote guaranteed by our Constitution, but they run and hide from that part of the Constitution requiring one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is levied by Congress.
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, unlike what Mark Levin promotes, would actually restore our Constitution's original tax plan and end our Washington Sewer Rats love affair with the communist/socialist income tax.
JWK
-
@Sanguine
You should turn me in for trying to hijack a Mark Levin thread with a comment on Mark Levin.
Turn you into whom?
-
BTW I notice this "Fair Share" tax thingy seems to be something you ginned up on your own and tried to pimp over on the Hannity Forums last April.
http://forums.hannity.com/entry.php?1560-The-Fair-Share-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-reform-is-not-complicated (http://forums.hannity.com/entry.php?1560-The-Fair-Share-Balanced-Budget-Amendment-reform-is-not-complicated)!
Ginned up? No, I didn't gin up anything. I simply promote a return to our Constitution's original tax plan. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our Constitution's original tax plan instead of posting insulting remarks my way.
JWK
-
Yay, reviving a 2014 thread!
(https://i.imgflip.com/e5isc.jpg)
-
What you seem to miss is our founders agreed upon fair share formulas: one determining each state's number of representatives; the other determining each state's share of any direct tax laid. Socialists love their one man one vote guaranteed by our Constitution, but they run and hide from that part of the Constitution requiring one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is levied by Congress.
No what they agreed upon was uniformity. Specifically...“[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,â€
The "direct taxes" laid at the time of the constitution were in the form of tariffs.
“The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.†- Madison Federalist 10.
Up until the early to mid 1800's the Federal government stayed within the boundaries of uniformity and equality. Then they started to do very in Constitutional in Conservative things with taxes about the time of the Civil war when the first progressive tax was implemented.
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, unlike what Mark Levin promotes, would actually restore our Constitution's original tax plan and end our Washington Sewer Rats love affair with the communist/socialist income tax.
Please show me where in the Constitution there is a requirement of "one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is levied by Congress"
15% tax on everyone very much restores the tax situation to the uniformed equality that Madison talked about in Federalist 10 and meets the intent of the framers.
Requiring 3/5ths of the States to agree to raise the debt ceiling is the epitome of returning power to the states.
Your "fair share" so called formula played into their thinking no where at all. You're reading things into the Constitution that don't exist.
-
Ginned up? No, I didn't gin up anything. I simply promote a return to our Constitution's original tax plan. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the wisdom, brilliance and merits of our Constitution's original tax plan instead of posting insulting remarks my way.
JWK
Nothing in what you wrote is any part of the original "tax plan" the Framers wrote into the Constitution.
It isn't there John.
You need to re-read Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
-
Yay, reviving a 2014 thread!
And there is a reason for reviving it as previously explained.
JWK
-
Nothing in what you wrote is any part of the original "tax plan" the Framers wrote into the Constitution.
It isn't there John.
The rule requiring both representatives and direct taxes to be apportioned is not there?
See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "
So, let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
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 soilâ€3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax†3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, 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 portionâ€3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)
JWK
Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
-
The rule requiring both representatives and direct taxes to be apportioned is not there?
See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . "
So, let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:
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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)
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 soilâ€3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink),“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax†3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, 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 portionâ€3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)
JWK
Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay taxes on incomes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get
So are you also arguing that we should bring back slavery and plantations since the southern states that supported slavery used their slaves to help give them a larger representation in Congress? Because after all if we take literally what you're suggesting in Art. 1 Sec. 2 cl 3 then Congressional representation was apportioned according to the labor power available in the state, not how many people the state government represented.
And you can flood a page with useless notes from the or that Constitutional Convention to make it look like you're right. But at the end of the day it comes down to this...
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What you're trying to is overlay onto the Federal Government what the Constitution spelled out for the states on how they could collect taxes.
They tried your way in the Articles of Confederation and failed. Hence the reason we have the Constitution we have today.
Nice try...but you're still wrong.
-
Your "fair share" so called formula played into their thinking no where at all. You're reading things into the Constitution that don't exist.
See The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) under which the first apportioned tax was laid, and each state's fair share of the direct tax was caluclated.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
-
Turn you into whom?
Whom or what.
(http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/a695ce1d5f1a4c07414926e496386daa58b14be07ba4fb47b3a44c33626a8823.png)
-
Mark Levin is still promoting amendments to our Constitution which would acutally make constitutional, various things our Founders sought to forbid. Does that conversation not deserve the attention of those who support and defend our written Constitution and its legislative intent?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Isn’t that sort of the whole point of the amendment process? To make valid that which is invalid? And didn’t the Founders themselves put the amendment provisions into the Constitution? So doesn’t that mean that they countenanced making changes that they themselves originally forbade, so long as the amendment process is followed?
-
So are you also arguing that we should bring back slavery and plantations ...
*****rollingeyes*****
-
See The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) under which the first apportioned tax was laid, and each state's fair share of the direct tax was caluclated.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
You enjoy cherry picking here and there to try and support your flawed theory...but you're only telling a small part of the story with your link there...John.
Context is a requirement. And that which you purposely chose not to provide I shall give.
Are you even curious to know why there was a direct tax of $2 million imposed on the states?
It's because the Quasi-war with France looked like at the time that it was about to get bigger and in a reaction to that possibility Congress raised a large army and enlarged the navy. To pay for it, Congress in July 1798 imposed $2 million in new taxes on dwelling-houses, lands and slaves; sometimes called the Direct House Tax of 1798, apportioned among the states according to the requirements of the Constitution. It was the first (and only) such federal tax.
The 1798 tax legislation also led to Fries Rebellion.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Roll your eyes all you want to jackass...but that's what would have to happen if your stupid misinterpretation of the Constitution were put into action. It's the only way it could happen.
-
Isn’t that sort of the whole point of the amendment process? To make valid that which is invalid?
With regard to Mark Levin's liberty amendments, and in particular his amendment dealing with taxation and balancing the annual federal budget, his amendment would make it constitutional for congress to not balance the annual budget. Having said that, our founders intended if Congress could not finance its constitutionally authorized functions from imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes and an emergency arose, the deficiency would be met by laying and collecting an apportioned tax among the states for the amount needed. The formula being:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
-
With regard to Mark Levin's liberty amendments, and in particular his amendment dealing with taxation and balancing the annual federal budget, his amendment would make it constitutional for congress to not balance the annual budget. Having said that, our founders intended if Congress could not finance its constitutionally authorized functions from imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes and an emergency arose, the deficiency would be met by laying and collecting an apportioned tax among the states for the amount needed. The formula being:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
You keep claiming Levin's amendment will do certain things that aren't conservative...yet you have failed so far to show how specifically it does that which is (according to you) not Conservative.
Now you're just getting repetitive and boring. BTW...how popular was your Progressive Liberal interpretation of taxiation in America when you proposed it at the Hannity Forum? Is that why you've had so many negative reports and been banned from other forums John? Because of your trollish ways?
We already have a Liberal here pretending to be Conservative. We don't need another.
BTW what is your take on fringe on a flag in an American courtroom? Do you think the military as it presently stands is legal?
-
See The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=720) under which the first apportioned tax was laid, and each state's fair share of the direct tax was caluclated.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
It was the first (and only) such federal tax.
*****rollingeyes*****
Once again you are wrong!
DIRECT TAX HISTORY
The act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.
The act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.
The act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.
The act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the act of Jan. 19, 1815. [102 U.S. 586, 599] The act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and re-enacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.
The act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.
The act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the act of Feb. 6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the act of Aug. 5, 1861,
JWK
-
It was the first (and only) such federal tax.
*****rollingeyes*****
Once again you are wrong!
DIRECT TAX HISTORY
The act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.
The act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.
The act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.
The act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the act of Jan. 19, 1815. [102 U.S. 586, 599] The act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and re-enacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.
The act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.
The act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the act of Feb. 6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the act of Aug. 5, 1861,
JWK
You're reading comprehension really sucks John. No wonder you can't read the Constitution properly.
When I state that it was the first and only such direct tax...it's important that you read the rest of what is there...it was the first and only direct tax for what it did...raise a large army and navy for the expected expansion of the French Quasi war.
Are you incapable of reading everything I write to provide context?
Or do you just cherry pick my words like you do the Constitution?
And again you keep citing times of a direct tax and the word "slave" keeps coming up. One must assume...really left with no other alternative than to believe that you want a return to slavery so taxies can be levied upon each slave so that this country is again perfectly aligned (again your opinion only) with how the Founders and Framers wanted to tax the nation.
-
trg stop the personal attacks
-
Are you incapable of reading everything I write to provide context?
Or do you just cherry pick my words like you do the Constitution?
IIRC tx, this is a long-standing personal crusade he has waged tirelessly at TOS, so you are really wasting your time attempting to persuade him.
Unless you are doing it for the benefit for the rest of the board, which I appreciate.
-
IIRC tx, this is a long-standing personal crusade he has waged tirelessly at TOS, so you are really wasting your time attempting to persuade him.
Unless you are doing it for the benefit for the rest of the board, which I appreciate.
@INVAR
There are some important historical things most people don't know that need to be said to provide context for the silliness our new member is posting.
He's cherry picking little areas and specific parts of one Article of the Constitution...providing dates without the historic relevance...like the 1798 tax that led to Fries Rebellion.
His "fair share" pablum is no different than that of Obama, Pelosi or Schumer.
-
@INVAR
There are some important historical things most people don't know that need to be said to provide context for the silliness our new member is posting.
He's cherry picking little areas and specific parts of one Article of the Constitution...providing dates without the historic relevance...like the 1798 tax that led to Fries Rebellion.
His "fair share" pablum is no different than that of Obama, Pelosi or Schumer.
Like I said @txradioguy, this is a crusade that has been waged for a good long time by our new friend. IIRC he has always sounded like he has a personal animus against Levin. A knee jerk not dissimilar to what we witness when the name Ted Cruz comes up.
-
Like I said @txradioguy, this is a crusade that has been waged for a good long time by our new friend. IIRC he has always sounded like he has a personal animus against Levin. A knee jerk not dissimilar to what we witness when the name Ted Cruz comes up.
Excellent point. You're right.
-
Excellent point. You're right.
How's your BP? lol :cool:
-
With regard to Mark Levin's liberty amendments, and in particular his amendment dealing with taxation and balancing the annual federal budget, his amendment would make it constitutional for congress to not balance the annual budget. Having said that, our founders intended if Congress could not finance its constitutionally authorized functions from imposts, duties and miscellaneous internal excise taxes and an emergency arose, the deficiency would be met by laying and collecting an apportioned tax among the states for the amount needed. The formula being:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
JWK
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
You keep claiming Levin's amendment will do certain things that aren't conservative...yet you have failed so far to show how specifically it does that which is (according to you) not Conservative.
Now you're just getting repetitive and boring. BTW...how popular was your Progressive Liberal interpretation of taxiation in America when you proposed it at the Hannity Forum? Is that why you've had so many negative reports and been banned from other forums John? Because of your trollish ways?
We already have a Liberal here pretending to be Conservative. We don't need another.
BTW what is your take on fringe on a flag in an American courtroom? Do you think the military as it presently stands is legal?
Your insulting remarks are not appreciated, nor do they add to a productive discussion!
What I have actually claimed is, Mark Levin's ". . . amendment would make it constitutional for congress to not balance the annual budget."
The two sections of Mark’s balanced budget amendment making it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget are:
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.
The two above sections are essentially the same crap which Republican Swamp Creatures were promoting in the mid-1980s as being part of a balanced budget amendment, a proposal which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.
Now, let us take a look at the “fair share balanced budget amendment†which actually provides a method to balance the annual budget using an apportioned tax, as our Founders intended!
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our Founders intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of income taxation which now oppresses America's free enterprise system and robs the wealth which America’s productive Citizens and business owners have created.
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax among the States at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid to make up the deficiency.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected, a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury, and interest penalties for failure to pay said tax"
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit may be summarized as follows:
States’ population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each State’s share of the tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar!
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a State is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, if ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than one year after the required number of States have approved it.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Planâ€, no longer in print.
-
How's your BP? lol :cool:
It's amazing how idiocy can raise it. 9999hair out0000
-
It's amazing how idiocy can raise it. 9999hair out0000
:beer:
-
And there is a reason for reviving it as previously explained.
JWK
There is. We need to celebrate its birthday.....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7SmI5uXtisA/U145fX1ACHI/AAAAAAAAI3o/FyoqOenSqQU/s1600/mamaowl_Ebday4.jpg)
-
How's your BP? lol :cool:
Not even slightly elevated. His ilk don't bother me...except for the fallacies they try to push as being what the FF's had in mind when the Constitution and their words in the Federalist Papers say otherwise.
I also take exception to people that take bits and pieces of a larger phrase or paragraph to try and say "see! I was right!" It's lying by omission. Like when he talked about the 1798 direct tax and failed to say why it was implemented...and what was one of the consequences of what Congress did.
And I refuse to let it stand unchallenged.
-
How's your BP? lol :cool:
Not bad. It took a hit this month but it seems to be crawling back up over $40 a share.
(http://markets.money.cnn.com/services/api/chart/snapshot_chart_api.asp?symb=BP)
-
Not bad. It took a hit this month but it seems to be crawling back up over $40 a share.
(http://markets.money.cnn.com/services/api/chart/snapshot_chart_api.asp?symb=BP)
Oy Vey.
-
You keep claiming Levin's amendment will do certain things that aren't conservative...yet you have failed so far to show how specifically it does that which is (according to you) not Conservative.
Now you're just getting repetitive and boring. BTW...how popular was your Progressive Liberal interpretation of taxiation in America when you proposed it at the Hannity Forum? Is that why you've had so many negative reports and been banned from other forums John? Because of your trollish ways?
We already have a Liberal here pretending to be Conservative. We don't need another.
BTW what is your take on fringe on a flag in an American courtroom? Do you think the military as it presently stands is legal?
Your insulting remarks are not appreciated, nor do they add to a productive discussion!
What I have actually claimed is, Mark Levin's ". . . amendment would make it constitutional for congress to not balance the annual budget."
The two sections of Mark’s balanced budget amendment making it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget are:
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.
The two above sections are essentially the same crap which Republican Swamp Creatures were promoting in the mid-1980s as being part of a balanced budget amendment, a proposal which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.
Now, let us take a look at the “fair share balanced budget amendment†which actually provides a method to balance the annual budget using an apportioned tax, as our Founders intended!
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our Founders intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of income taxation which now oppresses America's free enterprise system and robs the wealth which America’s productive Citizens and business owners have created.
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax among the States at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid to make up the deficiency.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected, a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury, and interest penalties for failure to pay said tax"
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit may be summarized as follows:
States’ population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that each State’s share of the tax is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man one vote and one vote one dollar!
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a State is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, if ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than one year after the required number of States have approved it.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Planâ€, no longer in print.
I could care less about what you think of my criticism of your reading skills or lack there of or whether you take umbrage to my comments on your silly use of eyeroll emoji's to replace an attempt at an intelligent reply.
Everything you cite that Congress has the power to do...they aren't doing. They refuse to do it the way it's been laid out in the Constitution.
They have the 3/5's power but with Omnibus budgets and the fact that over the last 9 years now they have absolutely refused to even write a budget much less pass one shows they have no interest in using the powers they are Constitutionally granted...that we the people...the states have to bring them to heel and abide by the law.
That in our Representative Republic is done via Amendment. And thanks to George Mason he gave the people a way to amend the Constitution when Congress either wouldn't or couldn't for whatever reason....the Article V convention of states.
If the Congress refuses to abide by the 3/5th's rule when they arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling or unfairly make 50% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes while 47% pay nothing....then the states have to act. That's what the Liberty Amendments do.
What they do NOT do is take any power away from Congress. It doesn't take away anything they are Constitutionally obligated to do...it does the opposite...it reinforces and puts a finer point on what they are to do and how they are to do it.
But you are seriously mistaken and again your thinking as we've already seen is gravely flawed if you think anything proposed in the Liberty Amendments...to include your issues with the balanced budget amendment takes anything away from Congress.
If it did...you'd be as detailed in your explanation of that as you've been in pimping your ginned up tax "fair share" tax scam over and over again.
But you just keep cutting and pasting the same old stuff.
-
The ONLY place our n00b's rantings have gotten any traction is in the discussion forums at the Baltimore Sun...back in 2011.
He thinks anyone that supports the BBA in Levins books is a phony...to include Jim DeMint and Rand Paul.
Go figure.
-
Not even slightly elevated. His ilk don't bother me...except for the fallacies they try to push as being what the FF's had in mind when the Constitution and their words in the Federalist Papers say otherwise.
I also take exception to people that take bits and pieces of a larger phrase or paragraph to try and say "see! I was right!" It's lying by omission. Like when he talked about the 1798 direct tax and failed to say why it was implemented...and what was one of the consequences of what Congress did.
And I refuse to let it stand unchallenged.
Well then, offer a rebuttal to what I have posted if you disagree. Quote my words and offer your rebuttal. All you have done to this point in time is post insulting remarks and avoid addressing my answers to what you have written.
JWK
-
I could care less about what you think of my criticism of your reading skills or lack there of or whether you take umbrage to my comments on your silly use of eyeroll emoji's to replace an attempt at an intelligent reply.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Well then, offer a rebuttal to what I have posted if you disagree. Quote my words and offer your rebuttal. All you have done to this point in time is post insulting remarks and avoid addressing my answers to what you have written.
JWK
I have posted lengthy informed rebuttals and you just keep posing the same crap John. You ignore cherry pick and don't provide context to your historical dates or snippets of legislation.
Wash...rinse...repeat.
The Libs on the Baltimore Sun discussion forums might like what you're saying...but have you noticed no one following this discussion is following you?
-
I have posted lengthy informed rebuttals and you just keep posing the same crap John. You ignore cherry pick and don't provide context to your historical dates or snippets of legislation.
Wash...rinse...repeat.
The Libs on the Baltimore Sun discussion forums might like what you're saying...but have you noticed no one following this discussion is following you?
*****rollingeyes*****
-
*****rollingeyes*****
*****rollingeyes*****
Profound.
-
Free Republic? What the hell is that? Is that that site run by that Grifter Jim guy?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
I hear ya pal. I also know that Mark Levin was intricately involved in the murder plot of Archduke Ferdinand, invented the color beige and introduced crack cocaine to the ghetto. He is a very bad man.
-
I hear ya pal. I also know that Mark Levin was intricately involved in the murder plot of Archduke Ferdinand, invented the color beige and introduced crack cocaine to the ghetto. He is a very bad man.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
I hear ya pal. I also know that Mark Levin was intricately involved in the murder plot of Archduke Ferdinand, invented the color beige and introduced crack cocaine to the ghetto. He is a very bad man.
The world is never going to recover from the introduction of beige. Only the plague of plaid will be said to have have been worse.
It is why interior decorators and men's fashion designers from the 70's must live in shame for eternity.
-
The world is never going to recover from the introduction of beige. Only the plague of plaid will be said to have have been worse.
It is why interior decorators and men's fashion designers from the 70's must live in shame for eternity.
I totally agree, Invar. Beige - blech!
-
I think it's fair to note this thread is boring the crap out of me. I really hate boring threads.
-
I think it's fair to note this thread is boring the crap out of me. I really hate boring threads.
I agree with you. I thought I could generate a productive discussion about Mark Levin's liberty amendments. Unfortunately, it appears the majority of participants prefer to engage in personal attacks rather than discuss what Mark Levin has proposed.
JWK
“Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, [but] it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view,†William F. Buckley
-
I agree with you. I thought I could generate a productive discussion about Mark Levin's liberty amendments. Unfortunately, it appears the majority of participants prefer to engage in personal attacks rather than discuss what Mark Levin has proposed.
JWK
Nothing personal but you are just a boring SOB with the same tired old arguments. Other than that I'm sure you are also a real bastard in real life that no one can stand to be around.
-
Nothing personal but you are just a boring SOB with the same tired old arguments. Other than that I'm sure you are also a real bastard in real life that no one can stand to be around.
*****rollingeyes*****