John W K attacks on Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments on FR

[johnwk]

"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]

@Sanguine

You should turn me in for trying to hijack a Mark Levin thread with a comment on Mark Levin.

Turn you into whom? 

[johnwk]

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!

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

[mountaineer]

Yay, reviving a 2014 thread!

[txradioguy]

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,”

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[johnwk]

Yay, reviving a 2014 thread!

And there is a reason for reviving it as previously explained.

JWK

[johnwk]

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

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 soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ 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

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 portion”3 Elliot’s 41

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

[txradioguy]

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

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 soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ 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

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 portion”3 Elliot’s 41

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.

[johnwk]

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 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?

[mountaineer]

Turn you into whom?

Whom or what.

[Oceander]

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?

[johnwk]

So are you also arguing that we should bring back slavery and plantations ... 

 

[txradioguy]

See The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 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.

[txradioguy]

 

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.

[johnwk]

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

[txradioguy]

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?

[johnwk]

See The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 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.

 


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

[txradioguy]

 It was the first (and only) such federal tax.






 


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.

[mystery-ak]

trg stop the personal attacks

[INVAR]

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.

[txradioguy]

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]

@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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[WingNot]

Excellent point.  You're right.

How's your BP?  lol