Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thumbs up to Mark Levin on phony balanced budget amendment!
11-19-11 | JOHN W K

Posted on 11/19/2011 1:54:29 PM PST by JOHN W K

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mark Levin, on his Friday show, express his rejection of the phony balanced budget amendment and giving his support to the four Republicans who voted against it. My only disappointment with Mark on this issue is his failure to associate our founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits should they occur, and how the rule of apportionment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable if Congress spent more than is brought in from its normal means of raising a federal revenue, which would trigger the apportioned tax among the States to extinguish the shortfall:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S OBLIGATION

Total U.S. Population

This rule of apportionment for any general tax among the States was intended to cure an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It was also intended to create a very real moment of accountability if Congress spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

It would be music to my ears and every “constitutional conservative” to hear Mark Levin use his God given verbal skills to articulate the threat and consequences each State’s Congressional Delegation would be working under while in Washington, D.C., and spending federal revenue, if the rule of apportionment were once again applied ___ especially the threat of each State’s very own Treasury hanging in the balance which would be depleted whenever a State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit.

And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process, would suddenly have their Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill in hand for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the pork their Congressional Delegation purchased while in Washington!

I would also love to hear Mark Levin use his God given gift to articulate the consequences if a State’s Legislature refused to pay their State‘s apportioned fair share to extinguish a deficit or were delinquent in paying it on time, under which circumstances Congress would be required to then enter the State and collect the amount due with (for example) a direct tax upon the real and personal property within the State. And if the owners of said property did not pay the tax due, then their property would be put up for a tax sale and the good news is, our California limousine riding, tofu-eating liberals would quickly come to their senses regarding big government spending!

Put this rule of apportionment back into operation, and the evil of democracy under which our nation now suffers (representation without proportional financial obligation) will be corrected, and Congress will once again be the servants of the people and not their masters which is what our founding fathers intended!

Mark Levin, please don’t let us down! Rise to the occasion and use your God given talent, and defend the clear thinking of our founding fathers!

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: balanced; budget; levin; mark

1 posted on 11/19/2011 1:54:32 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Levin is the only one sounding the alarm here. I hope more people start alerting the dangers of this Amendment.


2 posted on 11/19/2011 2:00:42 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Did You Know?

The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?

Now That You Do, Donate And Keep FR Running


3 posted on 11/19/2011 2:12:35 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
I hope more people start alerting the dangers of this Amendment.

I don't think we need to worry. The Democrats won't pass anything with the word "budget" in it, let alone a balanced one.

4 posted on 11/19/2011 2:15:57 PM PST by BfloGuy (Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Now THAT idea is one I’d support.

The idea that we need a BBA proposed by the very people who would never propose a balance budget in a million years is hideous.


5 posted on 11/19/2011 2:17:14 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
which would trigger the apportioned tax among the States to extinguish the shortfall:

Basically the requisition system that they framers torpedoed when they created the Constitution. Take away the feds' power of direct taxation. Bill the states individually, and let each state decide how to collect the dues.

6 posted on 11/19/2011 2:34:21 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits

Question: Where is this in the Constitution?

7 posted on 11/19/2011 2:36:20 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process

Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay in MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

8 posted on 11/19/2011 2:40:43 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

PING!


9 posted on 11/19/2011 2:44:45 PM PST by sofaman (An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
In a true sense the Fed. budget is always 'balanced' since the Fed Gov't always pays it's bills.

The issue is HOW those bills will be paid, direct taxes or indirect taxes (inflation).

Any balanced budget that doesn't limit spending is useless.

10 posted on 11/19/2011 3:01:40 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Huck wrote:

founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits

Question: Where is this in the Constitution?

This rule of apportionment, which precludes the class warfare game now being played upon us by our folks in Washington, is articulated in several of our State Ratification documents, e.g.. see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

And note what our founding fathers said during the ratification debates.

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 Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment __ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

“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

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 those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says during the ratification process of our Constitution:

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

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time

JWK

Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

11 posted on 11/19/2011 3:12:06 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Huck wrote:

Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay in MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.

Huck,

There is no “problem” with our founder’s clear thinking. You have just switched the subject to political partisanship rather than compelling Congress to balance the annual budget.

Additionally, when the piko States with their larger representation in Congress get their bill, it will be far greater than the “red states” who you contend get back MORE than they pay in. So, as it works out, the founder’s rule of apportionment would be a financial win for the red states!

JWK

Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

12 posted on 11/19/2011 3:25:47 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
I'm sure glad all of the commiecrats and a few aisle crossing libtard republicans were smart enough to vote against the BBA bill and save us all from this excellent opportunity to not cap federal spending and raise our taxes.. Whew! That was close!

(sarcasm- for those of you in Rio Linda)

13 posted on 11/19/2011 3:27:35 PM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

State ratification documents carry no weight. Where is this apportionment rule re: deficits IN THE CONSTITUTION?


14 posted on 11/19/2011 3:28:57 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Nope, it's not in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

15 posted on 11/19/2011 3:34:21 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I take it you do not know the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which requires the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted to be observed and enforced:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

You may also want to check with Jefferson who wrote:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

JWK

The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he 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.”(my emphasis) Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

16 posted on 11/19/2011 4:34:41 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

All contributions are for the
Current Quarter Expenses.


17 posted on 11/19/2011 4:57:54 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Huck

“Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.”

But apportionment is based on population, not the amount paid. An analysis of amount paid as a proportion of the total, compared to the population-based apportionment of the budget (as well as revenue and deficits), appears to be in order...


18 posted on 11/19/2011 5:35:51 PM PST by castlebrew (Gun control means hitting where you're aiming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Long winded irrelevance. It’s not in the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution is judged by the words IN it.


19 posted on 11/19/2011 11:22:03 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Geez, all that crap you posted and you didn't bother to post this:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Which was changed by this:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Answered my own question. So...you need to repeal the 16th amendment. Vote for Ron Paul!

20 posted on 11/19/2011 11:30:08 PM PST by Huck (Not sure if I can pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck
And how does all that apply to what I wrote?

Answer: It doesn`t

JWK

21 posted on 11/20/2011 4:53:16 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The 16th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with “direct taxation”. Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the States. The most recent confirmation being the Obamacare ruling in which Justice Roberts admits direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

22 posted on 04/06/2013 11:42:35 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson