Posted on 05/13/2014 5:52:30 AM PDT by JOHN W K
You are right. Now go back and read the entire post that includes the summary of the bill. Better yet, YOU read the bill. I posted a link for you. There are consequences if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. I don't think you are sincere. You are barely trying, not even reading the text of our exchange of ideas.
... Terminates the sales tax imposed by this Act if the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (authorizing an income tax) is not repealed within seven years after the enactment of this Act.
Ok, so I read this thread but I’m still left wondering two things:
1. If we do nothing but try to vote our way out of the mess we are in, how can we reasonably expect different results? What’s that cliche, “Insanity is repeating the same effort over and over, expecting different results”?
2. With #1 said above, an issue that doesn’t seem to have been discussed on this thread yet is, “The state convention can only propose amendments, not remove old ones”
Well that’s all very well and good but that’s not even how old amendments were done away with anyway. Look at Prohibition. That amendment wasn’t “removed” from the Constitution, it was repealed when the 21st amendment was ADDED to the Constitution.
So if this state convention can add amendments, why do we think that it’s not possible for them to add an amendment repealing the 2nd? Or the 4th?
These concerns (#1 and 2) seem to be issues both in this debate don’t seem to be addressing on their respective sides.
Let’s give the government another amendment to ignore, that’ll fix it.
They are being addressed.
The premise is being questioned. First, you have to expect that the convention of the states would pass amendment proposals repealing the 2nd and 4th amendments, and then you would have to expect that 38 states would ratify said repeal amendments.
For many, that seems like a high bar to reach.
-PJ
Article 5 convention
I agree it’s a high bar to reach if the law is followed. But when, in recent history, have the Democrats followed the law (when it wasn’t politically expedient for them to do so)?
I can absolutely see the following scenario unfolding: a state convention is called, Democrats hem and haw about racism, sexism, blah blah, the agenda of amendments gets changed, the requirement for ratification gets changed and before we have it we have two new amendments stating, “no public expression of religious beliefs that offend another” and “in times of emergency, the 4th Amendment is recinded”. Or some such.
Honestly, some have bemoaned the state of FR discourse on this subject, I’m bemoaning the level of trust some seem to be assigning to government, on both sides of this debate mind you (see my first point from my first post).
These concerns (#1 and 2) seem to be issues both in this debate don’t seem to be addressing on their respective sides.
Here is the reason I don't give much credence to that argument. First, it is not technically impossible. If we are going to propose amendments to the constitution, a state could propose that the 2nd Amendment be abolished. If it were accepted by the other states during the convention, it would be included (IF). Then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. That is, 38 states would have to agree to abolish or rewrite the 2A. If you logically look at the history of gun rights in this country dating back to the 1980s, you will deduce how unlikely that is of happening.
I am not concerned that the 2A would be affected. But that does not rule out a risk of bureaucracy and politics driving "compromises". And this indeed could be a problem. Horse trading favors for modifications for amendments in our Constitution would likely not go in our favor IF our federal congress were involved. But with folks like Walker, Pence, Perry, etc. behind the representatives, there is less chance of folding chair syndrome.
Worst case scenario (in my opinion, nothing is ratified. I would expect we would go in hoping for 5 or 6 amendments but only get 1 or 2.
I hope that helps.
According to Article V, the only role that Congress has is in calling for the Convention, and in establishing how proposed amendments get ratified by the states.
Other than that, it's up to the states to manage.
-PJ
I do agree that Article V needs to be considered with the utmost caution, but it does seem to be a possible way out of this mess.
Maybe Flat Tax is the best first step to take?
1. Children can be removed now, and serious parents are doing it by the thousands. There is no reason at all to wait on all the things you mentioned, unless someone expects government welfare education to continue in some form. The government school model is an evil mistake and is unreformable.
2. Limit freedom? No one is requiring this, but serious conservatives should be willing to quit tithing to the left and the sodomites immediately. That cable/satellite is an open sewer running into living rooms.
3. It isn’t really happening anywhere, not even in Texas. People view politics like they do sports. National level politics is seen as being the “Major Leagues” and state-wide races are seen like triple A ball. No one EXCEPT the sodomites and feminists pay any serious attention to races far down ballot.
Levin’s plan has some good substantive points, but it is like a Ryan Budget plan. It isn’t radical enough; it entrenches things that shouldn’t be continued (i.e. the administrative state); and, it won’t be enacted. Electing a sheriff or a county judge is infinitely easier, and no one needs anyone else’s permission or cooperation the rescue their children from government schools or to cut the cable.
Evil wish? Quite the hyperbole.
Oh, I see. We should do NOTHING because the left will blow a gasket.
When do they NOT blow a gasket? Bad logic there.
One more thing...a financial reckoning is not far off. I don’t mean it will occur tomorrow or next year, but within 5-10 years at the most our government will be in a position of the worst of the PIIGS. The bond markets will not lend to us except at rates that will eat the budget. Printing money won’t help because at that point confidence in the dollar will have disappeared (any confidence today is misplaced), setting off a significant inflation and an catastrophic economic downturn. It isn’t necessary for checks to stop entirely for civil unrest to result. All that’s needed is a significant decrease in buying power and attempts to reign in “social spending” or to reduce the bureaucracy. Moreover, the civil unrest probably will start regionally because the problem is not merely national. State and local governments in most places have made unperformable promises. They can’t print money, and you are going to see more municipal bankruptcies and even states needing massive financial restructuring (there is no bankruptcy provision in the Code for state bankruptcies).
The financial situation is far worse than you imagine, and most conservatives wouldn’t support doing the right things because almost all love their little piece of the welfare pie.
I like Levin and his passion. His analysis of problems is generally excellent. But, like some other people that I admire, he has the “lawyer’s disease” - if only we pass the right laws things will turn around. The corruption is in the hearts of the people. Without destroying the government school establishment by removing our children (the system can’t stand the financial stress or the public delegitimation that would cause) and defunding the MSM by cutting the cable/satellite, we are finished. We will just be swatting flies instead of draining the swamp. All that the left has to do is wait for this generation of semi-conservative to pass from the scene, and the great mass of voters will consist of drones thoroughly conditioned by gramsian Marxism.
If you read the rest of my posts on this thread, you will see I don’t advocate doing nothing. I do advocate NOT doing futile things, though.
And a lot of colonists thought the same thing back in the early 1770’s.
I think 5 to 10 years is way to early. But I can’t see the future either. I would rather it come sooner than later. I hope it comes while there are some real patriotic conservatives left in the citizenry. You are right about a generation down the road.
I just think no matter how bad the financial situation really is, the books can continue to get cooked and massaged for decades to come. It happened in Europe (and is still happening). You are talking Zimbabwe scenarios in the next 5 to 10 years. I just can’t see that yet, but don’t doubt it is coming.
or Venezuela, which is a lot closer and more recent that Zimbabwe
LOL
You should be a little more specific about the vagaries. Your aggressively passionate passivity certainly inspires apathy. If we could all silently scream our grievances in private, I'm confident our government would innocuously notice and would immediately take deferred action.
The text of the proposed fair tax reads:
TITLE IV--SUNSET OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX IF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT NOT REPEALED.
“If the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not repealed before the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, then all provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall not apply to any use or consumption in any year beginning after December 31 of the calendar year in which or with which such period ends, except that the Sales Tax Bureau of the Department of the Treasury shall not be terminated until 6 months after such December 31.”
In other words, if H.R. 25 were adopted by Congress the 23 percent tax goes into effect immediately. But if after a seven year period, during which time the America People become use to paying and complying with the tax, and the Sixteenth Amendment is not repealed, Congress will end the 23 percent tax. And if one believe that baloney ….
But let’s pretend H.R. 25 is adopted and the Sixteenth Amendment is repealed under H.R. 16 before the seven year period. Well surprise, surprise! Congress still maintains power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes because the wording of the proposed repeal does not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.
The fact is, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment the Supreme Court in Flint vs. Stone Tracy upheld the Corporate “Excise” Tax of 1909 which was an “excise” tax laid upon the “privilege” of being a corporation, and the amount of tax to be paid was calculated from the Corporations’ profits and gains! Although the tax is not an income tax as such, but an excise tax, it still allows Congress to collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”, which is exactly what we have now. And so, the repeal of the 16th Amendment is meaningless unless the wording of the repeal contains language I have been suggesting for years:
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
JWK
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.