Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

5-23-14 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

 

On this evening’s show, 5/23/2014, Mark Levin talked about the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, but he never mentioned how the apportionment of both taxation and representation became the moving parts of the Great Compromise. So, let me fill in the parts Mark Levin left out.


During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of how each State would be represented in Congress became a matter of heated debate and deciding upon rules which fixed each State’s representation created an impasse during the Convention. On July 2nd of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan for how the States would be represented in Congress. Then, on THURSDAY July 5th 1787, IN CONVENTION, Madision’s Notes records the following:

Mr. GERRY delivered in from the Committee appointed on Monday last the following Report.
"The Committee to whom was referred the 8th. Resol. of the Report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the 7th. as has not been decided on, submit the following Report: That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote."

This proposal sparked some of the most important debates of the Convention regarding representation and the manner in which the federal treasury would be filled. All those who now complain of our federal government’s excesses and unjust taxation, ought to read these debates which eventually led to the great compromise of the Convention under which taxation and representation were thoughtfully tied by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by the various State population sizes!


On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."


Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which fell directly upon the people and their property.

The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any general tax among the States which reaches the people or their property, and the other rule applies to each state’s number of allotted representatives in Congress.


State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.



State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population



Now why does Mark Levin continually ignore apportionment as applied to taxation?

Here are some of our founders expressed intentions regarding apportionment as applied to taxation:


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 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:

“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




“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.

[JOHN W K]

Brushing over a subject for the sake of brevity? Mark Levin went on and on about the Great Compromise, but when it came to mentioning its two component parts he omitted apportionment also being applied to taxation. And what did Madison say with regard to the rule?

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

Socialists and the friends of big government love their one man one vote part of the Constitution. But when it comes to one vote one dollar they do everthing imaginable to cover up the rule.

JWK

Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

[deks]

“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.

* * * * * * *
The book that you wrote with Mr. Ellison is still available at Amazon and other sites though.

http://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Restored-State-Rate-Plan/dp/0934005001

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

This is the third hit at Levin that I’ve seen from you tha past couple of days.

*sniff, sniff*

[sickoflibs]

LEAVE MARK LEVIN ALONE !

[JOHN W K]

I don't know how that is possible unless someone has reprinted it.

Thanks for the info!

JWK

[dragnet2]

That’s the vogue term academia uses to accompany a resume as an introduction letter etc, when one applies for a job.

It’s used to make applicants jump through additional hoops.

[deks]

It’s late here in Virginia, so I don’t know how well I can focus on the concept of taxes apportioned according to a state’s population. . .

but wouldn’t the states with large populations already be paying a larger share of the tax collected by the Federal government? . . . unless there were a lot of people in the large population states that are not paying any income tax?

[miliantnutcase]

"CV? He doesn’t even have anything on his profile page."

So what? At least he doesn't spam his page with crappy looking geocities graphics, and their favorite gif animations from Google.

[JOHN W K]

This tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax if laid directly on the people of a state. For example, if a capitation tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

JWK

[smokingfrog]

unless there were a lot of people in the large population states that are not paying any income tax?

That, my FRiend is a big part of the problem.

[smokingfrog]

Repeal the 16th.

Then we can talk about the Great Compromise of 1787

[John Valentine]

He doesn’t actually have a point. That’s what is so frustrating about John WK’s posts. They are totally irrelevant. It isn’t any surprise that Mark Levin did not focus on the taxation aspect of the compromise of 1787; why would he want to waste his air time on irrelevancies?

[crazycatlady]

It isn’t so much that his lack of credentials are being criticized, but that they’re being called into question because he’s challenging Levin, who has a lot of credentials. Also he’s had several recent long posts fixating on one subject: Levin.
But I looked, back in 2010 or so, he posted on other subjects. I guess that people get fixated on certain topics. I certainly do, but they’re completely different topics.

[JOHN W K]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: 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.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress. JWK

[achilles2000]

You do realize that this argument would apply to the CBS Evening News (can’t say MSNBC because it doesn’t have an audience).

This thread is an embarrassment.

[Technical Editor]

This might be of interest:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/64/direct-taxes

[TBP]

We need to return to that system.

[RginTN]

On the 5/23 program, ML described briefly the history of the creation of the senate. He was attacking Obama’s desire to invalidate the Senate and rule by executive order. You, on the other hand go after ML and not Obama.

What’s your purpose? ML is not the enemy. ML is not trying to rule by executive order.

[glyptol]

Has anyone else noticed the mind numbing commercials. They seem to be for everything he seems to object to.

Guess the money is good.

Brought to you by the whatever Manchurian Candidate council.

Smokey says high.

[Mozilla]

Maybe the point is to fill in on something left out.