Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

5-23-14 | johnwk

[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.