Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

5-23-14 | johnwk

[CatherineofAragon]

Why don’t you demonstrate the courtesy of pinging him so he can answer your claims, if he chooses?

[JOHN W K]

I have no idea what "pinging" is. Perhaps you can send him a link to the thread and he will take the time to address the issue on his show.

JWK

[JOHN W K]

When Mark Levin talks about the Great Compromise of 1787 which has two inseparable components – taxation and representation – and he leaves out that a State’s allotted representation under the Great Compromise is tied to a financial obligation, the very essence of the Great Compromise is distorted!  This does not mean it was intentionally distorted,  but none the less it was distorted! 

 

If you take the time to read Madison’s Notes as I have you will see that prior to July 2nd the Convention had a heated discussion concerning taxation and how the States would be represented in a national legislature.  And on  July 2nd Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”

 

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."

 

Here is what followed:

 

Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.

Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.

General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [FN*] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a [FN2] taxing Exports.

Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

 

__________

 

Now, is it not quite misleading, when discussing the Great Compromise, to omit the founders intentionally tied both taxation and representation under the rule of apportionment?

JWK

“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” 3Elliot’s 41

[CatherineofAragon]

Well, I’m surprised that a longtime Freeper isn’t familiar with pinging.

When you ping, you include a person’s FR name in the “to” box; it will wind up in their “posts to you” and they’ll see the thread.

That’s why I added Mark’s FR name in my earlier post to you.

[JOHN W K]

I still have a rotary phone home. This computer/internet stuff is relatively all new to me. As a matter of fact when I researched our nation's founding at the University of Maryland many years ago, it was done at the Mckeldin Library, and by reading through countless volumes of original resource material and taking hand written notes or coping pages of text on a copy machine. I did not have today's luxury of a computer and search engine.

JWK

[CatherineofAragon]

Understood, and fair enough.

[linedrive]

For apportionment to work, doesn't it require the amount to be apportioned to be determined prior to requiring everyone to pay their fair share? Seems reasonable. Also, if the process could be transparent (not in Obama terms) each state would know how much their elected representatives committed from their populous to provide to the central government. Am I inaccurate in my understanding of how this is to work, originally?

[JOHN W K]

You are absolutely correct, and the formula is:

State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.

JWK