Posted on 09/23/2012 1:57:55 PM PDT by JOHN W K
This is going to blow up in your face when you see how low the per capita is in the Southern states.
who cares.. won’t the winner of the popular vote them anyways?
If Zero wins the pop vote CA won’t matter.
If Mitt wins the pop vote CA will only help until Zero runs to the courts to fight over it.
apparently you don’t like our Constitution which specifies how the electoral college works. ANy effort to move to popular vote or weaken the EC will no doubt end in a democracy rather than a republic. You can rant all you want but the Constitution is clear. Get over it
and house reps are based on population....
Nobody knew, because it is false. Read Article II Section 1.
JWK
The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE‘S nightmare and not the American Dream
Unfortunately USCB doesn’t ask respondents whether they’re here legally or not.
I might add, our very own Supreme Court has confirmed direct taxes are still required to be apportioned! See EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), decided after the 16th Amendment’s adoption. The Court states with regard to the 16th Amendment and apportionment:
‘a proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal, this limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
And nine years after the above case, the court again pointed out “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.” ___ BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
JWK
They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the profits, gains and income which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
I understand what you are pointing out, but you are quite wrong to claim that per capita taxation was the intention of apportionment. It's a wacko notion, but there are many such wacko arguments put forward on this forum, it's part of the fun of it.
To take your argument one step further, taxes paid could be converted into shares with more shares going to those who paid the most taxes and zero shares to those who pay no taxes. Each voter would then get the number of votes corresponding to his or her number of shares. It would do away with the whole notion of "one man, one vote", but what the hey!
Add to everything else the fact that Congressional seats are assigned by *total* population...US citizens,Green Card holders *and* wetbacks.And given that at least a third of the states total population are wetbacks....
But Tariffs are not direct taxes, nor are income taxes. Nor are fees, nor are excise taxes.
Go back to grammer school, you didn’t pay attention!
Income tax is not a direct tax. Only taxes on per head basis, on real property, or on personal property are direct taxes.
Income tax is on the transaction of gaining income, and so can be avoided.
that’s what I thought.
but this idiots blog is clearly an anti constitution screed
WY paid per capita $9036.74
CA paid per capita $8590.18
CA paid $ 446.56 less per capita than WY
Dropping the change and multiplying the $ 446.00 to CA’s population size gives us a $22,902,733,890 short fall per capita
CA should have paid $ 336,901,607,890, but only paid $313,998,874,000
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.