Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College
2/16/2014 | johnwk

Posted on 02/16/2014 6:09:45 PM PST by JOHN W K





In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!

CLICK HERE to listen to Mark explain the Electoral College, omitting how taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote, which in turn omits the importance of why our founders tied taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment.


Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent nimbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!


For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:



State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.



State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop


In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.

In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!

As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.


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.”

And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


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 each state 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



Now, picture for a moment if California had to pay an apportioned share of Obama’s 2013 federal deficit based upon its 55 Electoral College votes. Do you really think California would remain a blue State and vote to re-elect another socialist/progressive like Obama? It seems only too obvious that the people of California would not be too happy to have to deplete their own pocket to fund Washington’s profligate spending and borrowing, and would quickly realize there is no such thing as a free cheese wagon which Obama would have us all believe there is.


But the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And it is ignored by not only our Republican Party Leadership, but also by Mark Levin along with every other “conservative” radio talk show host I know and includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley … etc. But they will discuss every form of tax reform [a national sales tax, value added tax, the “fairtax”, a flat tax, etc.,] all of which keep the iron fist of government around the necks of the American people, but never our founder’s original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, especially the brilliance of its rule of apportionment.

JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: apportionment; college; electoral; electoralcollege; tax; troll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 02/16/2014 6:09:45 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

“taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote”

Can you be more clear where this is in the Constitution?


2 posted on 02/16/2014 6:15:04 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Thats only $446.56 difference between CA and WY.

Why the hit piece on Mark? He’s one of the good guys.


3 posted on 02/16/2014 6:15:21 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Very insightful. You should call in and question him on it.


4 posted on 02/16/2014 6:16:03 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
United States Constitution, from Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

All the commentary above regarding apportionment of the Electoral College according to per capita taxation is utterly ignorant rubbish.

5 posted on 02/16/2014 6:19:14 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Do the figures cited include income taxes collected under authority of the 16th Amendment?


6 posted on 02/16/2014 6:19:53 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.


7 posted on 02/16/2014 6:20:26 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.


8 posted on 02/16/2014 6:20:30 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.


9 posted on 02/16/2014 6:20:38 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

The author forgets why the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913. It was to provide for a federal income tax not bound to the rule on capitation.


10 posted on 02/16/2014 6:21:16 PM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Thus, the reason Mr. Levin did not say anything about this in his explanation of the workings of the Electoral College is for the simple reason that it is not in the text of the constitution.


11 posted on 02/16/2014 6:22:03 PM PST by The Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

That’s per tax payer. And it’s not a hit piece.


12 posted on 02/16/2014 6:25:39 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
You are speaking about Article I Section 2 Clause 3's original language regarding the census?


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Since the census was authorized for both representation and direct taxes, and since the same census representation is the basis for the Electoral College distributions, it is implied that direct taxes is the reason for the Electoral College?

-PJ

13 posted on 02/16/2014 6:27:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

other than the fact you are incorrect and have totally ignored passage of the 16th amendment, what’s your point.

Pretty funny when a hack tries to call out ‘the great one’. You aren’t even in the same league


14 posted on 02/16/2014 6:27:59 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
You forgot the part of our constitution which commands Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned. Is the rule of apportionment "ignorant rubbish"?

JWK

15 posted on 02/16/2014 6:28:17 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
The 16th Amendment did not change the rule of apportionment as applied to direct taxation or its legislative intent!

JWK

16 posted on 02/16/2014 6:29:55 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

try reading the 16th amendment please


17 posted on 02/16/2014 6:29:57 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Yes indeed it did.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Other than the fact you do not understand constitutional law, I guess you can claim to be spot on


18 posted on 02/16/2014 6:31:25 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Your opinion is noted. But keep in mind the 16th Amendment made no change with regard to direct taxation, or, the legislative intent for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

JWK

19 posted on 02/16/2014 6:31:59 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
You forgot the part of our constitution which commands Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned.

Simple. Quote it to me, if you can. But you cannot.

I read out for you the clear and concise language that determines apportionment to the Electoral College. What do you have? Answer: Crap.

20 posted on 02/16/2014 6:35:06 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Procyon
I didn't know so many people here believe the 16th Amendment altered the requirement that direct taxes are required to be apportioned, or altered the legislative intent for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

JWK

21 posted on 02/16/2014 6:35:48 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Some people just don’t get it.


22 posted on 02/16/2014 6:35:52 PM PST by AceMineral (Some people are slaves of their own stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
So this is not about the Electoral College? This is just about what Levin said about taxes while talking about the Electoral College?

-PJ

23 posted on 02/16/2014 6:36:05 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The passage determines the number of Representatives each state gets, which is directly associated with the size of each state's Electoral College voting strength!

JWK

24 posted on 02/16/2014 6:39:28 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; holdonnow

I believe Mark is correct. Perhaps he may check in on this thread?


25 posted on 02/16/2014 6:40:28 PM PST by machogirl (First they came for my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AceMineral
Some people just don’t get it.

Some people just can't read.

26 posted on 02/16/2014 6:40:35 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

While Congress retains the power to impose a direct (or head) tax on every person within the United States it chooses not to do so. It is easier and far more lucrative to collect indirect taxes upon income which they have been able to do since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. So the examples provided showing the disparity of revenues collected vs electoral votes (or population) reveals that Californians on average are not reporting incomes higher than many other States. But it’s merely a statistical curiosity and has no Constitutional implications.


27 posted on 02/16/2014 6:42:32 PM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; Nifster
So which point is being made here, Nifster's point that the 16th amendment delinked direct taxes with census apportionment, or your point that census apportionment for the purpose of taxing was also used to apportion the Electoral College?

Or are they one and the same?

-PJ

28 posted on 02/16/2014 6:43:14 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

If you are speaking of Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3, please read it again, this time with due care to understanding the words therein.

There is NO language in there that provides for any sort of taxation test for determining the number of representatives for any state. In fact, it’s entirely the other way around; it’s the states’ population that determines the amount of direct taxation that can be assessed against each state.

Now, you may be correct that this element of the Constitution is largely ignored, especially now, after ratification the of the 16th amendment, but in no case is either the size of a state delegation to the US House of Representatives - or a state’s allotment of Electors to the Electoral College affected in any way whatsoever by the amount of taxes collected from within it’s borders.


29 posted on 02/16/2014 6:49:04 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Ask me if I care.


30 posted on 02/16/2014 6:49:41 PM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Congress, from the very ratification of our Constitution, had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes” without apportionment and this was not only established in Springer vs. United States when the Court upheld an un-apportioned tax on incomes imposed during the Civil War, but the Court also examined and explained what made the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 (a tax calculated from profits and gains) “indirect” and not requiring apportionment,
see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).



Keep in mind that to this very day, “direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned as stated by the Court! In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), a case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation the tax was struck down as being direct and not apportioned. The Court stated:



“[T]his 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....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”



A few years latter in another case dealing with direct vs. indirect taxation, in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”



And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case:





A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance." Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several
States.




The truth is, the requirement that Representatives and direct taxes are required to be apportioned nas never by changed, nor has Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 been repealed and declares:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.





JWK


31 posted on 02/16/2014 6:52:27 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

You know, this kind of off-the-wall looney tunes vanity post ought to be unwelcome on Free Republic; hosting absurdities like this potentially opens the entire site to ridicule.


32 posted on 02/16/2014 6:52:27 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

So what?


33 posted on 02/16/2014 6:53:25 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

Ping!


34 posted on 02/16/2014 6:53:58 PM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Did you miss the part that declares "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned" ?

JWK

35 posted on 02/16/2014 6:55:01 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Is your point in any way relevant to Levin’s point?


36 posted on 02/16/2014 6:55:45 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Your "great one" promotes the socialist tax on incomes with one of his "liberty amendments".

JWK

37 posted on 02/16/2014 6:56:30 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Impy; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; JOHN W K

Levin ping!


38 posted on 02/16/2014 6:58:10 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'Any path to US citizenship for illegals HERE is a special path to it ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

“A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.)(emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”

With all due respect for Justice Roberts, this part of his opinion is errant nonsense.


39 posted on 02/16/2014 6:59:34 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The 16th Amendment created an exception to the rule of apportionment on direct taxes, declaring that Congress could levy a tax on income from whatever source. The apportionment rule continues to be applied on all other forms of direct taxation. There are, currently, no other Federal direct taxes other than on income. All other current Federal taxes are excise taxes on import and consumption.


40 posted on 02/16/2014 6:59:41 PM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Levin never explained how the rule of apportionment is tied to representation and taxation and how this rule is connected to the size of each state's Electoral College vote.

Did you miss my explanation as I applied it to California and Wyoming?

JWK

41 posted on 02/16/2014 7:00:24 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Did you miss the part that declares "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned" ?

No, I did not. Did you miss the part of the Constitution that actually specifies HOW representatives are to be apportioned? Let me clue you in: it's "among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers". Funny you missed that: it's actually the continuation of your truncated quotation Next time, read the whole thing before going off your nut.

Not according to their respective taxation rates.

42 posted on 02/16/2014 7:04:43 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
What do you believe was intended by the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment when they wrote that portion of the 16th Amendment which provides that Congress can tax incomes "without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"?

Why do you think they went to all that trouble?

43 posted on 02/16/2014 7:04:49 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Procyon
"Direct" taxes are not mentioned in the 16th Amendment.

Additionally, the 16th Amendment was never intended to change the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was tied to both representation and any general tax laid among the states!

The 16th Amendment merely confirmed what was stated in the Flint Case, that Congress could lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, and gains without having to apportion the tax.

JWK

44 posted on 02/16/2014 7:05:55 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: machogirl

Probably not. I doubt that he would want to encourage this sort of thing in any way. He hasn’t posted in over 2 and 1/2 years. This nonsense is a big reason why so many of the stalwarts of FR are long gone.


45 posted on 02/16/2014 7:11:18 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Additionally, the 16th Amendment was never intended to change the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was tied to both representation and any general tax laid among the states!

You are truly dense. the Constitutional rule of apportionment has NEVER been "tied to both representation and any general tax laid among the states". That's an abominably bad reading of the Constitution, willfully ignorant, really.

Inexcusable and embarrassing to the forum.

46 posted on 02/16/2014 7:12:58 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I guess you didn't take time to read the quotes I provided from our founding fathers, and in particularly

“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.

Now, go back to the top of the thread and take note of all the documentation I took the time to post.

JWK

47 posted on 02/16/2014 7:17:55 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

You haven’t explained how it’s relevant to any point Levin was making.


48 posted on 02/16/2014 7:18:17 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I don’t know if you really want my answer but here goes. During the debates to adopt the 16th Amendment we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909). NOTE the words “unearned income” as apposed to “earned income“.

But what these cunning progressive con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942

This tax un-constitutionally expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working people’s “earned wages“. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income” as apposed to “earned income“, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort ___ not letting a crisis go to waste! But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected and provides the vehicle by which class warfare is carried out through “progressive taxation” imposed upon the working persons earned wages.

Bottom line is, I believe our founding fathers got the taxing system correct and the class warfare crap carried out through current income taxation will only end when the American People rise up and demand our elected public servants add the following 32 words to our Constitution:

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.

These words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, the words would end the class warfare which is encouraged under income taxation.

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc., swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

49 posted on 02/16/2014 7:21:48 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Did you read the title of the thread?

Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College

I then when on to explain:


In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!

JWK

50 posted on 02/16/2014 7:25:37 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson