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

Skip to comments.

Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787
5-23-14 | johnwk

Posted on 05/23/2014 7:36:45 PM PDT by 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.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: amendments; apportionment; flameon; judeophobia; levin; lewrockewell; liberty; paultardation; taxation

1 posted on 05/23/2014 7:36:45 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Thanks!


2 posted on 05/23/2014 7:44:16 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

How does leaving out something that you think is worth while the same thing as distortion????

Levin is good on history and the constitution. You din’t work for Reagan. Don’t know if you have a law degree. You don’t have a radio show. You haven’t taken cases to the supreme court.

Guess I will take Mark’s info as solid


3 posted on 05/23/2014 7:46:08 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

what is your point?


4 posted on 05/23/2014 7:51:37 PM PDT by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Why are you starting to act like a troll?

You like Weiner, we get it.

There is only so much content going into 6-8 minute segments and then some commcommentaryentary.


5 posted on 05/23/2014 7:52:31 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

TROLL.


6 posted on 05/23/2014 7:55:40 PM PDT by Junk Silver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Get a new hobby, this crap is getting old.


7 posted on 05/23/2014 7:57:32 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Post your CV

8 posted on 05/23/2014 7:57:58 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
The Great Compromise had two component parts: apportionment being applied to both representatives and taxes. Mark's distortion is his exclusion of apportionment being tied to both representation and taxation!

JWK

9 posted on 05/23/2014 7:58:21 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Thank God for Mark Levin. One of the true patriots that has always said what needed saying. I’m sure Mark appreciates the
1/2 hour you spent formulating your bullet points to reach a couple hundred people. Come back when you reach millions and maybe you would carry more than an ounce of weight.


10 posted on 05/23/2014 8:01:11 PM PDT by Naplm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

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


11 posted on 05/23/2014 8:01:36 PM PDT by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

CV?


12 posted on 05/23/2014 8:08:26 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Curriculum vitae, what fancy pants people have instead of resumes.


13 posted on 05/23/2014 8:10:25 PM PDT by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Naplm
Do you really believe the number of people being reached determines the validity of the message?

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

14 posted on 05/23/2014 8:13:30 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: crazycatlady

Thnx


15 posted on 05/23/2014 8:18:21 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: logitech

pfl


16 posted on 05/23/2014 8:18:21 PM PDT by logitech (It is time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

His blog site with profile is here. . .
http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, as referenced in this previous thread. . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/2364323/posts


17 posted on 05/23/2014 8:20:18 PM PDT by deks (Sent from my BlackBerry Q10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Well, if you’re reaching a few million every evening, there must be a history of validity. As an earlier poster typed, brushing over a subject for the sake of brevity, does not make it distortion. Do you have a Doctorate in jurisprudence?


18 posted on 05/23/2014 8:22:28 PM PDT by Naplm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Seems strange that so many people here attack you for your lack of credentials, celebrity status or whatever.

Guess I thought the message was all that mattered.

And a “Doctor of Jurisprudence” is not a big deal; my father graduated from Law school before they used that term and sent him his J.D. in the mail one day.

He said it made him feel like Oz had just bestowed a degree on him. I said he didn’t look like a Scarecrow...

But anyway thanks for the history. Have long wondered why apportionment was not tried. As you’ve shown, the Framers saw it as the equitable solution: the sovereign States would each pay their dues in proportion to their population.

That would keep things close to home, and the “general government” out of people’s lives. It shows how utterly contrary to the Original Intent that the 16th amendment is.

The sooner we repeal this despicable vestige of feudalism the sooner we get back to the Republic that was founded, and was so incredibly successful.


19 posted on 05/23/2014 8:36:18 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; Regulator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

A little over $3,000 per head comes to $1 trillion in tax revenue.


20 posted on 05/23/2014 8:43:09 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Naplm
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.

21 posted on 05/23/2014 8:48:08 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
“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.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

22 posted on 05/23/2014 8:50:23 PM PDT by deks (Sent from my BlackBerry Q10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

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

*sniff, sniff*


23 posted on 05/23/2014 8:52:07 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
LEAVE MARK LEVIN ALONE !


24 posted on 05/23/2014 8:53:28 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. I won. ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Thanks for the info!

JWK

25 posted on 05/23/2014 8:58:29 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

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.


26 posted on 05/23/2014 9:00:34 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

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?


27 posted on 05/23/2014 9:05:12 PM PDT by deks (Sent from my BlackBerry Q10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: crazycatlady
"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.

28 posted on 05/23/2014 9:08:41 PM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: deks
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

29 posted on 05/23/2014 9:13:38 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: deks
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.

30 posted on 05/23/2014 9:16:36 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Repeal the 16th.

Then we can talk about the Great Compromise of 1787


31 posted on 05/23/2014 9:18:39 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

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?


32 posted on 05/23/2014 9:20:03 PM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

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.


33 posted on 05/23/2014 9:26:26 PM PDT by crazycatlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
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

34 posted on 05/23/2014 9:26:39 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Naplm

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.


35 posted on 05/23/2014 9:36:23 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: everyone

This might be of interest:

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


36 posted on 05/23/2014 10:26:15 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

We need to return to that system.


37 posted on 05/23/2014 10:28:45 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

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.


38 posted on 05/23/2014 10:34:11 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

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.


39 posted on 05/24/2014 12:22:09 AM PDT by glyptol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dontreadthis

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


40 posted on 05/24/2014 2:08:03 AM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; holdonnow

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


41 posted on 05/24/2014 8:01:25 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
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

42 posted on 05/24/2014 11:03:49 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RginTN
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

43 posted on 05/24/2014 11:09:45 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

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.


44 posted on 05/24/2014 11:11:55 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
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

45 posted on 05/24/2014 12:48:01 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Understood, and fair enough.


46 posted on 05/24/2014 1:04:18 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
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?
47 posted on 05/25/2014 8:03:04 AM PDT by linedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: linedrive
You are absolutely correct, and the formula is:

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

JWK

48 posted on 05/25/2014 5:35:05 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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