Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposal to Amend the US Constitution: The 28th Amendment.
March 23rd 2010

Posted on 04/05/2010 12:49:59 PM PDT by Presto

“The federal government did not create the States. The States created the federal government.” – Ronald Reagan

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” – Alexis De Tocqueville

********************************************************************************************************************************

AMENDMENT 28. Title: Congressional Powers of Taxation Restricted and Revised.

The Congress shall not have power to lay and collect income taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and capitation taxes within the borders of any State. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect a revenue-tax which shall be based solely on a State’s accrued revenue. Congress shall not grant tax exemptions, deductions, or credits to any State except in cases of relief assistance for catastrophe and strain.

All provisions of this Amendment shall enact after one year from its ratification.

********************************************************************************************************************************

Synopsis:

1) Each State government becomes the sole tax levier of all possible domestic tax revenue within its borders.

2) The Federal Government can now only gain its primary funding by taxing the revenues of State governments.

Result:

1) An adamant tax shield in the form of all the States’ governments is erected between the citizens and the Federal Government.

2) Every American citizen now only answers to one tax master rather than two.

3) A revolutionary new tax system is born based on perpetual competition: the State governments collectively versus the Federal Government – where the voters referee.

(Please read footnote on why NOT to repeal the 16th Amendment.)

********************************************************************************************************************************

REVOLUTIONARY IMPACT:

Currently, the Federal Government bypasses each and every State government to intrude directly into the personal wealth of the States’ citizens. This Amendment interposes all of the State governments between the Federal Government and the States’ citizens. By pitting State governments collectively against the Federal Government for competitive management of tax dollars: we get a new and desperately needed check & balance on government powers.

Fifty Governors backed by their State legislatures will consistently and emphatically argue directly to their citizens that the Federal Government is too big, is wasting too much money, and is charging way too much in taxes. Obviously these arguments are not new. But what is new is the political power structure that will compel all State governments to make these unending appeals to their voters.

But here is the master key of the proposed 28th Amendment: State governments will share a crucial interest with their citizens in that they will both want to keep Federal taxes low. They will both want to have their Federal Government limited in scope to only those programs and expenditures which are absolutely necessary. And for the first time in our Republic’s history, we will see government dedicated to the lowering of Federal taxes.

To fully understand the nature of this new political power structure, it is important to highlight some key and intractable realities that will underpin it. First, the only plausible way one will be able to get elected Governor (or to the State legislature) will be to ardently promise to keep a hawk’s eye on how the Federal Government spends the money it levies from the State. Office seekers will religiously promise that they will immediately take the Federal Government to task at the first sign of an excuse to raise taxes on the States. But note: these will not be the empty, halfhearted promises that politicians routinely make solely to win over voter sentiment. Rather, these promises are certainties because every ten million dollars that elected State officeholders must hand over to the Federal Government is ten million less dollars of State money that they themselves have the power to spend. Candidates for State office will absolutely mean it when they promise to watch Federal spending like a hawk and to stridently object to any suggestion of a tax raise. – Because these Federal Government actions will be genuine threats to their fiscal power as Governors and State legislators. (Never get between a politician and his bona fide power.) Therefore, all fifty State governments will be constantly watchful for extraneous Federal programs and wasted money. Every gross Federal inefficiency will be pounced on by every Governor and State legislature. “That’s money our State could have used! Teachers we could have paid; roads we could have repaired; sanitation plants we could have invested in…” The fifty State governments will be unanimous in their outrage and speak in unison in their condemnation.

So it is obvious that to secure their own financial interests, the States will meticulously hawk the Federal Government and thereby impose lucid transparency on its fiscal practices. Sunshine will illuminate Congressional budgets before funds are appropriated – because the States (reinforced by their mutually interested and focused voters) will demand it.

This permanent transparency leads to another key intractable reality: there will be ZERO PARTY LOYALTY regarding State fiscal accountability. Any sitting US Senator who votes to raise the States Tax Rate when it is not an absolute and obvious necessity will be publicly and repeatedly denounced by the Governor and State legislature. No voting citizen will be happy with a Senator’s spotlighted profligacy siphoning big money out of the State. Moreover, by pledging to hold the line on the States Tax Rate, an election challenger will earn a continuous stream of enthusiastic endorsements from influential State officeholders and power players culminating with the Governor. Anyone who hopes to serve in the Congress for more than one term will fulfill this pledge as a matter of political survival. When it comes to protecting the State’s financial wellbeing, party affiliation at the Federal level will be wholly irrelevant. Each US Senator and House Representative will be viewed as either helping the State’s finances or hurting the State’s finances. There will be no in between.

When State public opinion prevails that an increase in the States Tax Rate is unnecessary, as a Senator you had better be on record as voting against it. But when State public opinion suggests that an increase in the States Tax Rate is warranted to help sure up a well managed Federal program, then you had better triple check the budget projection to make sure it won’t blow up in your face three months later should a gross and inexcusable oversight come to light. After all, it might be hard to find one of the better jobs in your State after being reviled and subsequently voted out of office for budgetary incompetence that hurt your State’s financial interests.

Currently, when an incumbent is voted out of office, it is not usually based on genuine and lasting hard feelings. For the most part, the voting sentiment is far more generalized. Perhaps a Senator’s national party is perceived as taking the country in the wrong direction. Maybe he gaffed in an unscripted moment handing his opponent a marginal but decisive advantage at the polls. The challenger might simply be more likeable or have a significant campaign funding advantage. Rarely is a US Senator or House Representative tossed out of office because the voters angrily concluded that he had directly hurt their State’s financial interests. Those are hard feelings. And politicians will work extra hard and be extra careful to avoid instigating those hard feelings among the fellow citizens of his State. In the process of throwing away his cushy job in the nation’s Capitol, a House Representative could cause his future, private-sector prospects to be somewhat diminished. The scrutinizing mechanisms of the proposed 28th Amendment will especially incentivize elected Federal officeholders to heed their State’s voters.

Naturally there will be occasions when raising Federal taxes will be warranted. But the Congress will feel compelled to openly and coherently present its budget projections to the States well beforehand so that the necessity for an increase is clearly demonstrated. Merely as a matter of political survival, Congress will automatically give the States ample opportunity to review the Federal budget prior to the enactment of a tax increase. Additionally, the Congress will go out of its way to prove that there are no special-interest earmarks laden with pork-barrel waste hidden somewhere in the bill. Sunshine transparency will be the only way members of Congress will feel like they can give themselves political cover with their State’s voters. If it should happen that a fiscal projection turned out to be way off, maybe the voters will give Congressional members a pass this time since everyone (including the Governors) had carefully analyzed the same numbers and arrived at the same conclusions. Only if they and their budget are perceived as being upfront and transparent will they have a shot at political survival when the inevitable mistake is made.

This new political power structure will necessitate that: clarity, concision, honesty, and advance notice are automatic Federal budget prerequisites. – So as not to openly insult the States or harm their interests and thereby incur their ousting fury. Indeed it will be in the immediate financial interest of all State governments, as well as the citizens they represent, to insure that theirs is a transparently efficient and competent Federal Government. To this mutual interest, the fifty States will likely form a National Auditing Association (acronymically pronounced “nah”) dedicated solely to the constant and exacting audit of the Federal budget for telltale signs of waste and corruption.

Summation thus far: In that citizens and their State governments will share the mutual financial interest of keeping Federal taxes low, voter awareness will be sharply raised against every Congressional member who might vote for a wasteful or excessive budget. – Because such budgets will always directly harm every State’s financial interests. And this of course means that there will rarely be a Federal budget that is significantly wasteful and excessive. And as rare as such a profligate budge will be, its propagating members will be all the rarer as they become politically extinct in the next election cycle.

But now realize that the Federal Government will also pour over each of the fifty States’ budgets to verify their revenue collections & expenditures. The Fed is always going to make absolutely certain that it is getting its fair share. We will no longer need an IRS dedicated to the futile and harassing “service” of auditing hundreds of millions of working Americans. Instead, the Federal Government will focus its exacting auditing practices on each of the State’s budgets and revenue accruals. And where there are discrepancies, inefficiencies, waste, and fraud in a State’s budget: these will be glaringly exposed. US Senators will sustain long careers and launch Presidential bids based on aggressive committee investigations into State budgetary waste and malfeasance. Congressional Representatives will give their Congressional service real purpose and distinguish themselves in the media glow by naming names (even in their own party) of State officeholders who have irresponsibly squandered their State’s largesse on fat, sweetheart contracts for exorbitantly overpriced favors doubling as State projects.

So yes, the new political power structure of “government hawking after government” works for the American people in both directions. Transparency will go from bogus campaign rhetoric to competitive reality. The Federal and State governments will impose transparency and accountability on each other because exposing fraud, waste, and inefficiency in the other entity will be necessary to secure each of their own financial and political interests.

As it stands, Governors and State legislatures have no motivation to scrutinize and argue against the Federal budget. When the Federal Government reduces income taxes on US citizens at large, the Virginia State treasury does not gain spending power. And why would the Governor of Texas want to wade chest deep into relentlessly scrutinizing the Federal Government’s budget? He would make countless political enemies (even within his own party) which would preclude him from ever being able to run for President or the US Senate. Worse, he would provoke a reciprocal and aggressive Federal investigation into his State’s budget and into his Governorship. (It is not that some State Governors are never publicly critical of Federal waste in the most general sense. But it is that such rare public criticism is unexacting, without priority, and without the unanimously concerted effort of the fellow forty nine Governors.) Likewise the Federal Government does not bother inspecting the States’ budgets because it also does not want to provoke reciprocal scrutiny from the States. And not only does the Federal Government already have vastly superior fiscal power; but any waste it would discover in a State’s finances would not redound to more money in the Federal Treasury. So when it comes to matters of taxation, expenditures, and budgets: it is essentially in their mutual interests to stay out of each others' business. – Which is business as usual. However, under the 28th Amendment they will be forced to investigate and compete with each others’ business.

The proposed 28th Amendment necessarily establishes a salutary competition between the US Congress and the collective State governments such that they contest each other over marginal increases of access to citizen tax dollars. It creates a zero sum game such that when one side wins the argument in the form of elections, the other side loses power in the form of tax dollars. Obviously, regardless of which side wins, the tax dollars ultimately get spent on services for taxpaying citizens. The question will always be which side is most competent and trusted to spend the margin of tax dollars in question. As a result, their budgets will become increasingly concise and balanced.

Fear of each others’ scrutiny will generate a permanent state of transparency. And why shouldn’t the elected members of the US Congress have to fear the wrathful and influential condemnation of our State governments regarding how citizen tax dollars are spent? And why shouldn’t the elected members of State governments have to face intense Federal scrutiny regarding how they spend their resident citizens’ tax dollars? And why should citizens have to serve two tax masters? Why not just one?

Consider that at any given moment, a majority of US citizens have the general impression that their Federal Government is wasteful and inefficient. And yet only rarely does this general impression become so inflamed that it results in serious political change at the Federal level. – And then only temporarily and never sufficiently. Here is why. There are always ninety eight US Senators and four hundred and thirty four House Representatives that every single citizen in this country has no vote over. As individual citizens, we have absolutely no say over whether the vast majority of these wasteful lawmakers stay or go. The permanent political effect is that responsibility for federal legislation utterly disappears into anonymity. The Federal Government as an entity has a voter constituency so diffuse and unconnected that this constituency is fundamentally ineffective until well past too late. As an analogy, imagine that the only way the human body could detect pain was when its skin caught on fire. Our Republic’s voting citizenry is virtually numb to its Federal tax collection and expenditures system. The body politic does not detect the serious damage being done to it until it is engulfed in horrible fiscal crisis. Then the ‘solution’ is instinctive and without precision. The only lasting result is that deeper scar tissue forms and the body politic is more numb than ever.

Is it any wonder that the Federal Government passes laws that are thousands of pages in length and that include grossly excessive pork barrel earmarks wholly unrelated to the purpose of the bill and to the exclusive benefit of special interests? Is it any wonder they are thoughtlessly crushing our country with trillions of dollars of debt and deficit spending? Is it any wonder they have amassed one hundred and eight trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities? And we are only just starting to feel the heat.

These insane fiscal practices have been going on for nearly a century, and it has long since been obvious that they will never stop. It does not matter who we send to Congress. As a group they will always abuse their power because of the structure of the Federal tax and spend system. Generation after generation of college educated US Senators and House Representatives (the majority of whom have been accomplished and highly competent lawyers) have constantly wasted staggering amounts of money, run huge deficits, and thereby generated colossally unsustainable debt. – Specifically because it was not their money they were spending. Alexis De Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” But they stopped bribing us with our money years ago. They are bribing us with our children's money!

Fellow Americans, we must Constitutionally change the structure of our Federal tax collection system (make it truly competitively representative) or the Federal Government will continue to crush us with malfeasant debt until our economy totally collapses. The concept contained in the proposed 28th Amendment will establish that very needed change and so preserve and advance our Republic. It does not favor a political party; it does not favor an ideology; it does not favor a social agenda. It favors fiscal sanity regarding trillions of American citizen tax dollars. It favors safeguarding our long term financial solvency as a Republic. It favors preserving the American legacy for future generations. And it unfailingly mandates transparency, accountability, and efficiency by compelling government to compete to demonstrate its competence to the citizens it represents and serves.

- Written by D.S. of Virginia

Post Script:

To see how the proposed 28th Amendment kills Congressional Vote-Trading for Pork-Favors and thereby sharply reverses the trend of Federal deficit spending, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_17fjz88dcj

To see the Remedies for Violating the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_14c6g2v2dx

To see how States’ Rights are augmented under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_13hjvttmc2

To see the argument as to why a Balanced Budget Amendment is impractical, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_18hfg32pdj

Regarding the status of cities and counties under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_15csxg6xcd

Regarding the status of business corporations and visiting foreigners under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_16s9hspmgn

The body of the above content (the document in toto) is posted on Google Docs at:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_12g68ptbg5

Footnote:

In order to revise Congress’s Constitutional powers of taxation, it is neither necessary nor desirable to repeal the 16th Amendment. In many (but not all) ways the proposed 28th Amendment will supersede the 16th Amendment. Consider that the 17th Amendment superseded various portions of Article I without making explicit reference to those portions. Moreover, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the authority to levy income taxes. Congress already had that authority via Article I section eight. Rather, the 16th Amendment clarified the broad extent of Congress’s power to levy income taxes. This was necessary because there had been some confusion over the intersection of apportionment, enumeration, and direct versus indirect tax sourcing – all of which are stipulated by the Constitution.

Since under the proposed 28th Amendment, the US Congress will still have the power to levy income taxes (as well as any other taxes) in the District of Columbia and the US Territories, the clarifications provided by the 16th Amendment are still necessary.

Ending the power of Congress to levy income taxes on State inhabitants is only one important part of the proposed 28th Amendment.


TOPICS: General Discussion; Issues; RLC News
KEYWORDS: amendment; constitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
The viewer friendly document complete with emphatic fonts is at Google docs:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=d9zrjs6_12g68ptbg5

1 posted on 04/05/2010 12:49:59 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Presto

Just put the senator being elected from the states and most of the nonsense that has occurred since direct election of senators would be fixed.

Right now the states have no say at the federal level.


2 posted on 04/05/2010 12:52:22 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Presto

I seem to have missed how you would raise taxes to support a real war.


3 posted on 04/05/2010 12:53:47 PM PDT by Rapscallion (I have a dog in this fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

From the States’ treasuries. Why would there be a shortage of funds?


4 posted on 04/05/2010 12:55:17 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Presto
AMENDMENT 28. Title: Congressional Powers of Taxation Restricted and Revised.....

DREAM ON.

5 posted on 04/05/2010 12:57:00 PM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

for-q-clinton,

I am neutral on whether Senators should be appointed by their State governments. But taking the democratic power from a State’s citizens to elect their Senators would not be popularly supported.

Also, it would not create the desired salutary competition between Federal and State governments that this proposed Amendment.


6 posted on 04/05/2010 12:58:49 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Presto
Better idea: A Constitutional Amendment forbidding Congress from exempting itself or any members of their staffs from any law they pass.

Social Security? They're in it.

Obamacare? They're in it.

If we have to live with it, they have to live with it. Watch 90% of their schemes die aborning.

7 posted on 04/05/2010 12:59:46 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I wouldn’t let the NY State legislature name a truant officer let alone a US Senator.


8 posted on 04/05/2010 1:00:47 PM PDT by xkaydet65 (Never compromise with evil! Even in the face of Armageddon!! Rorshach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup

Why dream, when we can have reality? The Congress does not get to decide whether the Constitution is amended. And Congress does not get to ratify any proposed Amendment. The Amendment I am offering here empowers the States. And States ARE the political entities that ratify Amendments to the Constitution. And this Amendment removes the Federal Government’s powerful hand from the pockets of private citizens. - That might be appealing to an educated voting population.


9 posted on 04/05/2010 1:02:26 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Presto

I personally like this. I have always believed that the Fed’s ONLY function is war. It is up to the states to educate and feed the poor.

If welfare and health care were handled on the state and local levels they would be much more effective.


10 posted on 04/05/2010 1:02:28 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup

to be blunt, such an amendment would have been possible only when the franchise was restricted to property-owners, and those married to property-owners.

of course if the franchise were thus restricted such an amendment would not have been necessary.


11 posted on 04/05/2010 1:02:46 PM PDT by jtal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Presto

While I dont see it happening I like the idea.


12 posted on 04/05/2010 1:08:35 PM PDT by sickoflibs (( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=taxes delayed"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Lurker,

I have heard of the Amendment proposal of which you speak. But the fact is, all members of Congress are required to pay social security taxes; so they are already in it. Upon retirement, they will be eligible for SS benefits (assuming the Federal Government hasn’t gone broke). The same will be true of Obamacare. What that other Amendment proposal seemed to be getting at is not to keep Congress from exempting themselves from the law (since in no case are they) - but rather to curtail the payment they receive for their public “service” as representatives. But the 27th Amendment already to does this to some extent.


13 posted on 04/05/2010 1:08:43 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jtal

GoldenPup,

Why would the proposed Amendment be impossible unless the franchise were restricted to property-owners?


14 posted on 04/05/2010 1:11:00 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Presto

As it was and as it should be.

IRS should be two part-time bureaucrats whose job is to cash 64 checks (states + territories) annually. They wouldn’t even need more than two shotguns...


15 posted on 04/05/2010 1:15:33 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Presto
Congress shall not grant tax exemptions, deductions, or credits to any State except in cases of relief assistance for catastrophe and strain.

Oops. I forsee emergency after emergency. Revise to say 3/4's vote of Congress to declare an emergency and sunset in one year time frame.

16 posted on 04/05/2010 1:27:11 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (There is no such thing as a conservative democrat - Rinse - Repeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator

VRW Conspirator,

The additional clause you suggest seems fine and in order.

But realize that Congressional declarations of catastrophe occurring within a State will in no way authorize the Congress to lay and collect additional taxes. If Congress declares a catastrophe (whether by simple bicameral majority or super bicameral majority) at that point they can grant a tax exemption, deduction, or credit to the State under strain. So there is no motivation for even a plurality (or even a sizable minority)of representatives to give a State a big ol’ honkin’ tax break. That doesn’t put revenue in their US Treasury - it takes money out.


17 posted on 04/05/2010 1:36:44 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Presto
The Congress shall not have power to lay and collect income taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and capitation taxes within the borders of any State...

They would just call it by another name, say, the transfer of money tax, or the "that's a pretty house and you sure wouldn't want anything to happen to it" tax, take the state percentage and charge it to you.

Amendments only worked when words meant something.
18 posted on 04/05/2010 1:50:21 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

That is not an argument against the specific merits of this Amendment proposal. That sounds like an argument that the Constitution itself is not longer operable law. I can’t agree.


19 posted on 04/05/2010 1:56:24 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

but look at the map...most states are conservative so we would be a leg up. Plus they couldn’t be worse than chuck schumer.


20 posted on 04/05/2010 1:56:38 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Presto

I suppose you think this will be legally ratified. That wasn’t a problem for the people who wanted to subjugate us with the 16th amendment.


21 posted on 04/05/2010 2:01:12 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Good thing the sensible people of NY elected Schumer and Hillary instead of the left-wing radicals that - uh, wait. Nevermind.


22 posted on 04/05/2010 2:03:01 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

MichiganConservative,

You make an excellent point. Not only is it always extraordinarily difficult to amend the Constitution, but it is also true (as you indicate) that the States were willing to give away a tremendous amount of the power when they ratified the 16th Amendment.

However, that ratification happened under Taft before we had even had The Great War (World War I). - So the Industrial Military Complex had yet to be born. There were no entitlement programs. So, the Federal Government had yet to turn into the insanely huge bureaucracy it is today. The gold standard was still in effect. In short, the States were not aware of how massively they were empowering the Federal Government.

I believe it is possible to educate enough voting citizens to popularize the eventual ratification of this Amendment. And while State governments will not look forward to the increased scrutiny of their inner workings; they will LOVE the super-increase of their power to accrue revenue.


23 posted on 04/05/2010 2:12:46 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

You don’t know what it’s like to live with the most corrupt and incompetent legislature in the world. The Reps are as bad as the Dems. Any Senator chosen by the NYS legislature would likely make Sen Burris of Ill. look like Daniel Webster.


24 posted on 04/05/2010 2:12:56 PM PDT by xkaydet65 (Never compromise with evil! Even in the face of Armageddon!! Rorshach)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Presto

Read Article V.


25 posted on 04/05/2010 2:35:24 PM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup

GoldenPup,

I have. Many times. What in particular would you like me to notice about it?

Congress can _propose_ Amendments by bicameral super majorities. But under no circumstance can they ratify an Amendment. - Only States can do this when they summon 3/4’s of their legislatures in favor of a proposed Amendment.

But States can propose Amendments too by Constitutional Convention. At such a Convention, the States must propose by summoning 2/3’s of their legislatures to be in favor of the proposal. But if you have 3/4’s ready to ratify, it obviously won’t be an obstacle to get 2/3’s to propose.

Is there something else to note?


26 posted on 04/05/2010 2:44:03 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Presto
That sounds like an argument that the Constitution itself is not longer operable law. I can’t agree.

It isn't.

Wickard v Filburn is. (interstate commerce)

Roe v Wade is. (insert "privacy")

KELO is. (public purpose)

It is just a game for the left.

Remember the "balanced budget" Constitution Amendment alternative offered by Democrats about 7 years ago that exempted "Social Security"? Everybody else said in unison that would only have resulted in the "Social Security Agricultural Subsidy" bill, the "Social Security Food Stamps" bill, yadda yadda yadda.

Nothing but a word game when people have no respect for the principles.
27 posted on 04/05/2010 2:50:20 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Presto; Rapscallion
Apparently, few have read the US Constitution. It already states the Fed can only apportion taxes upon the states, it has no power to directly tax. It was a complete perversion of law and justice that allowed the supposed 16th amendment to play an indirect tax game directly upon the peoples of the states.

Further the US Constitution allows for a special was powers act to fund, well war. This is how the original corporate excise tax of 1913 was created and it lawfully stopped two years later, if not extended and after the war if extensions were made. Instead, after the war, the forces of evil made it an ongoing tax, legislatively. Then extended it from corporations to individuals by further sleight of hand.

This current usurpation of the USConstitution has been ongoing for quite some time. Some of us have been trying to say that to whoever would listen; myself for almost 40 years!

It matters not what laws we pass, what the constitution says, if evil contorts the meanings of what has already been written.

28 posted on 04/05/2010 2:57:10 PM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Nothing but a word game when people have no respect for the principles.

They are evil. That goes for the R's and D's.

29 posted on 04/05/2010 2:57:26 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

I agree with you that the left plays unconscionable word games with important legal language to the severe detriment of our culture and law. (What kind of pathetic audacity could have led anyone to parse the meaning of the word “is”?)

But the “Social Security Food Stamps” example you provided is not one that actually happened. - But one that might have happened were there a Balance Budget Amendment that exempted Social Security funding. Perhaps it would happen. But you can see the clear window such a balanced budget amendment would have given to those aberrations.

The example you provided in your earlier post, used the word “tax” - which would be a clear and undeniable contradiction to the Amendment and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Can you provide a hypothetical example where Congress used language that would not so obviously contradict the Constitution were it to have the 28th Amendment I am proposing? I do not believe the language window you suggest exits.


30 posted on 04/05/2010 3:01:16 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Presto

IOW, you want to go back to the failed approach defined by the Articles of Confederation.


31 posted on 04/05/2010 3:04:21 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veracious

I agree with your general sentiment about corrupt forces not taking out Constitution seriously and the damage these forces have wrought.

However, I do not agree that Article I section 8 limited the Fed to only taxing State governments based upon apportionment. I do believe they already have the power to tax State governments. But President George Washington and the 1st Congress obviously thought the Whiskey Tax Act (a direct tax on the production of whiskey) was perfectly Constitutional. None of Washington’s fellow Founding Fathers spoke up in disagreement. To the contrary at least one - Hamilton - was heartily in favor. Washington led 13,000 troops to Pennsylvania to enforce this tax law.


32 posted on 04/05/2010 3:09:45 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“r9etb”,

Which Article(s) in the Articles of Confederation are you referring to? And how exactly did failure precipitate?


33 posted on 04/05/2010 3:11:45 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

r9etb,

You can stop searching the Articles of Confederation in vain hope of finding a similarity with the Amendment I am proposing. I have done the research for you, and it is clear that you know not of what you speak. The Articles of Confederation specifically DENIED the Congress the power of taxation. Congress could only “request” money from State governments.

Therefore, you must not have understood the second sentence in the proposed Amendment. It explicitly gives the Congress the POWER to tax State revenues.


34 posted on 04/05/2010 3:22:42 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Presto

You haven’t ruled out a VAT tax, a tax based on people’s age, height, skin tone or other biometrics besides head-count. You could have a fixed tax based on occupation without regard to a person’s actual income. The ways are infinite to avoid the terms you used. And then you could have very similar taxes that go by different names. Is an ability-to-pay tax based on wealth and income a tax meant by either? Or they could end all taxes and just inflate your money away by printing it weekly based on your income and knock some zeroes off new currency every few years.

They could base the tax on state revenues in progressive amounts and declare catastrophes whenever they need to. They could tax the states 90%, forcing the states to confiscate your property. When the Dems and Reps collude, there is nothing withheld from them that they imagine to do. You just have to bring the Towel of Babel down on all of them and let them play with words as they scatter to the four corners.


35 posted on 04/05/2010 3:34:15 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

A value-added tax will always fall under the category of either a sales or excise tax. - Prohibited by the Amendment. An occupation tax will always fall under the category of either an income tax, excise tax, or a capitation tax. - All prohibited by the Amendment.

Note that in order to enforce a tax, there has to be a statement as to what the tax is based on. So they can name a tax whatever they like (for instance, the “Magoogapuppy” tax) - But in order to extract funds from any entity whatsoever, the law will have to stipulate what the tax is actually based on. Raising hypothetical questions as to what any tax law might be based on is not the same as answering the question as to what a tax law is based on. Without that answer, no taxes can be collected because no collector of the tax would have a basis on which to begin collection. None of your examples fell outside of the tax prohibitions listed.

As far as the States confiscating your property - that’s unconstitutional too. As far as the Congress raising the tax rate on State revenues to 90%, they will no more have the political will to do that than do today to raise the individual income tax rate to 90% on all Americans. In fact Congress will have far less political will to raise taxes that absurdly high against the collective will of fifty State governments than they do now against all individual citizens.

A major point of the Amendment is that citizens and State governments will have a common and calcified goal: keeping Federal taxes low. And that no Congressional representative will be able to survive politically by hurting the interests of his State by voting for excessively wasteful budget bills that will require the States’ Tax Rates to be raised.


36 posted on 04/05/2010 4:01:04 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Presto
A value-added tax will always fall under the category of either a sales or excise tax. - Prohibited by the Amendment. An occupation tax will always fall under the category of either an income tax, excise tax, or a capitation tax. - All prohibited by the Amendment....

Yeah, according to you. You get to write it. How many votes do you plan on casting in the Supreme Court? If what James Madison and George Washington wrote don't mean squat anymore, what makes you think you have the last word?

It is the people who need to be replaced, more than you can replace in any November. You have to burn down the entrenched offices and get rid of 50 million assholes who want it this way.
37 posted on 04/05/2010 4:09:36 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

And let me just add that (regardless of the proposed 28th Amendment): taxes based on age, height, race, etc would all fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment – which is why none exist now.

I did not state my rebuttal to your point about Congress raising taxes to 90% on States very clearly. Let me clarify. There is a reason that Congress does not _today_ raise the tax rate to 90% on all American citizens’ incomes. Under the Constitution, Congress certainly has the power to raise the tax rate to 90% on all Americans incomes. But obviously Congress lacks the political will to do this because of how immensely unpopular such a tax act would be. No representative could survive re-election, and the bill would be promptly repealed and tax refunds issued. Under the proposed 28th Amendment, Congress has even less political willpower because now it is taking on not only the political will of the American people who will never stand for such an absurdly high rate of taxation, but in addition Congress is taking on 50 Governors backed by their State legislatures who have a financially vested interest in railing against any such absurdly high rate of taxation.


38 posted on 04/05/2010 4:24:33 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Presto
except in cases of relief assistance for catastrophe and strain.

No exceptions should be allowed. If there is a catastrophe or 'strain', then the state tax revenues will go down and the fed revenues also. Having Detroit in Michigan is a perpetual 'strain' on the State of Michigan, or a perpetual catastrophe, as you chose. But stupidity or cupidity should not allow escape from taxes. Government charity turns into entitlements, whether it's by handouts or tax abatement. Keep the taxes low, and let the private sector handle charity.

This proposal also needs to include a firm limit on the amount or the rate that government can confiscate. That was a major flaw in the 16th Amendment. We'd be in a lot better shape now if the income tax had been limited to original 3% top rate.

39 posted on 04/05/2010 4:46:52 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

Your point about that I do not have a vote to cast on the Supreme Court is a reiteration of your original argument in your first response-post. There you essentially said that it does not matter how law is worded because the unconscionable left will always play word games to distort the meaning such that the Constitution is effectively inoperable as the law of the land.

I agree with you that unfortunate word games are played that hurt our laws. But I do not agree that such damage has rendered our Constitution inoperable as law.

I think that we are still a nation of laws more so than a nation of men.


40 posted on 04/05/2010 4:47:34 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Presto
Congress DID have a 91% tax rate just a few years ago. When they legalize 100 million Mexicans over the next few years, what stops them then from taxing the remaining right-of-center Gringos 90%?

Congress will soon be taxing your weight with a FAT tax just as they now tax your skin color with the tanning tax.

The states became irrelevant with the 17th Amendment. But your state reps collude in all this.

A 90% tax on state revenue does not mean 90% on individuals, so no revolution . The states won't object because it will be doled back just as it is now, from each state according to its ability to each according to its need. That dole reduces the NET extraction to a tolerable level but leaves the feds with the power. You have to ban the federal government not only from taxing too much but they can't be allowed to fund anything in the states either.

That means you need an Amendment that strips away almost all Art. I Sec. 8 powers down to common defense and nothing else or the states and feds will continue to collude.

But if "equal protection" becomes too inconvenient, they'll just change it to "equal protection" - as in racket.

Just imagine I'm a "justice" on the Supreme Court.
41 posted on 04/05/2010 4:48:06 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Presto

Well half the electorate like their freebies from the government so their congressmen would never vote for this.

The other half (property owners for the most part) that pay the bills would be in favor of the amendment ... and consistently vote to limit govt and taxation.


42 posted on 04/05/2010 4:54:12 PM PDT by jtal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Presto
I think that we are still a nation of laws more so than a nation of men.

Just an example: The nation's law is that people who come to this country without permission or overstay must be deported. But the bureaucracy of men doesn't bother to keep track of most of them. The police of men only occasionally round a few up for publicity. The judiciary of men finds endless excuses to let them stay. The states of men are prevented by federal authorities of men from deporting anybody.

Let me know when you stop dreaming.
43 posted on 04/05/2010 4:59:29 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

I do not disagree in principle with the philosophy of your point. I believe in encouraging private sector charity to handle the needs of the suffering.

But realize that the catastrophe/strain exception in the 28th Amendment does not _require_ the Congress to issue deductions, exemptions, or credits in cases such that a State is experiencing catastrophe/strain. - It merely allows Congress the option.

If we remove that clause, Congress still has options - they’re just more expensive. Congress could still pass a bill appropriating funds to pump hundreds of billions in emergency relief to a strained State (a la Louisiana after Katrina). But as we know, anytime the Fed hands out money, it does so with great inefficiency. It’s much better to allow Congress to provide tax exemptions to States that have catastrophes than to ‘triple count’ tax dollars by handing them from citizens to their States to the Federal Government back to a State in crisis. Just in the process of the Fed counting the tax dollars it collects, money gets wasted.

We don’t want to put a cap on how high government can raise taxes because sometimes it is necessary for us to fight wars or deal with financial melt-downs.

The ‘State governments hawking after Federal Government hawking after State governments’ mechanism that the 28th Amendment establishes will keep Federal taxes low by virtue of the competitive and transparent interactions between the two.


44 posted on 04/05/2010 5:04:38 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Presto
who have a financially vested interest

But since the 17th Amendment, they have no direct vote on the matter.

The Feds can and have put in a 90+% tax rate before - just not on everybody.

It will be much easier for the Feds to put a 90% tax bite on the states. All they have to do is take over 90% of the function of the states in exchange.

Look how Medicare is going. It's taking a large and growing chunk of every states income. At some point, the Feds just step in and say we're taking Medicare over completely and the states must now fork over another 25% of their revenue. The cycle is: Increase the mandated spending on area X for the state until it's unendurable, take area X over in exchange for another chunk of state revenue

This can happen with education, just with a slow expansion of the NCLB mandates. Any government function can be transferred from state to federal responsibility this way, as long as you don't recognized Constitutional limits on Federal authority.

And given enough money to pay off a few states here and there, there would not be a united front of 50 governors fighting this.

45 posted on 04/05/2010 5:05:59 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
We'd be in a lot better shape now if the income tax had been limited to original 3% top rate.

It would have gone from 3% of net to 3% of gross to 3% of wealth which would be redefined as "income" every Jan. 1. (Socialist states have actually done this.) And the same people would be voting for that as voted for the current system. 5% reduced most free Romans to medieval serfdom.

3% of wealth would be around $2 trillion or so, which is what the federal government takes anyway.
46 posted on 04/05/2010 5:11:30 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Presto

Probably too late, but the dollar should be re-valued 1 for 10 or 1 for ? Then all coinage sdould be gold, silver or copper and possibly nickel. Won’t be painless but if 2-3 other nations do something like this first the U.S. will be in a pickle,,,this would devistate the dollar and the ecconmy. We can’t afford to be also-ran in this area. Think about it.


47 posted on 04/05/2010 5:21:05 PM PDT by Waco (Kalifonia don't need no stenkin oil and no stenkin revenues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Presto; slowhandluke

The problem is not the Constitution, except for a few self-inflicted wounds like the 16th, 17th and 26th Amendmends.

The problem is the universities, the media, the bureaucracy and an ensconced dependent class who are going to have to be burned out because they can’t be voted out.


48 posted on 04/05/2010 5:21:52 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (NEW TAG ====> **REPEAL OR REBEL!** -- Islam Delenda Est! -- Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

There has never been a 91% tax on all American earners. That is simply untrue.

Where you say that a 90% tax on State revenue does not mean a 90% tax on individuals is to somehow miss the point of the 28th Amendment. It is the individual citizen who pays taxes to his State (and ONLY to his State). It will not exactly be a secret when the Congress proposes to raise the State Tax Rate who is going to ultimately end up paying for the increase. Governors might be helpful pointing this out (screaming from the top of their lungs) to their citizens - because the State power they get to govern will be greatly diminished by the tax increase. - To the tune of billions upon billions of dollars. You say State governments will go along with this for the typical Federal dole out? No they won’t. What can a Congressman legally give to a Governor such that the Governor will say, “Yeah, go ahead take money billions of dollars of power out of the State I am running.”? The whole point of Federal deficit spending is that the Fed Gov spends BIG money it does not have. Whatever pork a Congressman brings back to the State: A)is less than what the State pays to fund the pork of the other States; and B)is not something the Governor gets to control or take credit for. You’re the one dreaming if you think Governors will give up billions of dollars of State power in exchange for a pittance of pork that they will have no say in the administration of. You’re in a deep sleep if you think the average citizen will be happy to hear that billions of dollars is leaving his State to fund the pork in other States. That’s money that could have been used to pay for his kids’ schools or to pay police salaries or to fix one of the pot holes he drives over every day. The whole point of the 28th Amendment is that it establishes an inescapable system that starkly exposes these discrepancies because State governments lose BIG MONEY POWER in the face of such discrepancies. Citizens of a State will never stand for it, and their Congressional representatives will never be able to hold office based on it.


49 posted on 04/05/2010 5:23:46 PM PDT by Presto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
It would have gone from 3% of net to 3% of gross to 3% of wealth which would be redefined as "income" every Jan. 1.

Maybe, but probably not. Had there been a limit in the 16th Amendment, it would have meant that the Progressives weren't that strong, or the anti-Progressives not that gullible.

I just think that we would have had a slower progression, had the conservatives been a bit more conservative in their grant of new taxing power.

50 posted on 04/05/2010 5:24:42 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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