Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,052
1,942
200
SEE: Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

”In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.”

If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?

The liars are at it again, pretending their objectives are noble, but their ultimate aim is to convene a convention so those who now hold power at the federal and state level may rewrite our Constitution and make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional.

How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures? I haven’t. But Mark Levin wants a convention so he can promote his socialist flat tax which he now does with one of his “liberty amendments”.

A flat tax calculated from incomes, even if “flat”, does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners.

Hey Mark, does your flat tax end our despotic federal government from arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not taxable income? No! Does your socialist tax on profits gains and other “incomes” end our Washington Establishment’s use of taxation to intentionally seek out America’s productive hard working citizens and transfer the bread they have earned to a dependent voting block who prostitutes their vote for free government cheese? No! Tell us Mark Levin, how about the devastating and slavish manipulations carried out under this socialist tax calculated from incomes? Does your flat tax end that and class warfare carried out under taxation? No! Or, would your flat tax end taxation being used as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government? Heck No! So tell us Mark Levin, why are you comfortable with a flat tax which is a component part of a despotic federal government? I think I know why….you are part of the Washington Establishment which constantly works to defeat the miracle our founding fathers created.

If you were really sincere about supporting our founding fathers Mark, you would be promoting a return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate with the following H.J.RESOLUTION:

House/Senate Joint Resolution

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

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
 
Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.
 
Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.
Mark Levin is smarter and of better character then any idiot on the left, period.
 
Only a frothing leftist moron (redundant, I know) calls a legitimate process written into our Nation's political process, EVIL.

Well, you must agree with me then because I never suggested the process was EVIL.


But it defies human logic to believe delegates chosen to attend a convention who are appointed by State Legislatures and Governors who engage in the same types of tyranny our federal government engages in would act in the Taxpayer’s best interests if a convention were called to amend our federal Constitution. And judging from the overwhelming financial dependency upon the federal government that every Governor and State Legislature has submitted themselves to, not to mention how almost every State has an enormous deficit and an underfunded state pension fund which is a ticking time bomb, that they would not be motivated to select delegates to a convention who would act in concert with the federal government to further tighten the iron fist of government around the necks of America’s hard working citizens and business owners, and find new ways to legally confiscate the wealth they create in order to “redistribute” it in a manner which keeps these federal and State tyrants in power. See Article V Group Ignores States' Complicity in Federal Power Grab

" Of all the misrepresentations often repeated by the pro-Article V constitutional convention proponents, one of the most important is the “states as victims” mantra … the claim that the federal government is “seizing power from the states” cannot be stipulated to without falsely portraying states as victims rather than as accomplices to these crimes against the Constitution."

If a solution to the tyranny which is carried out at both the federal and state level is to be found, it certainly will not come from those who carry out the tyranny. I know of not one tyrannical government which has willingly released its iron fist from the necks of its citizens.


JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
 
If Duncan Hunter wants to balance the annual budget, then why does he not “push” for and demand the apportioned direct tax be used to extinguish annual deficits as our Founding Fathers intended?


How is the budget to be balanced? The answer is found in a number of our State Ratification documents which gave birth to our Constitution, for example see: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

For an example of a direct tax being laid by Congress see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s share is determined.

Did you ever hear Mark Levin inform his listening audience that our founders put the emergency apportioned direct taxing power in the Constitution to be used when imposts, duties, and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures? I haven’t.

I just wanted to parse out the crux of your argument.

This is an excellent topic and I hope it is a productive one. You have created an outstanding subject for discussion.
 
So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.
 
Last edited:
So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

I'm sure Levin will get around to mentioning that someday :laugh:
 
Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

TRANSLATION: "I can't refute what Mark Levin says, but I hate it anyway. So I'll attack the messenger instead, insult him, insult other normal Americans, call him names, and hope that somebody believes me instead of him."
 
I am curious to know who supports the idea of balancing the federal budget by making the states cough up extra cash through a direct tax, as was done in the beginning of our nation, with the following actual apportionment example provided in the OP: See Chapter XXXVII.

Let's not avoid the actual subject. This is interesting stuff!
 
Last edited:
Mark Levin is nuts. Every day from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm eastern time he becomes ravenously butthurt and calls it a radio show.

Sometimes I'm driving home and I'll think "hmm... I wonder what conservatives are butthurt about today?" Then I just tune in to Levin for a segment or two and I learn exactly what righties will be whining about on the forum that night.

TRANSLATION: "I can't refute what Mark Levin says, but I hate it anyway. So I'll attack the messenger instead, insult him, insult other normal Americans, call him names, and hope that somebody believes me instead of him."

Turn him on tonight. I'll bet anything that he's as butthurt as ever and he'll be going over the exact same talking points that have been done to death today by every other radio host on whatever station you listen to him on.
 
Only a frothing leftist moron (redundant, I know) calls a legitimate process written into our Nation's political process, EVIL.

Especially when the point of the endeavor is to reduce federal authority and make spending levels responsible.

As if we needed more proof that bed wetters are determined to destroy America.
 
I wonder what kind of demands the People would make on their Federal government if they saw their taxes suddenly spike after their demands were met.

You want the government to give you free puppies? Sure, you can have "free" puppies as long as you cough up another hundred bucks apiece! Right now!

You want cradle to grave security? Sure, you can have cradle to grave security as long as you pay as you go! All of it!
 
Oops! All those missiles we shot at all those darkies all over the planet have really added up. We're gonna need you folks to cough up another five hundred bucks this year.
 
johnwk, many of the Board have properly schooled you on this topic, yet you continue along as a willful, misinformed individual.
 
So, basically, if the federal budget is not balanced, our Founders intended the States to cough up the extra cash to meet the need, by raising direct taxes by apportionment.

That is what a balanced budget amendment true to our founding principles would look like.

All those states currently receiving more federal money than they contribute would be in the hurt locker should this be done.

Exactly, but don't expect Mark Levin to inform his audience to the founders intentions in this regard. Mark is promoting a balanced budget "liberty amendment" which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget! But he is good at convincing the uniformed to promote his call for a convention so those who now hold federal and state power will have the opportunity to make their current tyranny constitutional!


JWK
 
Mark Levin?s Liberty Amendments | RedState

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

I actually started a topic on here once to discuss his amendment to repeal the 17th amendment. I meant to start a topic on each of his proposed amendments, but never finished.


This "limiting taxation and spending" amendment bears no resemblance to what our Founders arranged with respect to our taxation. Levin's scheme is not really a tax scheme. It is a sideways attempt to contain the size of the federal government by limiting how much it can spend.

If you read each of his amendments, that's really the common theme to all of them. Except for the idiotic Voter ID one. That's a retarded outlier.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top