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

[Votto]

Just imagine what the world would be like if there had been a balanced budget amendment back in 1940!

Basically, the U.S. could not have afforded to fight the wars in either Europe or or the Pacific, there would have mostly likely negotiated treaties - Germany would have retained most of Western Europe, while Imperial Japan would have retained most of the Pacific and Asia.

In short, while balancing the budget is a good idea when the economy is booming and there are no national crisises (like in 2001 when Bush was President), forcing a balanced budget in times of recession or national crisis is idiotic.

In fact, the entire notion that government deficits are bad is a bunch of bunk dreamed up by wingnuts to create a false political issue. Unfortunately, these people have a tendency to believe their own lies.

Our system of government finance is absolute genius. It is the very reason why the U.S. is the world dominant power economically, militarily, technologically and culturally!

Anyone that wants to force a major change to the system of government finance is either anti-American or an idiot!

Progressives like Wilson and FDR used world wars to create a collectivist utopia in the US.

Now they don't even declare war, they just send the troop in and now don't even notify Congress when they do it.

Of course, some of us disdain the collectivist war machines created to defeat the collectivist war machines in Europe. But we must ask ourselves one question, have we become what we first fought against?

Are you seriously suggesting that the present day U.S. is in anyway on par with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? Geez, that's too stupid to comment on!

We have not ever been a "collectivist utopia" - or even close. We have a primarily free enterprise society, there are huge differences is personal wealth that would never be allowed in a "collectivist utopia".

Just because we limit some business freedom and expect those who benefit the most to contribute the most (though they usually don't), does not make us collectivists.

If anything we've become a watered-down version of Mussolini style fascism. The government protects the freedoms of the uber-wealthy at the expense of the common people.

Are progressives today comparable to the Nazi regime?

Well lets see......

1. The Nazi's were environmentalists. The Nazi's ordered their own soldiers to plant trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. The Nazi's were horrified at the prospect of building a hydroelectric dam on the Rhine river. I'm sure today they would be all over the climate change propaganda, probably pushing for large taxes to go towards their great big pot of money to transform the world.

2. Speaking of which, the Nazi regime ran up tremendous debt. In fact, Hitler forbade the German government from passing a budget in 1938, because he feared that if they did, the German people might become nervous regarding the out of control spending. The Nazi focus was twofold. They wished to build their military, of course, and also quench any possible uprisings from the German people in war time. For you see, the Nazi regime had bad memories of when the German people rose up during World War 1 due to sub par living standards due to the economic trials of war. As a result, the Nazi's were all about redistribution in a socialist way for the average German worker who enjoyed a higher standard of living than citizens that lived in Allied countries. Historians speculate that Hitler had forced the German people to go to war in 1939, for if they had not, their economy would have collapsed. Basically, Hitler burned their bridges via massive debt. It was either world conquest or economic devastation for the German people. I wonder what bridges have been burned for future generations in the US. I can only assume this to was purposeful.

3. Yes, the Nazi's were socialists, contrary to lefty dogma that insists they were right wing. Here is what Joseph Goebbels had to say about economics.

"As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see, in the Hebrews, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation's goods".

Here is another quote from the National SOCIALIST party.

"We ask that government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interest of the financial interest. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand the greatest consideration of small business in the purchases of the national state, and municipal governments of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all around enlargement of our system of public education. We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

More than likely, you like what you hear from the National Socialists so far, eh? But as we all know, this welfare state, which started the first mandated health coverage, was all a ruse to subdue a war weary society like we have today in the US.

4. The Nazi regime were animal rights advocates. You think PETA is bad? Herman Goring had this to say about treating animals badly, "The torture and suffering in animal experiments and those who still think they can treat animals as inantimate property will be sent off the a concentration camp." Even Hitler was a vegetarian because of his love for animals. The Nazi regime passed the harshest laws against animal cruelty in the world up till that time.

5. The Nazi's employed Keynesian economics, who is the praised progressive economist of our time. In fact, at the time Keynes said that the Nazi's proved his economic theories correct even before he had a chance to finish them. Before the war broke out and the horrors of the Nazi regime were made public, Keynes commented that he was not only a fan of Nazi economics, he said that only in a totalitarian government can his policies work the best. In fact, a free market makes his theories almost unworkable.

6. Hitler went off the gold standard. Hitler said, "Gold is not necessary. I have no interest in gold. We will build a solid state, without an ounce of gold behind it." This was one goal progressives in the US accomplished under Nixon, as the gold standard was done away with. Now the US can pay for what it cannot afford, through revenue that it never earned, just like the Nazi regime.

7. World conquest. The US has troops in over 70 countries around the world. Conversely, the Nazi regime did not come close to this sort of world domination.

Of course, there is the little bit about genocide, but then, since Roe vs. Wade the US had murdered well over 50 million children. You might even call it a kinder/gentler genocide since no one hears screams or sees the bodies. But alas, like the killing of Jews was all about confiscating their gold so that it could be thrown into the Nazi war machines revenue box, so to babies are being killed in the US due to economic concerns. In fact, most mothers have abortions because they deem that they cannot afford them. Like all other forms of evil in the world, the love of money is the root of all evil. Too bad that the Jews were disproportionately wealthy in Nazi Germany. The trouble is, in the US Jews are also wealthy compared to the average American. Perhaps that is why the left winged Occupation Wall Street crowd is so vocal about Jewish bankers in Wall Street.

 

[Votto]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2A3ErgnKsw]Occupy Wall Street Hitler Youth, "Jew Bashing"......Mark Levin - YouTube[/ame]

This is a good example of how close the Nai's and progressives are to each other.

Say, Mark Levin is a Jew. Perhaps he is one of the elders of Zion. How many lefties here believe that? What should be done about the Jewish question other than run them out of Israel?

 

[johnwk]

Like it or not, Mark Levin has tapped into something here. .

He sure has and promotes, with one of his liberty amendments, keeping the socialist tax on incomes alive, promotes keeping alive the swindling operation at the Federal Reserve, and, he promotes a balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget.

JWK

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think focusing on spending is missing the point. If the goal is to restore limited government, we need to address the liberal interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause head on, deleting it or clarifying it as necessary. Likewise with the "Commerce" clause.

But the Dems and the Pubs, to an extent more than pubs are willing to recognize, are big government progressive parties.

Neither will support the elimination of the GW clause or the Commerce clause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Votto cherry picks.

Hitler and his buddies killed the Socialists.

Hitler and his buddies climbed into bed with the corporationists and Big Business.

Hitler had to go not because of "failed socialist policies" but the great economic growth had been created because of the financing of the German war machine, much like our own US industrial military complex, and war growth could not be sustained without going to war.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

And those would be mostly Republican states too. How many of them you think would be on board? There goes that limited government argument right out the window.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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!

You have to remember, though, that at that time Senators were appointed by the state governments and not elected, so they were true representatives of their state, unlike today. So, how often did they allow that to actually happen?

 

[LockeJaw]

The only reason I like Mark Levin is because he lead me to Tom Woods during the whole state nullification debate. Woods won me over. I'm still not an anarcho capitalist, but I am a minarchist voluntaryist libertarian.

When Mark denied that state nullification is legitimate, he lost me.

 

[JWBooth]

The only reason I like Mark Levin is because he lead me to Tom Woods during the whole state nullification debate. Woods won me over. I'm still not an anarcho capitalist, but I am a minarchist voluntaryist libertarian.

When Mark denied that state nullification is legitimate, he lost me.

Levin still ducks the debate challenge.
Were he confident in the correctness of his position....

 

[Flopper]

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.

And those would be mostly Republican states too. How many of them you think would be on board? There goes that limited government argument right out the window.

Of the 27 Republican state legislatures, I doubt you could get more than a dozen to actually agree to ask for a constitutional convention to create a balance budget amendment. The problem is not just lost of income by the states but the resulting restructuring of state finances and laws which would be required. Most of the states must balance their budgets. When financial emergencies arise, states can easily obtain loans, grants, advanced payments from the federal government. However if the federal government is also living under a balance budget requirement, all states would have to build in contingencies in their budgets to handle emergencies. Also, federal funds the states depend on throughout the year for Medicaid, welfare, education, highways, and other expenses would always be uncertain. So if the federal government ran short toward the end of the year, funds would be cut to the states and states would have to have contingency funds.

 

[Votto]

Votto cherry picks.

Hitler and his buddies killed the Socialists.

Hitler and his buddies climbed into bed with the corporationists and Big Business.

Hitler had to go not because of "failed socialist policies" but the great economic growth had been created because of the financing of the German war machine, much like our own US industrial military complex, and war growth could not be sustained without going to war.

Cherry picks?

Them be a lot of cherries.

As for killing socialists, sure, collectivists will slit the throat of anyone or anything that they deem a threat. Hell, Stalin killed half the population of communist Russia.

As for Hitler climbing into bed with corporations, Hitler once said that there was no need to nationalize industry, he only had to nationalize the people. In the spirit of entities like the Fed and Fannie Mae and GM, why own them in name when you can pull their strings behind the curtains? Your point just added a cherry to my basket. Thanks for that.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

I am totally in favor of repealing the 16th amendment, but it would be a big mistake unless the 17th amendment is repealed at the same time.

Currently, the states, as soverign entities, are not represented in congress. Such a situation would allow the federal politicians to run rampant over spending while laying the burden for paying for the spending binge on the states. With Senators once again forced to be responsive to the state legislatures, sanity could be restored.

The one thing that I disagree with Mark Levin is the extent to which the Article V process needs to come.

What they must work on are two issues, spending and term limits. If they then add a myriad of other issues that do not have the backing of 80% of the people, then the likelihood of the process failing increases that much more.

I would personally like to start with just two amendments, term limits and a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

You do realize that if they pass an amendment to balance the budget, they will just ignore it. This is a process, one that needs to take place. Nothing will change over night. However, the term limits will flush out the system, which is perhaps the most needed event right now.

Your last paragraph is truer than you think. A balanced budget amendment would have to contain an emergency clause, and congress would just declare an emergency and spend as usual.

 

[Erand7899]

Who needs a constitutional convention to change the Constitution? There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution without ever having a Constitutional convention.

The only realistic purpose of a Constitutional convention is to throw out the current constitution and write a new on from scratch. I do not believe anyone trusts anyone else enough to support that idea.

Seriously, the only thing we need are laws (possibly a single constitutional amendment) that gets big money out of the electoral process. Once that's accomplished the politicians will be free to make whatever changes the believe to be best for the American people, including Constitutional amendments.

Until that happens, the politicians will remain beholden to big money and any changes in the constitution will be made only for the benefit of big money.

First we need to insure that the politicians are beholden to the American people and no one else, then we can consider supporting changes to the Constitution.

You cannot get big money out of politics with laws or constitutional amendments. All you will accomplish would be to drive the money underground and out of sight.

Guess who benefits the most from big money in politics? The mainstream television industry. Most of that money goes to buying TV spots.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

It was also known as the Red State Tax Plan.

Each State based on population as a whole had to pay for the operations of the Gov't. The States decided the best way to come up with the money.

Under that aspect, the States would be less likely to overspend when they get the bill.

Many states have Balanced budgets, and cut programs to pay when revenues are low. States DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO COIN CURRENCY as the Fed does.

Live within your means is what the hell it really means and stop destroying our currency.

Of the Amendments that I'm partial to.

Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. Banks no longer control our currency. The last time that was stopped was Andrew Jackson with the Second National Bank.

Repeal the 17th. Allow state legislatures to select Senators. If Senators go against the state then they get recalled. Which is a check and balance of power as intended. The popular vote option was specific to the House of Representatives. Had we wanted a PURE DEMOCRACY then no Senate was even needed.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

Term Limits on serving in the Senate and Congress.

Spelling out the limits of the Feds and their agencies. Many agencies now produce regulation through old laws or court cases without the consent of the People. aka the Congress and Senate. Regulations should get final approval from our reps and not a law passed a hundred years ago.

Those are high on my list. It is needed.

 

[Votto]

I am totally in favor of repealing the 16th amendment, but it would be a big mistake unless the 17th amendment is repealed at the same time.

Currently, the states, as soverign entities, are not represented in congress. Such a situation would allow the federal politicians to run rampant over spending while laying the burden for paying for the spending binge on the states. With Senators once again forced to be responsive to the state legislatures, sanity could be restored.

The one thing that I disagree with Mark Levin is the extent to which the Article V process needs to come.

What they must work on are two issues, spending and term limits. If they then add a myriad of other issues that do not have the backing of 80% of the people, then the likelihood of the process failing increases that much more.

I would personally like to start with just two amendments, term limits and a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

You do realize that if they pass an amendment to balance the budget, they will just ignore it. This is a process, one that needs to take place. Nothing will change over night. However, the term limits will flush out the system, which is perhaps the most needed event right now.

Your last paragraph is truer than you think. A balanced budget amendment would have to contain an emergency clause, and congress would just declare an emergency and spend as usual.

If they passed a balanced budget amendment, it would probably be ignored at first anyway like the way they ignore laws regarding immigration.

This is a process, one that is long overdue.

 

[Flopper]

I am totally in favor of repealing the 16th amendment, but it would be a big mistake unless the 17th amendment is repealed at the same time.

Currently, the states, as soverign entities, are not represented in congress. Such a situation would allow the federal politicians to run rampant over spending while laying the burden for paying for the spending binge on the states. With Senators once again forced to be responsive to the state legislatures, sanity could be restored.

The one thing that I disagree with Mark Levin is the extent to which the Article V process needs to come.

What they must work on are two issues, spending and term limits. If they then add a myriad of other issues that do not have the backing of 80% of the people, then the likelihood of the process failing increases that much more.

I would personally like to start with just two amendments, term limits and a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

You do realize that if they pass an amendment to balance the budget, they will just ignore it. This is a process, one that needs to take place. Nothing will change over night. However, the term limits will flush out the system, which is perhaps the most needed event right now.

Your last paragraph is truer than you think. A balanced budget amendment would have to contain an emergency clause, and congress would just declare an emergency and spend as usual.

Yes, there would have to be an emergency clause.

However, the most serious problem of requiring a balanced budget every year is it would raise serious risks of tipping a weak economy into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.

 

[Avatar4321]

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!

Cause that's the way to balance the budget, burden the people even more.

Heaven forbid we cut a dollar of spending. Clearly teaching people in africa how to clean their genitals is a vitally important use of the labor of this people. There just isn't a single solitary program that is unnecessary or wasteful.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only realistic purpose of a Constitutional convention is to throw out the current constitution and write a new on from scratch.

Do you actually think that 3/4 of the states would ratify that?

The mindless hysteria is getting deeper.

 

[johnwk]

The only realistic purpose of a Constitutional convention is to throw out the current constitution and write a new on from scratch.

Do you actually think that 3/4 of the states would ratify that?

The mindless hysteria is getting deeper.

But they would ratify Mark Levin's crap!


If you really believe Mark Levin supports and defends our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent, his proposed Liberty Amendments, if adopted during his proposed constitutional convention, would in fact undo the miracle our Founders created and broaden the iron fist of our federal government to no end, and make its current acts of tyranny constitutional, and the supreme law of the land!



See Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Mark Levin loves to TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM and how it attacks rights associated with property ownership, and how government force is used under socialism to take and then transfer the property of one group of individuals to another group selectively determined by those who hold political power. This transfer of property is primarily accomplished through a socialist tax on profits, gains, and other “incomes” which seeks out the most productive hard working citizens, taxes them, and then redistributes the property they have earned to those who enjoy riding in government’s free cheese wagon who are expected to return the favor by prostituting their vote to those giving free government cheese which in turn keeps socialists at the helm of government power. So why does Mark Levin promote with one of his “liberty amendments” the socialist tax on profits, gains and other “incomes” which is the engine that fuels our socialist free cheese wagon?

Why is it that Mark Levin will not promote 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.



These words, if added to our Constitution, would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, and they would end the socialist experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address