Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College

[johnwk]

You just go right ahead and try to bastardize the Constitution, the number of electors per state have nothing to do with taxes. You want to pretend otherwise, be my guest.

SEE: Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard ---each state's population size.

JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

I see you are being criticised for your views on this same subject over at Free Republic.

Yup! Criticized but not refuted!


JWK

 

[OKTexas]

SEE: Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard ---each state's population size.

JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

I see you are being criticised for your views on this same subject over at Free Republic.

Yup! Criticized but not refuted!


JWK

You have been proven flat wrong, if you can't see that you might want to seek professional help.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the 16th Amendment settled any question about apportionment regarding direct taxes....

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

You are very much mistaken about direct taxes being relieved from apportionment by the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The amendment mentions nothing about “direct” taxes.

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

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

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

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

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


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

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

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

JWK



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

see how far that gets you with the IRS....

 

[johnwk]

the 16th Amendment settled any question about apportionment regarding direct taxes....

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

You are very much mistaken about direct taxes being relieved from apportionment by the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The amendment mentions nothing about “direct” taxes.

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

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

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

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

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


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

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

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

JWK



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

see how far that gets you with the IRS....

What does the IRS have to do with the allotted number of Electoral College votes each state gets which is determined by the rule of apportionment and which ties Representation and taxation by the same standard?


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

JWK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act and Republicans were all in favor of those unconstitutional measures.

Why the opposition now? Because a "Marxist" was elected? 95% of economic gains since 2009 went to the richest 1%. Please explain how that is "Marxism".

Fidel Castro had the biggest fleet of Striker Sport fishing yachts on the planet

You don't know Marxism

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You are very much mistaken about direct taxes being relieved from apportionment by the adoption of the 16th Amendment. The amendment mentions nothing about “direct” taxes.

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

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

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

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

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


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

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

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

JWK



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

see how far that gets you with the IRS....

What does the IRS have to do with the allotted number of Electoral College votes each state gets which is determined by the rule of apportionment and which ties Representation and taxation by the same standard?


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

JWK

nothing...are you having a circular argument with yourself...?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's why we must eliminate the Income Tax

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a great point! Staggering in its simplicity!

"To those whom much is given, much is expected." You want 55 electoral votes, you should pay, slightly more that 10% of what the Federal government is asking

 

[johnwk]

see how far that gets you with the IRS....

What does the IRS have to do with the allotted number of Electoral College votes each state gets which is determined by the rule of apportionment and which ties Representation and taxation by the same standard?


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

JWK

nothing...are you having a circular argument with yourself...?

You brought up the IRS, not me.

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

 

[johnwk]

What a great point! Staggering in its simplicity!

"To those whom much is given, much is expected." You want 55 electoral votes, you should pay, slightly more that 10% of what the Federal government is asking

Sounds much more acceptable than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Our parasites on Capitol Hill seem to need an awful lot ... outrageous salaries, top of the shelf medical care, huge pensions, etc., all of which is funded by taxing the earned wages of our nation's hard working people.

JWK





If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8HRGWKCRc]FREE BACON[/ame], free bacon, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

 

[johnwk]

I was listening to Mark Levin yesterday and a caller to his show asked him if our Constitution led to America becoming a super power, why should we change it? Mark Levin responded by talking about the Declaration of Independence, the separation of powers, and a few other things but never answered the caller’s question which seemed to be a reasonable one to be answered.


I too would like to hear Mr. Levin explain to us why we should call a convention which would put our Constitution on the chopping block to be tinkered with and dissected by those who now hold political power in our federal and state governments. Does Mark not realize the people who would be in charge of a convention if one were called would be the very same federal and state actors who are responsible for the tyranny and sufferings we now experience? Why on earth would those who suffer under existing federal and state imposed tyranny want to open the door to a convention giving folks in our federal and state governments the opportunity to make constitutional the existing tyranny they now rain down upon the people?


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.

And how did our founding fathers begin the process of rising up and confronting tyranny? It began with a number of formal petitions of grievances placed in the hands of King George e.g., see Journals of the Coninental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774

I believe the people’s first step in correcting our problem ought to begin with uniting and agreeing upon an official document stating our grievances and then formally placing the petition in the hands of Congress, our President and in the hands of each member of our Supreme Court which has likewise been a party to the tyranny we suffer. This was one of the first steps taken by our founding fathers. Is the right of the people to petition the Government for a “redress of grievances” not contained in our Constitution and one of the specific tools given to us by our founding fathers to be used under existing circumstances?

The people cannot expect the yoke of oppression to be released from their necks unless they rise to the occasion and forcefully work to remove it. Indeed, the future of America is in the hands of the American People, but they must rise and confront those who now cause their countless miseries and take back the federal and state government!

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.

 

[Votto]

I was listening to Mark Levin yesterday and a caller to his show asked him if our Constitution led to America becoming a super power, why should we change it? Mark Levin responded by talking about the Declaration of Independence, the separation of powers, and a few other things but never answered the caller’s question which seemed to be a reasonable one to be answered.


I too would like to hear Mr. Levin explain to us why we should call a convention which would put our Constitution on the chopping block to be tinkered with and dissected by those who now hold political power in our federal and state governments. Does Mark not realize the people who would be in charge of a convention if one were called would be the very same federal and state actors who are responsible for the tyranny and sufferings we now experience? Why on earth would those who suffer under existing federal and state imposed tyranny want to open the door to a convention giving folks in our federal and state governments the opportunity to make constitutional the existing tyranny they now rain down upon the people?


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.

And how did our founding fathers begin the process of rising up and confronting tyranny? It began with a number of formal petitions of grievances placed in the hands of King George e.g., see Journals of the Coninental Congress - The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774

I believe the people’s first step in correcting our problem ought to begin with uniting and agreeing upon an official document stating our grievances and then formally placing the petition in the hands of Congress, our President and in the hands of each member of our Supreme Court which has likewise been a party to the tyranny we suffer. This was one of the first steps taken by our founding fathers. Is the right of the people to petition the Government for a “redress of grievances” not contained in our Constitution and one of the specific tools given to us by our founding fathers to be used under existing circumstances?

The people cannot expect the yoke of oppression to be released from their necks unless they rise to the occasion and forcefully work to remove it. Indeed, the future of America is in the hands of the American People, but they must rise and confront those who now cause their countless miseries and take back the federal and state government!

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.

Why must the Constitution be amended? It is because Progressives amended it at the turn of the 20th century turning the country into a collectivist state. The only way to fix it is to amend the damange done.

Essentially, the federal government was given the power of the purse at the turn of the 20th century which enabled them to now bribe states into doing their bidding. Now states are told that federal dollars will be withheld if they don't do the bidding of king Obama, so they buckle.

Over 70% of Americans favor term limits for a Congress who has only a 10% approval rating but keep getting elected anyway and also favor a balanced budget amendment for the federal government so that they will stop buying off everyone on the planet to do their bidding. Of course, you oppose this and favor another $17 trillion in debt no doubt. Just know that you are in a minority and your island gets smaller every day.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution says nothing about the Electoral College having anything to do with the amount of taxes paidd by each State.

SEE: Article II, Section 1:


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress


And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard --- each state's population size.


What do you have against the rule requiring representation with a proportional financial obligation?


Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

You're lying.

 

[nodoginnafight]

actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!

I didn't know California had a president

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution says nothing about the Electoral College having anything to do with the amount of taxes paidd by each State.

SEE: Article II, Section 1:


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress


And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard --- each state's population size.


What do you have against the rule requiring representation with a proportional financial obligation?


Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

You're lying.

That's a pretty strong statement. What am I supposedly lying about? Quote my words.


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

 

[The Rabbi]

SEE: Article II, Section 1:


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress


And how is each state's number of representatives determined? It is determined by the rule of apportionment which ties both representation and taxation by the same standard --- each state's population size.


What do you have against the rule requiring representation with a proportional financial obligation?


Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

You're lying.

That's a pretty strong statement. What am I supposedly lying about? Quote my words.


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

The Electoral College has nothing to do with taxation. You simply made that up.

 

[johnwk]

You're lying.

That's a pretty strong statement. What am I supposedly lying about? Quote my words.


JWK


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

The Electoral College has nothing to do with taxation. You simply made that up.

You are very much mistaken. The number of each states Electoral College votes is determined by the rule of apportionment. And, the rule of apportionment ties taxation and representation by the same standard ___ each State’s population size.

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


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



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



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


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

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

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


In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

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


Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41



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


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

JWK





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

 

[The Rabbi]

You're simply making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Electoral College tied to taxation. You lose.

 

[natstew]

The Constitution says nothing about the Electoral College having anything to do with the amount of taxes paidd by each State.

Furthermore, the Constitution says nothing about The People chosing the President or the Electors.

Its supposed to be done by the State Legislatures.

16th and 17 Amendments changed this, and went a long ways in destroying our Republic as founded. Whether intended or not, these two, and other, not all, but some Amendments favor existing Political Parties.

 

[natstew]

Mark Levin omitted vital information when explaining the Electoral College

Coming as a surprise to no one.

Anyone who listens to Levin about anything has only himself to blame.

No, he did not omit vital information. Read the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.
You attack Levin because you can't honestly attack his message.

Typical Left Wing liar!