- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
Not for fifty years.
Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo has Mark Meckler on to promote a Constitutional Convention.
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #42
That is correct. Meckler is calling for a convention allowed under Article V and wants to have the required number of states call for the convention, which would then allow for amending our constitution.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
You have a better chance for starting the opening game for this Yankee season than having a convention called during the next decade.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 130,668
- 74,827
- 2,605
And won't he be shocked as hell when the blue states show up to repeal the Second Amendment!
Be careful what you wish for.
- Thread starter
- #45
So, why is Mark Meckler running around the country trying to drum up support to convene a convention, and why are so many of our media personalities, especially "conservatives", giving Meckler a giant microphone and assisting him in his venture? There is a fishy smell to this whole thing.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 130,668
- 74,827
- 2,605
As I mentioned earlier, I've been hearing these constitutional convention drumbeats my entire life.
Guys like this get a microphone because these 24 hour "news" channels need to fill a LOT of air time. Every day.
A Blackhawk crashes into a passenger jet? We need to bloviate, speculate, and narrate a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit 24/7 despite being in an information vacuum until the facts come out.
Someone hammered Paul Pelosi? We need to invent a gay prostitute story to keep our circle jerk talking while we have no oxygen to our brains in this information vacuum.
Some guy wants a Constitutional Convention? OH THANK GOD! Get him out here!
- Thread starter
- #47
No need for a con con to bring to fruition Trump's "no tax on tips"
.
While Mark Meckler continues to push for an Article V convention to rewrite our Constitution __ a primary excuse given for supporting a constitutional convention is to adopt meaningful fiscal restraints upon Congress and adopt a balanced budget amendment ___ Trump has called for "no tax on tips" and the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has assured us Trump is still committed to keeping that promise.
.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has assured us Trump is still committed to "no tax on tips".
One way to accomplish "no tax on tips" and Meckler's desire for meaningful fiscal restraints upon Congress, including a balanced budget and stopping Congress from adding to our national debt year after year is, to start supporting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which would, if adopted, accomplish both Trump's promise for "no tax on tips" and Meckler's expressed objectives.
Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment
“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to extinguish the previous year’s deficit caused by Congress’s borrowing.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected.
(See: Chap. LXXV. An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States, July 14, 179 when the direct apportioned tax was first used) and lists each States fair share.
NOTE: Our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit is:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX
Total U.S. Population
The above formula, as intended by our Founding Fathers, is to ensure that each State’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state to lay and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation on time.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
16th Amendment is going nowhere.
- Thread starter
- #49
What is your point? The 16th Amendment did not repeal the requirement that a "direct" tax still requires apportionment, as indicated by our very own Supreme Court:
Our Supreme Court has confirmed this fact in a number of cases, e.g., Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920): “The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.” BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.” and more recently by Justice Roberts when he stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment” Roberts stated:
“The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”
Trump can end today's federal tax on tips by an EO asserting the tax is direct and requires apportionment
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
- Thread starter
- #51
Did you know wage earners were conned into paying a tax on earned wages under the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942?
.
When the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942 was legislated, laboring class people were not taxed on their earned wages. To do so would be considered as a direct tax and required apportionment.
This “temporary” tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a temporary measure, a patriotic necessity to fund the war effort. Even Hollywood’s elite got in the act and lent its hand to the FDR regime to con and pressure wage earners to start paying the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942 . . . a direct tax they were not subject to unless apportioned.
Here is an example of propaganda that was used to pressure wage earners to start paying a tax they were not constitutionally compelled to do:
.
The Victory Tax of 1942 was actually repealed in 1944, but in name only, and continues to this very day under an Act titled the “Individual Income Tax Act of 1944”. Keep in mind that wage earners were first conned and pressured into paying a “temporary” un-apportioned direct tax on their earned wage as an emergency because of war, and once conditioned to paying it, the tax law was cleverly restructured to continue the tax under a new name by the "Individual Income Tax Act of 1944".
Trump would certainly be acting within his powers to issue an Executive Order ending a federal tax on tips unless the tax is apportioned.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
I doubt the Court will consider the 1942 Victory Tax at all.
- Thread starter
- #53
Did someone suggest they would?
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
Then why mention it. Nothing to do with the topic here.
- Thread starter
- #55
Oh, but it does have something to do with the subject . . . Congress cannot be trusted, and Congress [and our Supreme Court] would be calling the shots should a convention be called.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
They should be.
- Thread starter
- #57
The very swamp snakes who now cause our misery? That is who you want to control, manipulate and regulate a convention if called?
- Thread starter
- #58
.
Mark Levin wants a convention to advance his Liberty Amendments
One of Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” which he wants adopted during a Constitutional Convention (see APPENDIX, THE AMENDMENTS, pages 209-219) designed to Limit Federal Spending and Taxing contains the following language:
4. Spending
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.
The question is, does Levin’s amendment, which he wants written into our Constitution during a constitutional convention meet necessary criteria as follows?
• Does it allow Congress to raise all necessary revenue, including in times of emergency?
• Does it limit how Congress raises its revenue in a manner that is consistent with our nation’s founding principles?
• Does it allow for spending as found necessary by Congress during the course of a fiscal year?
• Does it create a real and immediate moment of accountability for each State’s Congressional Delegation, when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses?
• Does it contain any escape clauses rendering the amendment meaningless or allow Congress to effectively add to the national debt, year after year?
.
Mark Levin wants a convention to advance his Liberty Amendments
One of Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” which he wants adopted during a Constitutional Convention (see APPENDIX, THE AMENDMENTS, pages 209-219) designed to Limit Federal Spending and Taxing contains the following language:
4. Spending
SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.
The question is, does Levin’s amendment, which he wants written into our Constitution during a constitutional convention meet necessary criteria as follows?
• Does it allow Congress to raise all necessary revenue, including in times of emergency?
• Does it limit how Congress raises its revenue in a manner that is consistent with our nation’s founding principles?
• Does it allow for spending as found necessary by Congress during the course of a fiscal year?
• Does it create a real and immediate moment of accountability for each State’s Congressional Delegation, when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses?
• Does it contain any escape clauses rendering the amendment meaningless or allow Congress to effectively add to the national debt, year after year?
.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 39,639
- 19,623
- 1,788
Won't happen.
Similar threads
