Skip to comments.An Article V Convention
Posted on 03/24/2010 5:23:49 PM PDT by SalAOR
Article V of the United States Constitution discusses the concept of amending the Constitution. Most people are familiar with the traditional way of amending the Constitution 2/3 of each house of Congress proposes amendments, which then have to be ratified by the state legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states. But there is another way to amend the Constitution, and it has gotten increased attention in recent days:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
The states can draft a call for a Constitutional convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution, which then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable.
(Excerpt) Read more at axisofright.com ...
I’m too told to fight this battle anymore. You take over.
We can debate whether or not a particular amendment proposal at a convention should be an amendment. If we believe in the Constitution, we cannot debate that once the states have applied, which they have, the Constitution can be vetoed. To give the government that authority destroys the entire Constitution.
The dems will not rewrite the constitution, they don’t have the power in the countryside. They have the power in Washington but not enough at the state level.
The ratification process is nothing like an election process, Alaska is as powerful as California; New Hampshire is as powerful as New York. Ratifcation is a republican process and requires 38 states to amend the Constitution, or alternatively only 13 states to stop any crazy amendment.
It is the Conservatives together with the independents and Tea Party members that will rewrite in the sense of repeal.
First and foremost repeal the 16th Amendment because that is the amendment from which the Left derives its power. Repeal the 16th and socialism dies in the United States.
I just wanted to say to Kellis91789 and others on this thread who advocate for the Article V Convention, that you are great Americans! I don’t know what was put in the water to make others fear the very thing designed to deliver us from our corporate totalitarianism, but we are getting closer to prevaling.
Please keep up the fight, as I myself will.
To those who respond with the same knee-jerk criticism of the Article V Convention you endanger our freedoms. We are now at a point in American History where we’ll either coerce the call out of the Congress (by raising awareness to the point it spills off the blogs and into the mainstream), or we will die with a whimper.
It’s convention or bust. That’s where we are.
Thanks again to my fellow compatriots who advocate for the Article V Convention.
“Repeal the 16th and socialism dies in the United States.”
I’m not so sure. I don’t think it is so much the income tax as it is the ability to tax ‘progressively’ and thereby untax people who can still vote for handouts.
The FairTax is a good example of a tax that is not an income tax, yet its ‘progressive’ nature would still enable socialism. It untaxes all those people that spend below the poverty line via its prebate — and hence provides progressives with incentives to raise the definition of ‘poverty line’ to buy their votes — and at the same time, it increases taxes on high earners to fund SS/M even though they get no additional benefits. The FairTax even brags that it is ‘progressive’, which means it understands upfront that it is starting off with one foot already on the slippery slope of finding ways to target the wealthy for revenue while buying votes by untaxing the poor. A version of the FairTax which left SS/M funding separate and had no rebate would not be ‘progressive’ and would only have to be 10% to replace the income tax revenue. It would also eliminate the need to report income, whereas the FairTax HR25 still requires income reporting in order to calculate SS/M credit. That creates an incentive for workers to fraudulently inflate their reported income in order to boost SS/M benefits calculations. So if you really want to eliminate income reporting requirements and socialism, you need to repeal the 16th and then replace it with something new that doesn’t have the socialism problems HR25 exhibits.
- the notion of what is the power to tax without the 16th Amendment, and related concepts such as apportionment, direct versus indirect tax.
- the notion of Rebate (also referred to as prebate); how it solves a historical problem, the "disproportionate burden" argument, one that brought about the income tax and its related social underpinnings
Allow me first though to take your comments one-by-one:
The FairTax is a good example of a tax that is not an income tax, yet its progressive nature would still enable socialism.
If by socialism. you mean the power to redistribute wealth via a tax code, in other words 'taxation socialism' versus 'spending socialism', then you misunderstand the FairTax and also the Constitution without the 16th (C-16).
The power to wreak 'spending socialism' was always there in pre-16th America (I also call it pre-1913 America or Excise Tax America), and in fact there were many heated arguments directed at Congress' spending tax revenues on social urgencies such as social consequences of non-war related devasting urban fires. Excise tax Americans were angered that their taxes were steered at helping the misfortunate because they thought this was rightfully the role of charities, churches and concerned individuals of means. But the point is that the Constitution never forbade and does not today forbid steering tax revenue to spending that Congress deems a priority.
But what was not present and could not exist under C-16 America is an ability to target taxation at individuals or groups. So wealth redistribution was greatly stymied by the inability to target the rich or even the almost rich.
It untaxes all those people that spend below the poverty line via its prebate and hence provides progressives with incentives to raise the definition of poverty line to buy their votes
It untaxes EVERYONE below the poverty line in terms of 'spending'.
You misunderstand an important point here, the NRST is applied to all SPENDING ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE or poverty rate. Let's tighten the meanings of terms and phrases to be more precise, just as they are in the FairTax legislation: the FairTax NRST Rebate as it relates to the poverty rate, is applied not to the 'poverty rate income', it is applied to 'poverty rate spending', or more generally the NRST/Rebate is independent of the 'level of income' but is applied to a 'level of spending'.
Warren Buffett is untaxed on his spending below the poverty rate just as grandmothers who subsist entirely on social security.
Because of this equality of all individuals under the FairTax tax code, it is made constitutional in a C-16 America. <-----This is a key point.
and at the same time, it increases taxes on high earners to fund SS/M even though they get no additional benefits.
This statement is false. Nowhere in the FairTax legislation are high earners ever targeted.
The FairTax even brags that it is progressive, which means it understands upfront that it is starting off with one foot already on the slippery slope of finding ways to target the wealthy for revenue while buying votes by untaxing the poor.
The FairTax is not 'progressive' in the sense of socialism or anything politic, and in fact the FairTax is regressive in the sense that it captures revenue from all retail spending sources and not just earners. We use the adjectives 'regressive' and 'progressive' to describe a characteristic of a tax, in the same sense that an engineer would describe high and low humidity in relative terns to different background temperatures.
The FairTax, which is an alternative tax code that encompasses not only tax, but collection, enforcement, rebate, transition and a number of things that any tax code must address, contains a hybrid regressive-progressive tax system that retains the benefits of regressive and progressive systems while doing away with those aspects that are unfair in each. The FairTax is a brilliant innovation in tax engineering that can be seen in that sense, as an engineered system, rather than some social justice scheme of wealth distribution.
Here's a reason why we need a little progressivity in the tax code:
A version of the FairTax which left SS/M funding separate and had no rebate would not be progressive and would only have to be 10% to replace the income tax revenue.
The Rebate only accounts for about 1% to 3% on average of the NRST rate. Every person that studies the FairTax and comes to an understanding of it would gladly trade that small percent for the benefits that the FairTax provides such as abolishing the Income tax code completely and having one simple transparent tax rate whereas at the sametime avoiding the historical "disproportionate burden" argument that was used to bring about the Income tax in the first place.
Doing away with the Rebate encourages Americans to revisit the historical argument for the Income tax, why the system of excise taxes was so unfair. Here's a post that gives a sense of why people were willing to consider an Income tax:
It would also eliminate the need to report income, whereas the FairTax HR25 still requires income reporting in order to calculate SS/M credit.
The FairTax tax code in HR 25 does not require income reporting by individuals, it requires as would any tax code that employers continue sending information about employee earnings so that SSA can credit wage earners. In other words, the FairTax design does not do away with Social Security but it does not tax it either. Because the FairTax is more than just a tax, because it is an entirely new tax code to include enforcement, collection and accounting, it must account for programs that are already in effect such as social security, and it must even account for the 3 years of income tax reporting preceding its enactment as a transition accounting.
If Americans voted to do away with social security, then the FairTax would delete the requirement for employers to report quarterly their employee's earnings. These quarterly reports are only required for SSA purposes and any tax code would need to state a reporting requirement as long as social security exists.
That creates an incentive for workers to fraudulently inflate their reported income in order to boost SS/M benefits calculations.
How is that different from the tax code now?
Because of the tone and attitude of your comments, I suspect that you will respond by flaming away because you have allowed your opinion to set and harden so much that the idea of reconsideration is not in your cards so to speak.
Why do FairTax supporters always assume nobody else knows HR25. I have read it through more than once and I’ve carefully considered its points. You might remember that I was a supporter for several years and argued vehemently on its behalf right here on FR. If you can’t see my points, then you are not looking at HR25 honestly.
“... and in fact there were many heated arguments directed at Congress’ spending tax revenues on social urgencies ...”
I said nothing about the FairTax effect on social spending, with the obvious exception of the prebate. The fact is inescapable, however, that the FairTax completely untaxes some voters and those people happen to be the recipients of most social spending. So the beneficiaries will not have to pay for it and therefore have an incentive to vote for social spending. They would not have this incentive without the prebate.
“It untaxes EVERYONE below the poverty line in terms of ‘spending’. “
You are parsing the meaning here. It REDUCES the overall tax rate on those spending above the poverty line, yielding a negligible benefit to those with high incomes and spending while it UNTAXES only the people spending below the poverty line.
“...an ability to target taxation at individuals or groups.”
There is no difference between targeting groups with higher tax rates and taxing everyone, but then targeting some groups with tax relief. The wealthy benefit much less from the prebate than do the poor, therefor the wealthy have been targeted to pay a higher effective overall tax rate. Without the prebate, both wealthy and poor would pay the same tax rate on their spending. To claim that is ‘regressive’ because the poor spending a larger portion of their income is a ridiculous liberal argument. It excuses the working poor for spending every dime rather than saving a portion just as high-earners are ‘supposed to’. It is a plantation mentality that assumes the low earner is incapable of managing their money as well as the high earner, and that less should be expected of them.
“The Rebate only accounts for about 1% to 3% on average of the NRST rate. Every person that studies the FairTax and comes to an understanding of it would gladly trade that small percent for the benefits that the FairTax provides “
Try not to speak for me, please. I have studied the FairTax, and I understand it perfectly, and I am NOT willing to trade it. And your “estimate” of 1% to 3% is a bit low. In 2003 when Karen Walby at FairTax.org put together her numbers for both a national and State versions of FairTax, she put the figure at 19.1% without rebate and 23.8% with rebate. So it amounts to 4.7% of the FairTax rate, not “1% to 3%”. It is not a minor factor and I would think the way it skews the effective tax rate to hit the wealthy is unfair even if it cost nothing.
“This statement is false. Nowhere in the FairTax legislation are high earners ever targeted. “
Of course they are. The current SS tax applies only to the first $106K of earnings, making the MAXIMUM that anybody must pay into SS ~$13K per year. Under the FairTax, somebody who spends $500K will have over $35K of their FairTax diverted into SS yet he gets the exact same amount back from SS as he would today. He gets no additional benefit even though he is now paying an additional $22K each year. You say he wasn’t “targeted”, but he sure got hit anyway, didn’t he ? This is an irrefutable fact. Think about it. The SS tax today applies to all earned income at a rate of 12.4% (half from employee and half from employer), yet the FairTax diverts only 7.5% of its 23% rate. So a single person today earning & spending $106K has $13K contributed in their name but under the FT less than $7K gets diverted to SS ( because a portion of the 7.5% goes to Medicare). Everybody earning & spending under $200K pays less into SS than today. Yet HR25 claims to fully fund SS, which means the rest of the money has to come from other people — namely, those people earning & spending MORE than $200K, who will pay more into SS than they did before.
“The FairTax tax code in HR 25 does not require income reporting by individuals, it requires as would any tax code that employers continue sending information about employee earnings so that SSA can credit wage earners.”
Which opens the door to people being under-credited compared to their actual FairTax contribution to SS if they have non-wage income they are spending in addition to their reported wage income. I’m semi-retired and will earn only $9K this year but will spend $40K. I would be paying into SS via the FT the same as somebody else who earned & spent $40K, but I will get SS credits only on the $9K of earned income.
“How is that different from the tax code now? “
Have you noticed the $5,000 limit on reportable tip income according to HR25 ? Waiters that spend $15K from wages, but a total of $50K including spending tip income, will receive an SS benefit based on the theory that they only spent $20K max. So they get cheated out of their SS benefits. At the same time it opens the door to self-employed people who really only made $25K reporting that they made $100K, since there is no additional tax owed, but they can boost their eventual SS check from $1,000/month to $2,000/month. Under the separate FICA tax, nobody over reports their wages because it means higher taxes owed immediately. The bottom line is that funding SS from reported wages, while taxing something other than reported wages creates inequities all around.
“Because of the tone and attitude of your comments, I suspect that you will respond by flaming away because you have allowed your opinion to set and harden...”
Nice Alinsky tactic. Did you learn that in your socialist handbook, “Rules for Radicals” ?
You say the FT doesn’t “target” the wealthy, but if that’s true, there is an awful lot of collateral damage to the wealthy. And it can’t work, because the FairTax only applies to Retail Sales within the USA — meaning the wealthy have a huge incentive to spend their money elsewhere, even living expat while running their businesses and investments from abroad. No more American yacht builders or private jet builders. No more Tiffany’s. No American fashion designers. Why would anybody buy those things here with a 23% tax on them when they could buy them and keep them abroad with no tax ? Will people spending $10K on an engagement ring buy it here, or buy it while on a trip to Cancun that will cost much less than the $3,000 FairTax amount ? Hr25’s plan to tax purchases made abroad and brought into the country is unworkable. Wealthy American returning ‘home’ will feel like they have to dress down and leave their best clothes and jewelry elsewhere before visiting for fear of being taxed on arrival. Won’t America be a socialist paradise with none of the trappings of the old burgoise lifestyles ?
The wealthiest 1% of Americans spend $2T/yr, and a 23% FT will ensure little of it is spent here anymore. Preying on these people can’t work and it won’t work, leaving a $400B hole in the FT revenue projections. Which will require an even higher rate than 23% to make up the shortfall, which will drive away more than the initial 1%, requiring a still higher rate, etc. I don’t know about you, but I LIKE having wealthy neighbors, and expecting them to pay a dime more than they would have to elsewhere is going to drive them away.
All of the amendments I see have problems that would probably prevent their passage. For example, although I support balancing the Federal Budget, a Constitutional Amendment doing so would not have allowed Reagan to run deficits building the military to defeat the Soviet Union in the cold war.
But there is one amendment I believe in:
Amendment 28 Repeal of Public Law No. 111-148.
Public Law No. 111-148, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and any amendments thereto, are repealed.
It only looks back, so it doesnt do anything except erase Obamacare. It would be a way for the states to exercise their authority over the Constitution (and therefore over the Federal Government), and let them know that there is a line they cannot cross. I have lots of details on the proposal at www.constitutionalrepeal.com
And as for those of you who fear a constitutional convention, respectfully, your fears are unfounded. There are only two ways to PROPOSE an amendment:
2. A Convention to Propose Amendments with delegates appointed by the State Legislatures
After an Amendment is proposed, there are only two ways for it to be RATIFIED:
1. Ratification by State Legislatures (used in all amendments except Amendment 21).
2. Through State Conventions (used in the ratification of Amendment 21). These are different from the convention used to prose the amendment.
There is no loophole where crazy left wing radicals can get an amendment through that redefines marriage or repeals the second amendment.
Heres a thought experiment to dispel your concerns. Since all amendments must be approved by three-quarter of the states, if three-quarters of the states would be willing to approve some crazy amendment, those same three-quarters of the states would simply apply to Congress, propose the amendment then pass it. Since this hasnt happened, we can rest assured that they would not pass a theoretical crazy amendment proposed from a convention just as they wouldnt pass a crazy amendment from Congress.
We need to have state-led amendments to KEEP the “Constitution of our Founders.” Do you think they would recognize today's constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.