Mark Levin joins Fox News with weekend show: Life, Liberty and Levin

[johnwk]

See Talk radio star Mark Levin joins Fox News Channel with weekly show (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/21/talk-radio-star-mark-levin-joins-fox-news-channel-with-weekly-show.html)

”Fox News announced on Tuesday that nationally syndicated radio talk show personality Mark Levin will join the network with a weekly, weekend primetime show titled, “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

“Mark’s passion for the principles found in the Constitution and success in talk radio has made him a distinct figure in the media landscape. We look forward to adding this spirited program to our weekend lineup,” Fox News President of Programming Suzanne Scott said.”


This is good news and bad news! Being one of the few who have actually taken the time to have passionately studied the making of our Constitution ___ researching Madison’s Notes on the Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots’ Debates and other historical documents documenting our Constitution’s legislative intent ___ I appreciate Mark’s endless task of educating people to the legislative intent of our Constitution and exposing today’s assault upon it by Congress, and especially federal judges and Justices who knowingly and willingly ignore both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution.

On the other hand, I am very distressed that Mark Levin has been calling for an Article V convention under which our entire Constitution would be put up for grabs by all the snakes and other Swamp Creatures who would find their way into the Convention should one be called.

I remember during the 1980s many so-called "conservatives" were pushing for a Convention to allegedly write a "balanced budget amendment", but the amendment these "conservatives" were pushing, if adopted, would have made it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget.

On almost all issues I agree with Mark, but his desire to call for a convention under Article V is a very, very suspicious and dangerous idea as indicated by James Madison:

”3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.” ___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788


The fact is, an Article V Convention is a very dangerous idea because:

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention;

2) that Congress and our Supreme Court [THE ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) that every snake on earth with self-interests such as ACORN would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

4) that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

6) that adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

7) and, we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention would adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote by our existing Senate members. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

JWK


Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

[Anti Federalist]

All I need to know about Levin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi19kEYcZqY

[Krugminator2]

What I take out of listening to that Levin clip is Michelle Bachmann saying Iran was months away from getting a nuclear weapon. Oops.

[Raginfridus]

Bullshitter joins bullshit MSM

Is he gonna cry a lot like Glennn Bekkk? His show should be called The Wailing Wall either way.

[JohnCifelli1]

Lame program. Perfect for a lousy news source.

[johnwk]

You guys are really tough on Mark.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[Brian4Liberty]

All I need to know about Levin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi19kEYcZqY

Teocon and hypocrite, whose number one priority, far above any other, is his opinion on what is best for Israel.

[anaconda]

Levin makes me barf.

Except he made me laugh that time he tried to take on Tom Woods. Mistake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkHvW30oaoQ

[fedupinmo]

All I need to know about Levin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi19kEYcZqY

And this load of crap:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvT6DDR-4A

[Mach]

Teocon and hypocrite, whose number one priority, far above any other, is his opinion on what is best for Israel.

I wonder why.......... /s

---

He reminds me of that neighbor that gets a hold of you, and rambles on forever.

[Swordsmyth]

I wonder why.......... /s

---

He reminds me of that neighbor that gets a hold of you, and rambles on forever.

He always reminded me of the judge in what's up doc:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSK4jK1SuUg

[johnwk]

Getting back to the desire by some to call a convention under Article V, should they not be able to defend their position and supply answers to the list of concerns in the OP?

JWK

[sparebulb]

Is anyone really going to go out and get cable just to watch this smelly boil of putrid puss?

I cannot think of a single scenario where I will ever again pay for cable or sat knowing that my $$$ are going to scum like this.

[oyarde]

It is a shame about Levin . Guy spends hours a day talking about the Constitooootion ( as Savage says ) . Then says the guy who actually has a voting record defending it ( Ron Paul ) is crazy . Reagan should have taught him better . Reagan was smart enough to know the Pubs needed to not do that to one another because the Dems do not .

[oyarde]

Is anyone really going to go out and get cable just to watch this smelly boil of putrid puss?

I cannot think of a single scenario where I will ever again pay for cable or sat knowing that my $$$ are going to scum like this.

No , nobody is getting cable for that .

[Champ]

Levin comes from a small group of neocons that like to say they are reformed neocons that "just didn't know" about state power abuses under Bush and are using this to gain support in the new right/Trump movement, as they want to label themselves outsiders to gain viewership. Some other of these in the same category are Hannity, Glenn Beck to some degree, and even John "I'm a libertarian" Bolton.

Whether or not they have actually committed to any real change in their thinking is up to the listener/viewer, but as pointed out above, the hostility and contempt these neocons had for Dr. Paul and libertarians in general was palpable during 07/08 and it's hard to forgive this type of behavior to those that were paying attention during those years, regardless of any perceived reform.

[anaconda]

Is anyone really going to go out and get cable just to watch this smelly boil of putrid puss?



You insult smelly boils of putrid puss. Levin's laughably sophomoric shows are as tortuous as Glenn Beck's. So daft and without content as to be cringe worthy.

[Anti-Neocon]

I'm surprised people are more anti-Levin than anti-Trump. At least Levin occasionally says some decent things.

[Raginfridus]

Teocon and hypocrite, whose number one priority, far above any other, is his opinion on what is best for Israel.
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the Levin of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

[sparebulb]

You insult smelly boils of putrid puss. Levin's laughably sophomoric shows are as tortuous as Glenn Beck's. So daft and without content as to be cringe worthy.

My apologies to puss.

Flashback: Didn't Levin and Beck both take direct payments from Hillary's people to trash Trump?

[angelatc]

You guys are really tough on Mark.


JWK



]

He's a neocon.

[Anti Federalist]

Getting back to the desire by some to call a convention under Article V, should they not be able to defend their position and supply answers to the list of concerns in the OP?

JWK

Concerns?

You already listed them in seven bullet points in your OP.

tl;dr version - The worst thing you could possibly do is let this current crop of Idiot AmeriKunts and SJWs anywhere near the CONstitution and especially the Bill of Rights. For all its faults, I'll stick with it. What would come out of a latter day con-con would resemble some bastard hybrid of the UN charter and the old Soviet constitution.

[Anti Federalist]

smelly boil of putrid puss?

Puss

https://www.iizcat.com/uploads/2016/06/pt9mg-pb4.JPG

Putrid pus.

(well, not gonna post that)

[sparebulb]

Damn. I hate when I make a mistake like this.

My only excuse is that I can't really remember ever writing the word pus before.

Rookie mistake.

Perhaps I will find an image to convey my thoughts on pus...........

[Origanalist]

Shawn Hannity calls him 'The Great One', thats good enough for me.

[milgram]

Flashback: Didn't Levin and Beck both take direct payments from Hillary's people to trash Trump?
A few more examples of how these pundits seem to be shills for hire

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/03/30/eric-errickson-website-resurgent-paid-by-pro-cruzanti-trump-our-principles-pac/

♦ The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion. Conveniently Hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created.
Then again, Levin never informed his audience of his family working within the Staff of Senator Ted Cruz either. Does Levin’s endorsement, when contrast against the crony-constitutional advocacy, clarify with a little sunlight? You decide.

♦ Or how about the Breitbart Media enterprise being run via an $11 million purchase from Billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Ted Cruz’s Super-PAC “Keep The Promise 1”, to the tune of $10 million. Little overlooked facts, never openly shared for news consumers to determine source motive.

♦ Maybe the Ben Shapiro website “The Daily Wire“, being funded by the billionaire Wilks Brothers, Levi and Farris, in Texas. Who also fund Ted Cruz and his Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”. Shapiro never publicly disclosed the financial/content conflict, or the extent therein. Could Shapiro support any other candidate other than who his content owners approved of? Again, you decide.

♦ The Chairman of Glenn Beck’s Mercury One charity, David Barton, jointly running the Pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”; also never put into the sunlight by Glenn Beck or his various media enterprises so the consuming audience could filter presented political opinion through the filter of fiduciary connections.

[johnwk]

Concerns?

You already listed them in seven bullet points in your OP.

tl;dr version - The worst thing you could possibly do is let this current crop of Idiot AmeriKunts and SJWs anywhere near the CONstitution and especially the Bill of Rights. For all its faults, I'll stick with it. What would come out of a latter day con-con would resemble some bastard hybrid of the UN charter and the old Soviet constitution.


If our Global Governance Crowd (https://www.cfr.org/programs/international-institutions-and-global-governance-program) gets their way, and they have been trying to get a constitutional convention convened for decades, their changes to our system of government are found in The Constitution of the New States of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm)


JWK

[r3volution 3.0]

All I need to know about Levin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi19kEYcZqY

Succinctly put


I'm surprised people are more anti-Levin than anti-Trump. At least Levin occasionally says some decent things.

That's only because Levin's smarter than Trump, but they're essentially the same thing (i.e. self-serving, principle-free scum).

[Brian4Liberty]

Concerns?

You already listed them in seven bullet points in your OP.

tl;dr version - The worst thing you could possibly do is let this current crop of Idiot AmeriKunts and SJWs anywhere near the CONstitution and especially the Bill of Rights. For all its faults, I'll stick with it. What would come out of a latter day con-con would resemble some bastard hybrid of the UN charter and the old Soviet constitution.

The best you could possibly hope for would be to preface each item in the Bill of Rights with "Seriously, this is what we mean, exactly as written".

More likely is that they would codify all of the current erosion of the Bill of Rights, and probably eliminate the Second altogether. And no doubt Darth Bader Ginsberg would be first in line with her rewrite. It would be a bunch of meaningless, ambiguous snowflake SJW nonsense, with each concluding with "but some animals are more equal than others".

[Brian4Liberty]

It is a shame about Levin . Guy spends hours a day talking about the Constitooootion ( as Savage says ) . Then says the guy who actually has a voting record defending it ( Ron Paul ) is crazy . Reagan should have taught him better . Reagan was smart enough to know the Pubs needed to not do that to one another because the Dems do not .

Agree.


I'm surprised people are more anti-Levin than anti-Trump. At least Levin occasionally says some decent things.

Not sure how you determined that. Levin does say a lot of good things, but he is deceptive and manipulative when it comes to his priorities.

[Swordsmyth]

The best you could possibly hope for would be to preface each item in the Bill of Rights with "Seriously, this is what we mean, exactly as written".

More likely is that they would codify all of the current erosion of the Bill of Rights, and probably eliminate the Second altogether. And no doubt Darth Bader Ginsberg would be first in line with her rewrite. It would be a bunch of meaningless, ambiguous snowflake SJW nonsense, with each concluding with "but some animals are more equal than others".

Don't forget the "positive rights" they want to add, "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" will replace the 2nd amendment.

[enhanced_deficit]

One of the finest moderate neocons and Iraqi war champs if you can get past his nasal screeches.

[Raginfridus]

One of the finest moderate neocons and Iraqi war champs if you can get past his nasal screeches.
Please, they call themselves realists now.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't forget the "positive rights" they want to add, "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" will replace the 2nd amendment.

Of course: "All animals shall be free from fear, but some animals are more free."

[johnwk]

Mark Levin, when confronted on his radio show with questions that indicate his call for a constitutional convention are wrongheaded, constantly hides behind insulting remarks [referencing the caller as an idiot, stupid, etc.] and panhandles political identifications [liberal, left-wing, socialist, etc.] which have no bearing on the questions asked. He also filibusters callers and prevents them from defending their position. This is how he avoids a sincere discussion regarding very real concerns which surround the calling of a convention under Article V.

It appears Mark Levin would rather put our entire Constitution up for grabs than diligently defend both its text and legislative intent which gives context to its text. I say this because, the countless sufferings we now experience are not because of defects in our written Constitution. They are a result of people like Mark Levin who are unwilling to defend specific provisions in our Constitution, an example being the reasons why the Founders demanded both representatives and direct taxes would be apportioned.

Mark Levin desires to re-write our Constitution to accommodate his personal predilections and beliefs. Are we to forget his egotistical "Liberty Amendments" which are a sophomoric and ill-advised attempt to accomplish, in several instances, what our original Constitutional already commands?



JWK



At the close of the Constitutional Conventionin 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

[Raginfridus]

It appears Mark Levin would rather put our entire Constitution up for grabs than diligently defend both its text and legislative intent which gives context to its text.In the unlikely event an Article V happens, Levin wouldn't be a delegate, so its apparent to anybody he's blowing smoke up his listeners' asses for somebody else, or just for his own sense of self-worth.

[johnwk]

SEE: Walker signs constitutional convention appointment bill (http://www.beloitdailynews.com/article/20171127/AP/311279887)


”The bill Walker signed Monday calls for the Assembly speaker to appoint three state representatives as convention delegates. The Senate president would appoint three senators. Assembly and Senate minority leaders would each appoint one delegate from their house. The governor would appoint one delegate from the Assembly of the Senate.”

Well, I see Scott Walker is using the phony pretense of requiring an annual balanced budget to call a constitutional convention during which time our entire Constitution will be up for grabs. Instead of promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which is our Founder’s intended method to balance an annual budget, Walker has sided with countless evil doers who have been attempting to convene a constitutional convention in order to re-write the entire document.

In addition, we now see ordinary people in Wisconsin will not be delegates to the convention. Instead, existing swamp creatures in Wisconsin will select and appoint delegates, just as was done in 1984 in New Hampshire.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?

The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”


Additionally, the attempt to control the actions of delegates sent to a convention has already proven to be meaningless.


Under the Articles of Confederation, the Convention of 1787 was called and was specifically called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!


See: Credentials of the Members of the Federal Convention. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; April 9, 1787: (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/cred02.asp)



(Seal appendt). By His Excellency James Bowdoin Esquire Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


To the Honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King and Caleb Strong Esquires. Greeting.

Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.


Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.


In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.
Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America.
JAMES BOWDOIN
By His Excellency's Command.
JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary
_________


These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and the command “for the soul and express purpose” was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, an entirely new federal government, and a number of specific powers were ceded to the new government being created in addition to the new government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War..


The bottom line is, the second method under which our Constitution may be amended begins with a convention being called by the various States for the purpose of proposing “Amendments”. And with reference to the delegates chosen by the various States, they would, in the words of James Madison:


probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. ___ See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

JWK

Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

[johnwk]

.

Some years ago (July 11th, 2011) Mark Levin was on the air promoting the “balanced budget amendment” that was cooked up by Washington insiders, and Mark was tickled pink by its SECTION 2 which allegedly “caps’ government spending at 18 percent of our nation’s economic output.



Under Section 2 of the proposed amendment (H.J.RES.1 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.1.RH:...))


Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.


Tell us Mark, why should the united States be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of their “economic output“? This section seems to be cleverly designed to lock into perpetuity the revenue needed for Congress to continue funding its current unconstitutional expenditures! Are you serious Mark?

If Congress were limited to its constitutionally authorized functions, the outrageous 18 percent would not be needed. And why is the definition of “economic output” not defined within the Section? Have we not learned that figures mean nothing to our folks in Washington? Have we not learned how the Congressional Budget Office was used to give phony figures to get Obamacare passed? What’s wrong with you Mr. Levin? The wording of Section 2 is cleverly constructed to allow Congress to make it mean whatever it wishes it to mean while picking our pockets. And how many of our Constitutional provisions have been trashed using 290 votes in the house and 67votes in the Senate agreeing to do so?

Now, let us take a look at how our founding fathers “capped” our federal government’s appetite and spending. They did it by the manner in which they allowed Congress to raise its revenue.

Our founding fathers realized there is a relationship between the ability of a nation to pay taxes and a nation’s consumption, and further knew that taxing consumption regulates and caps the amount of revenue which Congress may raise, and therefore may spend. Federalist No 21 explains taxing consumption as follows:


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”


This was born out when an outrageous 10 % luxury tax was imposed upon a number of selected articles under the “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
SEC. 11221. TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS.


“`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.

`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.


`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.

`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.

`SEC. 4007. FURS.
`(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX- There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000?


Had the tax only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance or outcry. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded as it should. People refused to purchase the articles, the affected industries began to feel the consequences, and the market place rejection of the tax led to its immediate repeal! see: [/I]
1991 legislation to repeal the luxury excise tax on boats (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)
.

Now, let us say for conversation purposes that the following 32 words were added to our Constitution:


The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and 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


Under these words Congress is restrained to raising its revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal excise taxes laid upon specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic climate of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy which increases the flow of revenue into the federal treasury.

And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine and “cap” the allowable amount of tax on each article selected which Hamilton indicates above in Federalist No. 21.

Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation, and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse its powers. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for personal gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as also explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.

Finally, keep in mind that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, then the dreaded apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State Legislature to deal with.

Bottom line, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2011 federal deficit it helped to create? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and big spenders in Congress would
REAP THE JUST REWARDS (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) of their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.



Is Mark Levin still promoting this [H.J.RES. 1] phony balanced budget amendment?

JWK



“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)