Glenn Beck misses why 3/5th clause was not read in the House!

[johnwk]

On this evening’s [1-6-11] TV show, Glenn Beck informed his listening audience that when the Constitution was read today in the House, the three fifths clause was left out because it was “offensive”. He went on to draw a connection between slavery and the three fifths clause and mentioned it was adopted to “dismantle slavery“. There is no question that the three fifths clause acted as a penalty for slave holding states in that it denied slave holding states representation in Congress proportionally equal to their population size because only 3/5th of a state‘s slave population would be counted in allocating a State’s number of Representatives. However, if Glenn Beck wanted to point to a provision specifically intended to help “dismantle slavery” that provision would not be the 3/5ths clause but rather, Article 1, SECTION 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So, what was the primary reason for which our founders adopted the 3/5ths clause and more importantly why did Congress not read this provision? I believe there is a logical reason and Glenn Beck’s crack research team may be sleeping on the job! Let me explain.

Each member of the House upon assuming their office is given a copy of the “House Rules and Manual”, in which the Constitution appears. And when we get to the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution in the House Manual, on the side of the page we find a note which reads “The old provision for apportionment of Representatives and direct taxation”. And beneath the 3/5th clause another note appears which reads “The part of this clause relating to the mode of apportionment of Representatives was changed after the Civil War by section 2 of the fourteenth amendment and as to taxes on incomes without apportionment, by the sixteenth amendment. And this is probably why the 3/5th provision was not read, because the House Manual says the provision is “changed“. So why read it if its changed? But this is where the big lie begins, right in the “House Rules and Manual” given to every member of Congress! Please note that my edition of the House Manual is 1983, so there may be slight differences in today’s manual from the wording I quoted. But I’m sure the gist is the same!

Now, let us look at some irrefutable facts. The only thing which changed with the adoption of the 14th Amendment with regard to the mode of apportionment of Representatives is that, each state’s “whole number of persons” are to be counted as opposed to the former “three fifths of all other persons”.

And with regard to “direct taxes” as contained in the three fifths clause, nothing was changed by the adoption of the 16th Amendment! The 16th Amendment does not mention “direct taxes” nor does its language make any attempt to repeal Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which declares in clear language: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

In addition, our very own Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the 16th Amendment does not repeal the constitutional requirement that “direct taxes” are to be apportioned among the states, e.g., see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) in which the Court states in crystal clear language with regard to the 16th Amendment: “[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.” Also see BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) decided nine years after MACOMBER : “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

So, why is there an attempt in the House Manual suggesting to new members of Congress that the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is changed by the 16th Amendment? And why was the 3/5th clause not read today?

Unlike Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, which simple says direct taxes shall be apportioned, the 3/5th Clause which was not read, has language which is very clear and specifically ties “direct taxes” and each state’s number of allotted “representatives” in Congress to a formula. Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution the formula for determine each State’s number of Representatives is:



State`s Pop.
__________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
Pop. of U.S.

And, the formula for determining each State’s share of any general tax laid among the states as intended by our founding fathers would be:

State`s pop.
___________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Pop.


The fact is, progressives, especially in California, New York, and other States with large progressive populations, hate the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation! They want their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but when it comes time to filling the national treasury in a general tax among the states intended to be governed by one vote one dollar, they do everything imaginable to avoid representation with proportional obligation, and why they have doctored the House Manual to suggest to new members to Congress that apportionment of direct taxes is no longer in effect, and thus, why the provision was probably not read today which declares Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union

In summary, our founding fathers intended for Congress to raise its revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge, and if these taxes were found insufficient Congress was to then lay and collect miscellaneous inland excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. And if the above taxes were all found insufficient and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, then Congress was supposed to lay and collect a general direct tax among the states to make up the shortfall, and each state‘s share in making up the shortfall was to be determined by the rule of apportionment!

With all the talk about balancing the budget and dealing with an annual deficit, keep in mind if the direct tax were followed as intended, annual deficits would be immediately extinguished with an apportioned tax, and every State‘s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a Bill for the Governor and State‘s Legislatures to pay. Perhaps this is another reason why the 3/5th Clause was not read … someone might get curious and research what was the founder’s intentions with regard to “direct taxation” found in the 3/5th Clause..

JWK



“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.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't think we should ever bury our history, because "it might offend people". We should learn from it, but burying the truth will deny such learning opportunities for future generations.

[Stary Hickory]

I agree we whould read it for what it is, and leave it at that. If people could step out of their racist mindsets for just a second they would see the only people that have a reason to be upset with the 3/5ths clause and slavery in general are those that it affected.

Blacks today have no more reason to be offended than whites do. To think otherwise is to be a racist. I see only individuals. The original Constitution had flaws that negatively impacted individuals not some vague concept of skin color. There are examples of Christians being persecuted in history, although not as hardcore as many, as a semi religious guy I am not offended by the past....it's kind of amusing how stupid and ignorant people can be...but personally I feel no connection because those crimes were committed against individuals who no longer live today.

This nonsense that you somehow share a common collective being with the dead is absolute absurdity. There are only individuals, not artificial constructs of collective beingness.

[johnwk]

I don't think we should ever bury our history, because "it might offend people". We should learn from it, but burying the truth will deny such learning opportunities for future generations.

Exactly! So how did inaccurate information about the rule of apportionment and taxation get into the “House Rules and Manual” given to every member of Congress? Do you think the big lie about the rule of apportionment and taxation appears in Congress’ Manual by accident? Do you think this same big lie appears in school text books by accident which falsely teaches our children the 16th Amendment changed the rules for “direct taxation”? The historical fact is, if it weren’t for the rule of apportionment as applied to representation and taxation, the convention of 1787 may have very well packed up and gone home empty handed. And so, understanding the rule, especially as applied to taxation, is extremely important because its worst enemy is our progressive crowd who attempted to destroy the rule with the 16th Amendment but was unsuccessful. And so, they have re-written history to accomplish what they could not accomplish with the 16th Amendment.

But getting back to historical facts, deciding upon rules to fix each State’s representation created an impasse during the Convention. On July 2nd of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan for how the States would be represented in Congress. Then, on THURSDAY July 5th 1787, IN CONVENTION Madision’s Notes records the following:

“Mr. GERRY delivered in from the Committee appointed on Monday last the following Report.

"The Committee to whom was referred the 8th. Resol. of the Report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the 7th. as has not been decided on, submit the following Report: That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote."

This proposal sparked some of the most important debates of the Convention regarding representation and the manner in which the federal treasury would be filled. All those who now complain of our federal government’s excesses and unjust taxation, ought to read these debates which eventually led to the great compromise of the Convention under which taxation and representation were thoughtfully tied by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by the various State population sizes!

On July 12 of the Convention and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."


Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of a formula by which each state received its number of representatives, and also was obligated to contribute into the federal treasury if Congress should ever call directly upon the people to file the national treasury.

Does anyone here think our large populated pinko states such as California and New York would send progressives to Congress if they had to return home with a bill if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption were inadequate to feed Congress’ appetite while in Washington, which would depleted their state’s treasury in paying the bill? This is why our progressive crowd hates the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, it makes each state’s big spenders return home with a bill. And this is why they have re-written history, and now pretend the rule of apportionment with regard to “direct taxation” no longer is applicable ___ they want their one man one vote, but do not want to pay their one dollar, one vote. How sad that a subject of such importance can be totally ignored and never discussed by our mighty Glenn Beck.

JWK

“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.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not sure about some things though, JWK.

According to the 3/5 rule, wouldn't that have given slave states more representation than they deserved? Heck, IMO it should have been 0/5 since slaves weren't considered people as much as property, had no say in our representative government, could not vote, etc.

So regarding taxation, the 3/5 rule must have hurt the slave states concerning the rule of proportionate taxation since they were actually being taxed three-fifths (multiplied by the number of slaves) more than necessary.
Or am I missing your point?

[JustinTime]

I'm not sure about some things though, JWK.

According to the 3/5 rule, wouldn't that have given slave states more representation than they deserved? Heck, IMO it should have been 0/5 since slaves weren't considered people as much as property, had no say in our representative government, could not vote, etc.

If I recall high school history correctly, thats exactly what the northern states wanted, but the only way the south, and most importantly the then-critical state of Virginia would ratify the Constitution was the 3/5ths.

So the north somewhat limited the slave states political derived from holding slaves, while the south still got some representatives.

Its sickening to me how often this gets twisted into the lie that the Constitution said a black person was only 3/5ths of a human being, Ive known school teachers who repeat this lie. No wonder so many young people dont care about the Constitution.

[muzzled dogg]

random thoughts,

just to get an idea of the original intent of the tax in article 1 section 9, what is that does $10 (1787) equal in 2011 dollars?

and for $#@!s and giggles, what does the $20 (1791) in amendment 7 of the bill of rights defining the threshold for a controvesy worthy of a trial by jury, equal in 2011 dollars?

[johnwk]

random thoughts,

just to get an idea of the original intent of the tax in article 1 section 9, what is that does $10 (1787) equal in 2011 dollars?

and for $#@!s and giggles, what does the $20 (1791) in amendment 7 of the bill of rights defining the threshold for a controvesy worthy of a trial by jury, equal in 2011 dollars?

$#@!s and giggles? Unfortunately, your generation will find out because you will be left with the tab. So $#@! and giggle all you want.

JWK


There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor are nothing more than sissy thieves, too chicken livered to confront their neighbor face to face and forcefully take what they want. This is the sum of our progressive gang … a bunch of punk ass whiners, incapable of doing anything productive for themselves.

[muzzled dogg]

neg rep for uuuu

[johnwk]

SEE: Purpose Behind Congressional Reading of Constitution Questioned After Amendments Are Omitted
Published January 06, 2011
| FoxNews.com

”Newly sworn members of the House reading aloud the country's founding document on Thursday didn't recite every verse and article of the document because Republicans decided that the obsolete parts can be skipped since they've been superseded by amendment.”


Now that is simply astonishing. I would really love to have one of our notable personalities at foxnews, perhaps Bill O’Reilly, the pretended fountain of all knowledge, or perhaps our new speaker of the House John Boehner, explain how Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 has become “obsolete” since both “Representatives” and “Direct taxes” are still required to be apportioned among the several States.

Seems to me that in consequence of the 14th Amendment, and with respect to apportionment of Representatives, the only change is that each state’s “whole number of persons” are now counted as opposed to the former “three fifths of all other persons”.



State`s Pop.
__________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
Pop. of U.S.


And with regard to “direct taxes”, as contained in the three fifths clause, nothing, absolutely nothing has been changed by any provision of our Constitution!


State`s pop.
___________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Pop.



So why did Republicans decide to skip reading Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 when apportionment of Representatives is still required with a slight change as articulated in the 14th Amendment, and its requirement to apportion “direct taxes” has not been changed in any manner whatsoever?

I personally think the leadership of both political parties fear and hate that part of our Constitution by which our founding fathers decided, as part of the great compromise, to require direct taxes to be apportioned among the states, and to be used if deficits resulted from Congress’ ordinary means of raising a federal revenue.

How dare our founding fathers intend for each state’s congressional delegation to bring home a bill under the apportioned tax to extinguish a deficit they helped to create while in Congress Assembled, and would make them immediately accountable to their State’s Governor and Legislature who would be stuck with having to deplete their state’s treasury to meet their State’s apportioned share in extinguishing a deficit created by Congress.

I guess this could be the real reason for not reading Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States as it may spark some interesting questions which may lead to its legislative intent being discovered.


We do know our Republican Party leadership is looking to adopt a fake balanced budget amendment which would, if adopted, overrule our founder’s intended direct tax method and would allow Congress to continue in its merry way, without that moment of accountability our founders intended with the apportioned direct tax to extinguish a year end deficit.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[mczerone]

random thoughts,

just to get an idea of the original intent of the tax in article 1 section 9, what is that does $10 (1787) equal in 2011 dollars?

and for $#@!s and giggles, what does the $20 (1791) in amendment 7 of the bill of rights defining the threshold for a controvesy worthy of a trial by jury, equal in 2011 dollars?

Considering that $20 was at that time more or less synonymous for "an ounce of gold", $10 (in 1791) = 1/2 ounce gold = $700 (in 2011), and similarly a jury trial would be mandated for anything more than $1,400.

There's certainly more you could consider in that calculation, but that's the quick answer.