Tag Archives: 16th Amendment
In a recent series of articles, my CDN colleague Bruce MacIsaac has argued for calling a Constitutional Convention (AKA an Article V Convention) and has proposed, by his own admission, „numerous amendments to the Constitution.”
Among these (admittedly laudable) amendments are ones to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment, but also the monstrous „Balanced Budget Amendment.”
But even if all of his legislative proposals were good, it wouldn’t matter. The hell is paved with good intentions.
The fact is that an Article V Convention (AKA a Con-Con) would mean the end of the current Constitution, of the liberties of US citizens, and of the Republic as we know it.
Firstly, who would call the tune?
Firstly, let’s ask ourselves: who would appoint the delegates to an Article V Convention, and in what manner? How many delegates would be appointed? From what backgrounds? And what would their mandate be? To amend the current Constitution or to write an entirely new one?
Who will answer these questions?
Answer: the Congress. Specifically, the CURRENT Congress.
The same Congress that gave America a $17 trillion debt, nearly brought America to a first-ever default on its obligations in August 2011, and which utterly refuses to the blatant usurpations of power by the Executive and Judicial Branches. The same Congress where John Boehner is House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi the Minority Leader (and potential future Speaker), Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, and Mitch McConnell the Senate Minority Leader. This is the gang you’d be entrusting with appointing the delegates and setting their agenda.
Are those people really the ones you want to entrust your, your family’s, and your country’s future to? Because that’s EXACTLY what you’ll be doing if you support an Article V Convention.
And even if the delegates’ mandate is very narrow, what’s to stop them from writing, proposing, and adopting a new Constitution? Nothing.
Remember that the original Constitutional Convention’s mandate was only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Yet, it went far beyond that mandate and proposed an entirely new Constitution that created, for the first time ever, a federal government.
There’s nothing to stop a new Con Con from doing the same.
But if it is called and does so, you can bet it will propose a socialist constitution that will ban the private ownership of guns and limit religious freedom for Christians. You will be doing away with the greatest Constitution the world has ever known, and replacing it with a socialist system.
You say, „Oh, don’t worry, anything that a Con Con proposes would have to be ratified by ¾ of the states!” Really? Where does it say so? In the current Constitution. But the new, socialist constitution could have an entirely new method of ratification (just like the current Constitution did) – e.g. by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, or just the Senate.
I’ll say it again: if a Con Con is called, the current Constitution – the greatest document the world has ever known other than Magna Carta – will be done away with. Forever.
Finally, let’s remember one simple fact. Who is it that governs this country? Who is it that calls the tune in the US of A?
Why, of course the Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, and all the lobbyists and special interest groups on which the elected branches of government depend.
Look at how much power they have – over you, your family, your community, your state, and the country as a whole.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL GIVE AWAY THAT POWER, OR SHARE IT WITH THE COMMON CITIZEN, OR ALLOW AVERAGE AMERICANS TO DESIGN AMENDMENTS TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM THEM?
OF COURSE NOT!
And that defeats the whole point of a Con-Con. If anything, the federal government will get even bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive, and more expensive if a Con-Con is called.
Anyone who, at this point, calls for an Article V Convention is either a shallow, ignorant idiot or a deceitful, lying bastard.
But nonetheless, I’m still amazed how easily Tea Party People are fooled and manipulated by wolves in sheep’s clothing like Tom Coburn and Mark Levin (both of whom support a Con-Con). It seems that Tea Partiers are so naive that all a wolf has to do to fool them is to put on his sheep’s clothing and start lying – and they will listen to him and blindly follow him.
Folks, do not allow wolves in sheep’s clothing to manipulate you! Do not support an Article V Convention. For if you do and it is called, there will be no turning back. The current Constitution will be consigned to the dustbin of history, and YOU will be co-responsible.
In the wake of the recent IRS scandal, some well-intentioned but badly misguided people have begun touting the flat income tax (called the flat tax for shorthand) as a replacement for the current tax code. They claim it would be an antidote to the IRS’s abuses and curb that agency’s powers while also supercharging America’s economy.
But they are dead wrong. The flat tax is no solution at all. It would not solve any of the problems with the current tax code and the IRS, and it could be replaced with a progressive income tax by the next Congress anyway.
Here’s why the flat tax would utterly fail to solve the problem, and why the FairTax – a flat 23% consumption tax designed to replace all federal internal taxes (income, payroll, excise, gift, death, etc.) is the solution:
- The flat tax would still be an income tax, and as such, would still punish hard work, wealth creation, productivity, and savings, taking away from people what they have earned. Making an income tax flat does not change the fact that it is still a punitive tax on INCOME. By contrast, the FairTax, as a consumption tax, would be levied only on retail sales, not on income, inheritance, or the sales of raw materials or unfinished products.
- With the flat [income] tax, you would still have to file tax returns every year by April 15th, and be liable for any mistakes you make therein. With the FairTax, there would be no such problems.
- Administering the flat [income] tax would still require having a large IRS with dozens of thousands of staff to receive and review tax returns, audit people and organizations, and punish cheaters, and the IRS would, of course, retail ALL of the awesome powers it currently has, all of its staff, and all of its budget – and would still retain all your financial records. By contrast, with the FairTax, the IRS would be abolished PERMANENTLY, and under the FairTax bill (H.R. 25), all IRS records would have to be destroyed within 2 years of the FairTax being enacted – the sole exception being records related to Social Security, but these would be turned over to the Social Security Administration, not retained by the Treasury.
- Unlike the flat [income] tax, the FairTax would be administered by the states, who would then send the revenue (minus their costs of administering the FairTax) to the federal government. Thus, it would dramatically shift the balance of power in the US in favor of the states and against the federal government. There would only be a federal Sales Tax Bureau with 51 personnel to audit the states in rare cases of state malfeasance.
- The flat [income] tax would keep the current tax code, although it would be somewhat slimmed down from today’s 70,000 pages. The FairTax would abolish the federal tax code completely and replace it with the simple 123-page FairTax Act.
- The FairTax would provide sufficient revenue for Social Security, though not for the entire federal Leviathan that exists in Washington today.
- The FairTax would be completely transparent – you would know how much you pay in taxes everytime you make a retail purchase. By contrast, even under the flat tax, you would not know how much you really pay in taxes.
- The flat [income] tax would keep the 16th Amendment. The FairTax Act would jumpstart the process of REPEALING the 16th Amendment forever, and would sunset (i.e. expire) automatically 7 years after its enactment if the 16th Amendment is not repealed within that time. But once Congress passed a resolution repealing the 16th Amendment, the states would be eager to ratify such resolution, as it would shift the balance of power in their favor.
- The flat [income] tax would keep tax exemptions and thus allow the IRS to decide who deserves them and who doesn’t. Conservative groups applying for such exemptions would still face IRS audits.
- And last but not least, the flat [income] tax would not remain flat for long. The next Congress could repeal it and replace it with a progressive one. The evidence? The current monstrosity of a tax code started in 1913 as a flat income tax at a 4% rate. But just 4 years later, in 1917, it was a heavily progressive income tax, with a maximum 77% rate. Although the maximum rate was later cut under the Coolidge Administration to 24%, it was still a progressive income tax – and 24% was still a rate that not even the most fervent advocate of the income tax had hoped for in 1913. Similarly, when President Reagan and the Congress enacted the 1986 tax reform bill, creating only two low rates, it took the Congress and Reagan’s successor, George “Read My Lips” H. W. Bush, only 4 years to add two new, higher rates, and thousands of pages, gimmicks, exemptions, and loopholes, thus essentially undoing President Reagan’s tax reform in just 4 years.
The flat [income] tax is not a solution. It would not solve ANY of the problems with the current tax code, the IRS, the 16th Amendment, the income tax itself, or the US political system. Only the FairTax would do that – by doing away with the income tax, the IRS, and the 16th Amendment PERMANENTLY.
It is no coincidence that the FairTax bill now has over 70 sponsors and cosponsors in both houses of Congress (including such conservative stars as Sen. Ted Cruz and Congressman Tom Price), while the flat tax bill has only one sponsor in the Senate and no companion bill in the House.
The flat tax is not a solution to anything and should not even be considered.