Newbie here, been lurking for a couple of weeks and decided to surface. I'm a bit of a Constitution geek in the sense of understanding it versus a scholar or lawyer who quotes article and section. I still need to look them up But it's worthwhile learning nevertheless and often intriguing case law included. While pursuing my hobby, I came across a proposal for a 28th Amendment that addressed these important issues; taxation, budget, and the Commerce Clause. It interested me enough I wanted to share and wrote three blogs exploring the proposal. Appreciate any comments.
After reading it, I'm glad to see that it is so ridiculous that it will never be taken seriously... But thanks... I needed a good laugh on a Sunday afternoon..
The first three sections of the proposed 28th Amendment target taxes. The U.S. tax system is a behemoth. Everyone knows it. Little can been done to simplify and shrink the bloated jabberwock. Alexander Hamilton argued for the unlimited power to tax. Due respect to the Honorable Mr. Hamilton, unlimited power to tax is not necessary and will always be abused. What were you thinking?
When little or nothing can be done to prune unnecessary complexity, the thing to do is cut the vine off at the root and stand vigil until the monster is dead. That's exactly what Section 1 does.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Repealing the 16th Amendment does not target the Federal Reserve, however the IRS is not sacrosanct and the tax code must come down with it. Section 1 undermines the Internal Revenue Act of 1913. Section 2 establishes the tax code in the Constitution. That means, if a naive freshman wants to fiddle with tax rates it means opening the Constitution not just the stroke of the Presidential pen.
Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual's net earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions, or credits will be allowed.
Congressional power to tax must be limited. Likewise, the power to invent the budget also must be limited. But we still have to face the unpredictable caveats. If the power to tax is curtailed, how are wars and responses to national emergencies paid for? Hence, Section 3:
A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanisms to meet budget requirements will be allowed.
B. For the purposes of this section, "War" shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in the Constitutional role of Commander-in-Chief, and authorized by the Congress under the terms of the "War Powers Act" of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.
War is the only emergency specified in Section 3 and we might be tempted to include natural disasters, but then the definitions get slimy. What precisely, as in the War Powers Act of 1973, is a national disaster and how is it declared? In my opinion, it's better not to open that rabbit hole. There are other ways to manage those situations. The question not withstanding, overall this is a good start at reconstructing the U.S. tax system. Much more than just a straw man.
http://dwknox-anamericanrevolution.blog ... n-1-3.html
I don't see anything funny about this at all. We are being pillaged by thugs in Washington and that's not funny either.
Thoughtful post RDeneel. Looking forward to more from you!
LadyJazzer wrote: After reading it, I'm glad to see that it is so ridiculous that it will never be taken seriously... But thanks... I needed a good laugh on a Sunday afternoon..
HEARTLESS wrote: It would have my support, if for no other reason than an extreme Left winger like LJ hates it.
well there is a little insight into how one conservative mind works...and confirms my long held belief that many conservatives hate liberal ideas not because they are bad, but because they were thought of by a liberal before a conservative thought of it.
Before I can consider this proposed ammendment I need some more understanding concerning the debt ceiling.
Within the past couple of days I have heard mentioned on newscasts that if the debt ceiling was not raised by Congress, then our money supply would be devalued, we would not be able to sell gov't bonds, and the world's economy would be forced into a huge depression.
Would someone please give me a dumbed down explanation of how the debt ceiling affects our ability to fund our government by selling bonds. How does an increased debt ceiling help the world economy.
This is not a sarcastic rhetorical question. Please lecture and I will do nothing other than consider.
major, what may be most important is debt to gdp. When we've gone too far, as Greece did, we're over the edge. Healthy economies are no more than 20% debt to gdp. We're already past that..
HEARTLESS wrote: No Karl Marx beat all you Leftists to it. The drooling stupidity of the Left, I could watch it all day. Thanks for playing.
When all else fails, when the argument is lost....bring out Karl Marx.......you forgot however to pepper your post with buzz words like "socialism" and "communism". Does it ever bother you to be so predictable?
But it's worthwhile learning nevertheless and often intriguing case law included. While pursuing my hobby, I came across a proposal for a 28th Amendment that addressed these important issues; taxation, budget, and the Commerce Clause. It interested me enough I wanted to share and wrote three blogs exploring the proposal. Appreciate any comments.
