Ivy League professors write another op-ed suggesting it’s time to jettison the Constitution

[GURPS]

No doubt still sulking over the Roe v. Wade reversal — the opening sentence of their recent op-ed published in The New York Times is, “When liberals lose at the Supreme Court — as they increasingly have over the past half-century” — two Ivy League professors laid out their claims for an America without Constitutional limitations. They suggest, “the way to seek real freedom will be to use procedures consistent with popular rule.” Of course, the piece is polished sewage: tyranny of the majority is a very real, and very dangerous threat to the individual, (perhaps they should go read Federalist 10, but they likely wouldn’t understand that either). However, I’d agree with them on one point — the Constitution is “broken”, but not in the way they think. It’s not broken because it was written by men from ages past. (After all, wouldn’t these same professors likely ascribe to the political ideas of Marx and Engels which were published in 1848?) It’s broken because what made it great has already been abandoned by our government and our citizenry.

The most obvious example is that of the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration [emphasis added].

This directly flies in the face of the original text: by the fourth paragraph in Article I of the Constitution, the founders declared that taxes must be apportioned “according to their respective” populations.

Since 1913, we’ve seen a cumulative price increase of 2,892.69% — and between all the taxes, some Americans are forced to forfeit well over 50% of their income to the government (the current highest tax bracket for federal income is 37%). Now, we’re awaiting the hiring of an additional army of federal agents (some armed) at the disposal of the unconstitutional IRS, ready to harrass hard-working citizens. Overtaxation a yoke, and is egregiously violative of our unalienable rights.

Ivy League professors write another op-ed suggesting it's time to jettison the Constitution

No doubt still sulking over the Roe v. Wade reversal — the opening sentence of their recent op-ed published in The New York Times is,

www.americanthinker.com

 

[DaSDGuy]

No doubt still sulking over the Roe v. Wade reversal — the opening sentence of their recent op-ed published in The New York Times is, “When liberals lose at the Supreme Court — as they increasingly have over the past half-century” — two Ivy League professors laid out their claims for an America without Constitutional limitations. They suggest, “the way to seek real freedom will be to use procedures consistent with popular rule.” Of course, the piece is polished sewage: tyranny of the majority is a very real, and very dangerous threat to the individual, (perhaps they should go read Federalist 10, but they likely wouldn’t understand that either). However, I’d agree with them on one point — the Constitution is “broken”, but not in the way they think. It’s not broken because it was written by men from ages past. (After all, wouldn’t these same professors likely ascribe to the political ideas of Marx and Engels which were published in 1848?) It’s broken because what made it great has already been abandoned by our government and our citizenry.

The most obvious example is that of the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which states:



This directly flies in the face of the original text: by the fourth paragraph in Article I of the Constitution, the founders declared that taxes must be apportioned “according to their respective” populations.

Since 1913, we’ve seen a cumulative price increase of 2,892.69% — and between all the taxes, some Americans are forced to forfeit well over 50% of their income to the government (the current highest tax bracket for federal income is 37%). Now, we’re awaiting the hiring of an additional army of federal agents (some armed) at the disposal of the unconstitutional IRS, ready to harrass hard-working citizens. Overtaxation a yoke, and is egregiously violative of our unalienable rights.

Ivy League professors write another op-ed suggesting it's time to jettison the Constitution

No doubt still sulking over the Roe v. Wade reversal — the opening sentence of their recent op-ed published in The New York Times is,

www.americanthinker.com

Since all laws are based on the Constitution, when you jettison the Constitution there are no laws. There would be no protections for anyone, including Ivy League Professors.

 

[SamSpade]

Well that IS why it's an amendment - the only way Congress COULD constitutionally apply a direct tax on the population would be to impose it without apportionment.

Overall - I do think income taxes have generally run their course as a means of raising taxes. For one, it supplies about half of the government's taxes, and is paid largely by a small portion of the population. For another - a great deal of the income earned in this country falls entirely outside taxation. This is where a consumption tax would work - all of the millions SPENT under the table would be eligible.

In the FAIR Tax - the consumption tax would cover all government programs - there wouldn't need to be FICA. I've always thought it was just lip service to pretend there's a SEPARATE tax for those things - it's only different on paper.

What causes me pause is - I don't trust the government NOT to ratchet it up when they just want to SPEND more money. Which is why I think ANY FAIR Tax created would HAVE to be accompanied by 1) a repeal of the 16th Amendment 2) a law limiting the raising of taxation and 3) a balanced budget amendment. We really can't hand the government a blank check. We've already seen the corruption that ensues when politicians can retain office by buying goodies for themselves and their donors.

 

[Merlin99]

Well that IS why it's an amendment - the only way Congress COULD constitutionally apply a direct tax on the population would be to impose it without apportionment.

Overall - I do think income taxes have generally run their course as a means of raising taxes. For one, it supplies about half of the government's taxes, and is paid largely by a small portion of the population. For another - a great deal of the income earned in this country falls entirely outside taxation. This is where a consumption tax would work - all of the millions SPENT under the table would be eligible.

In the FAIR Tax - the consumption tax would cover all government programs - there wouldn't need to be FICA. I've always thought it was just lip service to pretend there's a SEPARATE tax for those things - it's only different on paper.

What causes me pause is - I don't trust the government NOT to ratchet it up when they just want to SPEND more money. Which is why I think ANY FAIR Tax created would HAVE to be accompanied by 1) a repeal of the 16th Amendment 2) a law limiting the raising of taxation and 3) a balanced budget amendment. We really can't hand the government a blank check. We've already seen the corruption that ensues when politicians can retain office by buying goodies for themselves and their donors.

Well that’s just not going to work. Rich people and poor are both consumers so you’d be collecting from both ends, they really only want to collect from the top end.

 

[SamSpade]

Well that’s just not going to work. Rich people and poor are both consumers so you’d be collecting from both ends, they really only want to collect from the top end.

That's where the FAIR Tax comes in - and I don't trust it working, but the premise is a "pre-bate" for those on the lower end of the income scale, so that they ultimately - effectively - pay no tax at all. The idea being if you're GIVEN say, 10,000 but pay much less than that in consumption tax, you're not taxed at all.