Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By johnwk
  • 1 Post By johnwk
  • 1 Post By johnwk

Thread: The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,866

    The census question and the big freaken socialist/communist lie by omission

    Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


    They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question.


    But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden!


    The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54


    And in the state ratification debates we find:


    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


    “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


    Our Supreme Court has, over the years, acted in concert with socialists and communists to ensure that States get their apportioned share of Representatives, while intentionally destroying the protection requiring these very states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden. Keep in mind that constitutional rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned has never been repealed, and has been so stated by the court:


    In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:


    "Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


    And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax, but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.


    And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:


    “The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”


    The fact is, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


    So, and with regard to the census question, the more important task is to once again tie representation and taxation to each state’s population size, as intended by our founders.


    Finally, for those who do support our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and especially support the protection intended to be afforded by apportioning both representatives and direct taxes, is it not time to demand our Constitution be following and Representation with a proportional financial obligation be observed, which would end our socialist/communist states’ lover affair with “free” government cheese?


    JWK



    ”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]
    Beezer likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,866
    The reason for apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was explained as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality. See Federalist No. 54

    Our communist/socialist states like California want to swell their population size with illegal entrants so they can increase their representation in Congress. But they do not want to pay their apportioned share of the federal tax burden as intended by our founders.

    JWK

    The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned
    Beezer likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    21,581
    Thank you JWK!

    Get it to Trump
    TO BECOME AN AMERICAN YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR VALUES ...NOT YOUR LOCATION

    STAY HOME AND BUILD AMERICA ON YOUR SOIL

  4. #4
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    1,866
    Additionally, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution specifies that an “actual Enumeration” shall be done every 10 years “in such manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.” By law [see 13 U.S.C. §141(a)], Congress has delegated to the Commerce secretary the authority to conduct the decennial enumeration “in such form and content as he may determine” and authorizes him “to obtain such other census information as necessary.”

    The bottom line is, Congress delegated to the secretary almost unlimited authority to conduct the census required by the Constitution. Our Supreme Court, i.e., Justice freaken Obamacare Roberts is usurping policy make decision authority by second guessing the wisdom of asking the question: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

    JWK


    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
    Beezer likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. MSM distorts, by omission, the purpose for having a census!
    By johnwk in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2019, 03:10 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-04-2018, 01:54 AM
  3. In America: Communist, Socialist, Progressive = Democrat
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 07:09 AM
  4. College Democrats are Socialist (Communist)
    By dragons5 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 04:42 AM
  5. Gilchrist Blasts Omission of Immigration Question on Survey
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 07:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •