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

.


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 “offensiveâ€

[quote]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 taxationâ€

Originally Posted by roundabout

Sometimes it is not what is reported, but what is not ............

Exactly! So, how did inaccurate information about the rule of apportionment and taxation get into the “House Rules and Manualâ€

I am still very curious as to why Glenn Beck missed a probable cause as to why the 3/5th clause was not read in the House. I’m having a big problem understanding Beck and his mission in respect to this particular issue. Glenn has done more to awaken the American People than I personally could ever hope for. But on this particular issue, his research staff may have been delinquent in their duties.


Since Glenn Beck continues to unearth what some would call conspiracies, and in this case one of the most important parts of our Constitution was not read by the House when a reading of the Constitution was in progress, it is absolutely amazing that Glenn Beck goes on and on about the connection of slavery tied to the provision in question, but mentions nothing, absolutely nothing about the provision’s protection with regard to taxation.


I only say it is absolutely amazing because slavery has been put to rest by the 13th Amendment, but taxation, and especially direct taxation as mentioned in the 3/5ths clause, is still very much alive, but its stated protection, that direct taxes shall be apportioned, was not read. WHY? Why was it not read when it is still an operative part of our Constitution? And why does Glenn Beck not mention the protection, but dwell on slavery no longer in practice, when taxation on a daily basis affects our lives, liberty and property?


I would say it is a pertinent fact that the House Manual, in its version of the Constitution, and which every member of Congress is given, gives inaccurate information suggesting Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 has been changed and is inoperative because of the 16th Amendment, when it is not. So why is Glenn Beck silent and negligent in not unearthing what some would say is one of the most evil conspiracies perpetrated upon the American people with the Federal Reserve system competing for first place?

Finally, the very reason for allowing a direct apportioned tax in our Constitution is very applicable to today’s circumstances, and was intended by our founding fathers to be used to extinguish a deficit, and have each State’s Congressional Delegation return home with a bill for each state to help extinguish the deficit created by Congress. Does anyone here have a problem with our founder’s thinking --- representation with proportional obligation? Or, do you think that pinko progressive states, with large pinko progressive populations, which send pinko progressive members to Congress like California, New York, Maryland, etc., should be allowed to have their pinko progressive representatives vote to create deficits, without being made to carrying their apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit they created?

JWK


[b][i]“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soilâ€

Well, here it is from foxnews, why the three fifths clause was not read!

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

[b][i]â€