Melancton Smith's prophecy for 2010

The nation of Israel having received a form of civil government from Heaven, enjoyed it for a considerable period; but at length labouring under pressures, which were brought upon them by their own

misconduct and imprudence, instead of imputing their misfortunes to their true causes, and making a proper improvement of their calamities, by a correction of their errors, they imputed them to a defect in

their constitution; they rejected their Divine Ruler, and asked Samuel to make them a King to judge them, like other nations. Samuel was grieved at their folly; but still, by the command of God, he

hearkened to their voice; tho' not until he had solemnly declared unto them the manner in which the King should reign over them. “This, (says Samuel) shall be the manner of the King that shall reign

over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and for his horesemen, and some shall run before his chariots; and he will appoint them captains over thousands, and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground, and reap his harvest, and to make his

instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vine yards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants. And he will take your

men servants and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: And ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that

day, because of your King which ye have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Problem identification

We are responsible for all of our domestic problems.

Thinking the Constitution was the problem, we amended it, making problems worse.

More amendments will not help. Kings enlist our sons in the military to fight

wars, which don't involve us. Kings have scandals with our daughters. Kings tax and take what is not theirs!

The 16th Amendment

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.

This is the clause of the Constitution which legalized income tax.

This lead to the creation of the IRS. Ratified February 13, 1913

16th Amendment Misconception

I used to think, anyone complaining about the 16th Amendment was simply wanted to get out of paying taxes.

The 16th Amendment really pertains to state sovereignty.

Many politicians talk about state sovereignty, but their words are merely rhetoric, which tickles itching ears.

In order to achieve state sovereignty, words will not be enough. We need an actionable plan.

In order to create a plan, we need to identify and study the problem.

How is state sovereignty eroded?

Article 1 section 9: “..No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another...”

States are generally unwilling to challenge this, because it would involve, first loosing money, then challenging in court, with the possibility of loosing.

Furthermore, the federal government often offers a soft bribe for co-operation. After that states rarely cite sovereignty, because they want the money.

Why does this work to erode sovereignty?

The 16th Amendment changed cash flow in the United States.

Initially, cash flowed from the people, to the state, to the federal government. The states paid the federal government for services rendered.

In post 16th Amendment United States, cash flows from the people, to the federal government, to the states for compliance with federal mandate.

State Government

Me and you

Federal Government

Federal Government

State Government

Me and you

Imports Imports

Madison tax plan:States collect taxes from people. Pay federal government for services rendered. Federal government can also collect taxes from imports (and exports if desired.)

16th Amendment plan:Federal government collects taxes from me and you, and pays states for compliance. The government may be more tempted to refuse to collect tariffs.

He who controls the wealth...

He, who controls the wealth, controls the government.

Originally, the states were intended as essentially, the 4th of 5 branches of government.

The states sat between the people and the federal government.

The 16th Amendment bypasses the states by creating a direct link between you and the federal government.

Madison's Constitutional Crisis

Anti-federalists opposed the new Constitution on grounds of civil rights.

Conflicting interests in the south jeopardized ratification.

Southern states wanted to count slaves for representation.

Southern states didn't want to count slaves for taxes.

Madison's Solution

Madison held there will be no representation without taxation

States paid taxes based on representation in the house of representatives.

This made the southern states decide for themselves how to count slaves. This effectively silenced the southern states.

Madison's own words

From Federalist Paper 54:“In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will

necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to

reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their 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.”

More benefits

There was no tie between the individual and the federal government.

States collected taxes. States conducted census. If states were tempted to report greater

population, in order to gain representation, the people would pay more taxes.

If states were tempted to report lesser population, in order to pay less taxes, they would loose representation.

Modern implications

The IRS would be eliminated. *applause*

States do not necessarily have to create a state IRS, if they choose tax systems such as a flat tax.

The IRS could not hold 501c3 regulations over churches, in order to keep them silent.

States could challenge the government on violations of article 1 section 9 without initial financial investment, and without placing solvency in the hands of a judge. This is called, leverage.

Less federal regulation will be required to regulate things such as census.

Today, states court illegal immigrants in census, because they gain both money and representation, without any negative consequences.

Concerns regarding 'big brother' are reduced, because the federal government does not know who you are any more.

Madison's tax system is incompatible with fair tax

A national fair tax is a national system. Madison's tax is a state system.

Fair tax does not prevent the federal government from coming back and restoring income tax. Then fair tax is basically a VAT tax.

Madison's system basically makes VAT tax unconstitutional as well. (see Article 1 Section 9)

If one state were to adopt the fair tax, and another state does not, then the adopting state would loose sales revenue due to purchases crossing borders. This may even involve federal government.

Greece banned cash transactions over 1500 euro to stem loss of sales tax. This is a step toward government control of all buying and selling.

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. - Revelation 13:17

Purposes of taxes

Raise revenue for legitimate purposes. - A Madison tax system encourages this type of tax, because states pay the federal government for services rendered rather than federal government paying states for compliance.

Economic engineering. - What you tax, is what you discourage, and consequently what you don't tax, you encourage. If you tax progressively higher income, then you discourage higher incomes. The federal government maintains the constitutional right to collect tariffs. This means, if the federal government wants to collect revenue from taxes other than from the states, it must discourage foreign purchases and encourage domestic purchases.

3rd purpose of taxes

Social engineering – This is also known as sin taxes or punitive taxes.

Punitive taxes rarely work, sometimes hurt the poor more than rich, and often increase crime by encouraging black markets.

Ultimately, the states could still do this. However, we have more influence over state legislatures than congressional legislatures. Since sin taxes are only 4% of our revenue, we could reasonably choose, as a state, not to attempt social engineering with punitive taxation.

Misguided good intentions

The 17th Amendment reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...”

Ratified April 8, 1913 The 17th Amendment changed the senators

from being chosen by state legislatures, to being chosen by popular vote.

That doesn't sound so bad. What is wrong with this?

What is the function of the senate?

The house of representatives is designed to represent the people, thus representatives are enumerated based on population and elected as popular vote.

The senate represents states as coequal members of the union, thus they were originally appointed by state legislatures.

Protect the minority. (require 60% vote to pass the senate with each state being equally represented)

Slow progress of bills, to allow more thorough vetting progress.

Check against popular whim. Protect from foreign influences.

James Madison to George Washington

“...No one will deny that Virginia and Massachusetts have more weight and influence both within and without Congress than Delaware or Rhode Island. Under a system which would

operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State Legislatures, the ease

would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware, would then

have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union...”

Constitutional Convention; August 9, 1787

Charles Pinckney, “As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties and managing our

foreign affairs, there is a peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its door to those who

have foreign attachments...”

Federalist Paper 39

Perhaps most importantly,James Madison, “...The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived.

The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they

are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as

political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as

they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL...”

Federal not national

The connotation of the terms federal and national has changed a bit over the years.

Federal is referring to a government in which most of the power is decentralized across sovereign

states. In other words, the states form a confederation. The first Constitution of the

United States was called the Articles of Confederation.

National is referring to a government in which most of the power is centralized.

The People States The PeopleThe People States

Congress

In Madison's Congress,The House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the states.

In the 17th Amendment Congress,The Senate and the House of Representatives represent the people, and the states are not represented.

House of Representatives

Congress

House of Representatives

Senate Senate

Modern implications

The senate would protect the best interests of the states.

States could pass bylaws requiring senators to relinquish all or most foreign assets before being appointed by the legislatures.

States would effectively have veto, by proxy, over federal legislation. Laws adversely effecting state sovereignty would not pass.

Large states such as California and New York would find it harder to get their way in Congress.

After repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the states would again be the 4th branch of government.

Other Implications

Parliamentarian would be chosen by senators with the best interests of the states in mind.

States would be represented in the senate when members of the cabinet are nominated.

If the president does not look out for the best interests of the states, the states would be represented in an impeachment trial.

When supreme court justices are chosen, states would be represented to have final say in the approval process.

Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall

deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures

of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either

Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of

three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year

One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of

the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Is there a second path?

Article V gives exceptions in the Constitution, which can not be amended.

The Congress...shall propose Amendments to this Constitution...or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Does this only apply before 1808?

FP42 regarding article VIt were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the

importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate

operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in

which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of

twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of

modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and

may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example

which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their

European brethren!

Article 1 Section 9

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 4: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clearly, the 1808 restriction only applies to slavery, thus the restriction on denying a state equal suffrage in the senate without it's consent still stands.

Is the 17th Amendment only valid so long as the state consents? In other words, upon ratification of the 17th, is consent permanent?

Fix what we broke

Many people want term limits. We see the harm two amendments did. The

Constitution contains positions such as Senate Pro Tempre, which would have to be redefined and is referred to in several places in the Constitution and amendments.

Let's try six years without the 17th amendment first.

Take the lead

States are the stakeholders. Should their legislatures refuse an attempt to retake power?

The governor can put this issue in the national spotlight by inviting other governors to a convention to discuss the issue.

Governors can ask state legislatures to take up this issue.

If governors refuse to help and legislators refuse to vote for the repeal of these amendments, then they will have to explain to their constituents why they are not voting for action to achieve state sovereignty.

Any given state can assert it's article V right to equal suffrage without waiting for amendment, because that can not be amended away.

If a governor is elected on this platform, the voters add clout needed to start the process moving forward.

Put the federal government on the defense for once.

Ezekiel faced apathy

thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.

I know these words are pleasant to many of you. I ask. Are we going to take action?