Replace All Federal Taxes on Income with the Fair Tax Act , HR 25
Constitutional Convention
Just wondering if anyone is contacting their state reps. about forcing a constitutional convention. As fast as the this administration is moving we need to put as much pressure on our state reps as possible and quickly.
On a side note. If you want to make a statement about government control on business. Use your money.
Stop buying GM/Chevrolet products (including their finance arm).
Put your investments in non-government owned brokerages.
Close government subsidized bank accounts and open accounts in smaller banks and credit unions.
What do y'all think?
On a side note. If you want to make a statement about government control on business. Use your money.
Stop buying GM/Chevrolet products (including their finance arm).
Put your investments in non-government owned brokerages.
Close government subsidized bank accounts and open accounts in smaller banks and credit unions.
What do y'all think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Marilyn Rickert on
-
Hi Frank!
Welcome to FairTax Nation! FairTax has been researching the possibility of a Constitutional Convention for some time. There seems to be two opinions -- other than if we should have one or not -- if we should have a CC to simply repeal the 16th Amendment or a CC to repeal the 16th Amendment and pass the FairTax at the same time.
Marilyn
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Hunt on
-
My father read a Wall Street Journal article last week regarding more states considering Fair Tax legislation. If enough states (33-34) approve Fair Tax legislation then it could the impetus for states requiring Congress convening a Constitutional Convention to abolish the federal income tax code and pass The Fair Tax on the federal level. The Houses for Missouri and South Carolina recently approved Fair Tax legislation.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Calabrese on
-
I think the CC could happen but we could also be opening a can of worms. If I am not mistaken almost any type of amendment can be brought to the floor for a vote. The mind set of the general population seems to be to the left. Lord knows what else would hit the floor. I call my state reps and congress often the seem onboard but very week.
I think the Tea parties Are great to build momentum and enthusiasm. The biggest problem was poor media coverage. So before before we try the Washington DC march how about a wake up call for the news media. Protest outside their very headquarters and studios. 3 or 4 thousand people outside ABC, CBS and CNN would get their attention.
-
-
I could be wrong but my understanding is a Constitutional Convention can be convened for a specific purpose.
-
-
I am not sure but I have always heard that once a ConCon is called the delegates can do anything they want. Since it has not happened since antiquity who really knows? And at any rate, you would still be at the mercy of the people who choose the delegates to the ConCon. I agree with Mr. Calabrese.......it sounds like a can of worms.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony on
-
If/when a CC is called.....we must tread very carefully and not rush to get things done.
Ground work will have to be laid and great care taken to not destroy what we are trying to save.
There are people out there who are just as passionate about bills as we are about the FairTax. They see an opportunity to further there cause they'll take it.
-
Permalink Reply by GeneLouis on
-
A Federal Constitutional Convention would be a disaster
A few years ago, a handful of Americans got together to make some "minor" modifications to the Articles of Confederation. After this simple meeting, they emerged with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, these guys were good. They produced a decent (but not perfect) document. It provided a method to correct those imperfections. That is the only safe way to make changes.
In these types of (Convention) proceedings, we usually follow precedent, especially when that precedent is desired by those making the decisions. There is no precedent for a limited Convention. In fact, there is nothing that can prevent a total abolishment of all laws - especially the legislative actions that might ask them to limit the Convention.
Are we going to trust the current crop of big money politicians - the people who will not support the Fair Tax - with the development of a new Supreme Law of the Land? Will the current bunch of career "kings" give us a better government than the founding fathers? Will we ever have a chance to pass the Fair Tax again?
Until we have term limits to get rid of the career guys, we cannot allow these people to touch our Supreme Law. Instead of complying with the current Constitution, they want change it in their favor. And that means no Fair Tax.
Read the books by Cleon Skousen and you will never again mention those dirty words - "Constitutional Convention".
-
-
Our state has rewritten its constitution a few times. But, I don't think that's a wise thing to do on the national level.
Think about a few of the original bill of rights that might get altered or eliminated. Free speech, gun rights come to mind. Other provisions includes 2 term presidents, certain voting rights and the powers of the different branches of government.
I think the political fallout would be catastrophic.
-
-
Ron - thanks for the excellent point...
State constitutions must work within the US Constitution. For that reason, State Conventions are not dangerous because they cannot eliminate the Bill of Rights or change the nature of Government. In addition, State legislators are usually readily accessible to residents whereas national representatives are not accountable to anyone (in practice).
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Schaff on -
I have to agree with Frank, If a con. con. is opened it will not only be the 16th amendment that will be look at but all other amendment can be re-write . Can you image what this leftist could get into the constitution. This could just be a diaster.
just my thoughts
-
Permalink Reply by Fla Vol on
-
I understand your concern about a concon being opened to many changes. That is why in my comments and discussion on this subject I have carefully added the concept of a strong coalition of selected organizations who will have the power to influence the state legislatures to ammend only the items requested by the coalition. I do not feel the Fair Tax organization has the power by itself, it must have several organizations to agree with it. Then a convention for a specific purpose can be requested and insisted upon by the coalition. The first few states approached will be carefully selected and are critical. Because 2/3 are needed and then 3/4 for ratification the die must be set by the first few states and then the first few approvals will be followed. This state route has not been followed before except for the original convention. All changes since then have been controlled by congress. States are also discouraged with their loss of power and the timing is ripe to call for a state program. The states will want to solidify some of their powers. Even with congressional approval we still need to ratify with 3/4 of the states to remove the income tax amendment. We have to promote this route anyway, why not short cut the work and do it in one program?
The Fair Tax folks such as yourselves have been making some great progress and the new movement with meeting with congresspeople out on the home meeting circuit is a great move and we must support it and concentrate on it, however, we must not overlook a back up and possibly our most promising route through the sates requesting a concon.
In my discussions I have listed sources of information which will clarify the procedure.
Stew Rusby
-
-
There are only 7 states that don't use income tax as a form of revenue. Many of them use some source that's related to the Federal income tax. A few use a flat tax rate.
In addition, all but 5 have some form of sales tax. Many do not tax food or prescription drugs.
Going the state route means that you're going to have to convince those state legislators that moving from an income tax to a sales tax is beneficial. It has to be beneficial to those legislators as well. Removing federal income tax will not be beneficial to the state. They will have a hard time justifying why they should take money from a paycheck and not the feds. Besides, state subsidies would be curtailed putting even more pressure on the states.
Although it sounds like a good way to go, you would have to convince a whole lot more legislators that this would be beneficial without any green light from Washington. The devil is in the details.
© 2024 Created by Marilyn Rickert.
Powered by
