Less than 200 years later, the US again finds itself facing conditions that could lead to a civil war. Like last time, the nation is starkly split over a ticking time bomb of demographic change that threatens to permanently undermine one of the two major parties.
Trump’s victory allows some chance to establish a workable status quo, but the problem is systemic. There are certain contradictions the US constitutional system has never been able to deal with and which have been major issues since the framers were debating anti-federalists who (rightly) feared an excessively strong central government.
At this point it is clear that highly centralized rule of America is untenable and it is only a matter of time until there is bloodshed. How might we prevent it?
1. Repeal the 17th Amendment
Until reading the constitution I never even knew senators were supposed to be elected by state legislatures, not the popular vote. The whole point of 6 year terms was that senators were supposed to be experienced leaders who would counterbalance the more transient popular representatives of the house.
The founders wisely distrusted complete mob rule. They never seem to mention in social studies class that the system worked like this until 1913 under Woodrow Wilson.
Before this guy, no income tax, no female vote, no federal reserve, the “peace” at Versailles just to name a few things. Everything changed.
This was done in part as a reaction to the excesses of the Gilded Age in the late 1800s when monopolistic robber barons would try to buy out state legislatures so they could pick senators. Corruption is a legitimate concern, but by making senators elected by popular vote, the very purpose of having a senate was undermined. Most importantly, the states were finally completely deprived of any say in the federal government.
2. Make A New Amendment That Allows States To Secede From Each Other
In 1848 Switzerland made a constitution inspired by that of the United States. They may have done a better job of it.
One of their key innovations was to allow their states (cantons) to have referendums to split up. They’ve had a state secede from another state as recently as 1979! In the present US it’s clear regions like Southern Illinois, Upstate New York, or Northern California should be their own states. At present they get little representation with their interests over-ruled by big cities that happen to be included within the same political boundaries.
As far as the number of senators getting out of hand or one party using subdivision as a tool to seize a majority, the Swiss thought of this too. Sometimes the splitting states are made into half-cantons that get one senator each.
An obvious objection is Switzerland is small while America is an enormous empire. This is a good criticism when looking at homogeneous countries like Sweden but Switzerland has multiple official languages and ethnic groups. Furthermore, the individual states that make up Switzerland were a loose alliance for centuries before they became a federal republic like the US.
Swiss cities are often their own small states while bigger states tend to be more rural, avoiding some problems of representation that haunt the USA.
They held together through the Protestant Reformation even though some states became protestant and others stayed catholic. Others had local forms of direct democracy for centuries while Geneva under John Calvin may have bordered on becoming a theocracy. In some ways Switzerland had more differences to deal with than the US.
The Swiss finally drew up a federal constitution because a civil war had just broken out between protestant and catholic states. They dealt with the problem constructively and decisively when just over a decade later, Americans ended up instead with a years-long bloodbath that scarred the nation forever.
It’s time to get past American exceptionalism and the insistence that America does everything the best. In practice, that just means choosing to stay ignorant of the possibilities that are out there
3. Amend The 10th Amendment
The 10th amendment just says powers not specifically given to the federal government go to the states, or the people. Apparently that wasn’t clear enough. Our modern system is characterized by opposing coalitions of states trying to use the power of the federal government to bludgeon each other into submission.
It’s a tyranny of the majority, or even an influential minority. It’s the nightmare of the founders come true when Californians live in fear of having religion taught in schools and Kansans are oppressed by Californian ideas of marriage. It’s the worst of all worlds for everyone and it sparks incredible tensions many of which culminated in the 2016 election.
The supreme court rarely uses the Tenth to limit federal power. Until 1992 they used it just twice in 55 years. What the hell!?
Clearly the 10th needs to be amended so it is more specific. States should be prohibited from legalizing a few unreasonable things that would force federal intervention like slavery or murder but need never fear that the culture and civic institutions of another region will be forced down their throats. The reason mountain state evangelicals care so much about gay marriage is that a policy they disagree with has been forced on them.
It would also be necessary to close loopholes such as abuses of interstate commerce laws. Without clear limits the feds can reinterpret the letter of the law to effectively blackmail states with tactics such as threatening to revoke highway funding.
Once the people of each state felt secure that their local customs and laws would be protected from outside power, many of the national tensions that we see approaching a climax could be easily defused.
Conclusion
The whole point of having states is that each can have policies that suit local needs and with many different approaches being tried, there is a natural process of trial and error to find out what works best.
If it means some regions choose to be “backwards” or “vote against their own interests” according to people of another region, so be it. Most Americans see obvious benefits in market competition but do not think about how healthy competition between polities can also produce new solutions.
Right now, states like Colorado are trying out the legalization of pot and if it works for them, other states may adopt it as well. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. We need more of that while reducing heavy handed coercion from the central government.
See Also: How Our Government Is Sanctioning A New Kind of Tyranny
Very good list especially the part about the 17th amendment.
I think we should also define Supreme Court jurisdiction as well. The Supreme Court essentially seized unlimited power for itself back in the early 1800s in the Marbury vs Madison case and this has never been challenged.
Also we should repeal the 16th & 19th amendments for obvious reasons.
Agreed. The 17th amendment is often overlooked but it was one of the most blatant power grabs by federal cronies ever conducted. By allowing state legislatures to elect the senators from each state it allows for a much greater check on the central government and means senators can’t go around promising gibs to everyone.
With the 16th Amendment, Senators could still go around promising gibs to everyone even if the 17th were repealed.
I’d expect that some “ward-heeler” type could strongarm the State Legislature into electing him Senator by riding a wave of “gibs-based” populism, especially since SCOTUS’ Reynolds v. Sims ensures that our liberal cities have an unduly yuuuge representative body in state legislatures.
Amen to that. People are startled when I inform them that SCOTUS has no Constitutional power to “judge if something is Constitutional”. They’re utterly shocked.
Yes the courts have gotten away with murder which is an area the constitution could be improved upon. One thing I would like it to settle would be defining our own legal standards. Currently most every court operates under English common law which places perhaps too much of an emphasis on precident. So that the opinion of a leftist judge who is clearly legislating from the bench becomes adopted as the law in practice, rather than the written law of congress. A prime example of this is child support payment programs (not sure if that’s the right word) which was completely created by 2 lawyers in the 80’s and used in a few cases and has now been adopted by the courts as the new universal law of the land, even though nary a law was passed.
I don’t mind the SCOTUS being able to strike down laws. It is its power to to create and amend existing laws which is problematic.
The courts’ roles should be clarified to ensure that no ruling can change or amend even one letter of a law in question. At least if something does get struck down, the ball goes back to Congress and the President to resolve the situation.
You bring up a good point that our courts operate out of English common law, not in the constitution, which places an emphasis on precedent not the letter of the law as it is written.
Repealing the 19th, 14th, and even the 26th are also important, universal suffrage is bogus idea and the reason we find ourselves in many of problems we’re in.
There’s no way we could reasonably do that now.
My most crucial recommendation is making a partial revision of the 19th amendment (women’s right to vote). While I don’t call for outright female voting banishment like some others do here, any woman who has tattoos, piercings, short hair, or unnatural dyed hair should be banned from voting.
A woman ESPECIALLY must be of sound mind, character, and possess at least some manner of self-respect and class for her vote to be taken seriously.
Also women should be restricted from voting until they are 25. College age women will almost always be brainwashed into voting liberal even though they don’t know what in the hell they are doing.
Oh yeah, and no women’s vote for single mothers who receive welfare benefits. No such thing as a free lunch ladies!
ALL people should be restricted from voting until age 25. Allowing immature “live for the moment” youth the vote was a mistake almost as large as allowing women the vote. I might make an exception for those serving in the military since they definitely have skin in the game in a very real and life threatening way.
The rest you mention is probably covered under my first post on the thread.
Every voter should be quizzed on the issues and candidates that come up during elections. I’m referring to major elections, Presidential and Congressional, not pissant local bullshit, “Who’s running for county dog catcher?” elections.
This will ensure that, at least, they read the booklets or pamphlets that come out prior to the actual election.
For that proposed amendment allowing parts of states to succeed from each other, could that also mean parts of states joining other states? I know there’s a sizable movement for West Virginia’s eastern panhandle to join Virginia, for some of Oregon’s southern counties to join with the proposed state of Jefferson, and for eastern Oregon and Washington to join together as the state of Lincoln.
I’m not sure why the article proposes an amendment to this effect as the Constitution already allows for it (Article 4, Section 3).
Historically it has even been used, for examples Massachusetts ceded part of its territory to New York (in 1855) and ceded its territory of Maine, allowing it to become its own state (in 1820).
Repeal the kikes. Job done.
But who will make our addictive porno movies, anti-white male and pro black male-white female interracial media, The never ending phantom “KKK” and “White Supremacist” bogeymen, and our import the dregs-of-the-Earth immigration policies?
I don’t want to take Jews’ right to vote in Israel away from them.
Repealing the 19th is very important, because the 19th shifts a society massively to the left.
I heavily agree on the first point: the Senate is supposed to be the guiding hand that is above the chaotic populism that drove disasters such as the French Revolution, the Cuban Revolution and a host of other left-wing revolutions in history. The Senate must return to its parallel role to that of the House of Lords in Great Britain.
I also support the original intent of the Founding Fathers: one must own land to vote. While I’d modernize it a bit (one must pass the U.S. Citizenship Test *in English* in order to register to vote and be a net tax contributor or have served in the U.S. Military), I believe one must have a “proof of stake” in order to have a vote. Otherwise, we have the situation we have now: politicians run on platforms of raising taxes to make the wealthy pay “their fair share”, even though the top 20% of earners pay 86% of income tax.
Passing the US Citizenship test in English shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who has served in the US military.
The French Revolution was not leftist. In fact, the leading figures were your typical libertarians.
How so when most of the doctrines of the left come from it? The fact that aristrocrats were the ones behind it doesn’t negate its nature.
Most of the doctrines of the left come from Marxism, which arose a good 40 years later.
Class warfare, hatred towards all sorts of religion, especially Christianity, disregard of the true nature of man (Rousseau and his folly) among other hits all come from the “Enlightenment” and partly from the Reformation whether you like it or not. Marxism just gave all this non-sense the trappings of a coherent theory.
The Enlightenment was a scientific revolution that bred certain ideas that were anti-clerical because the Church at that time was the equivalent of Cultural Marxism.
The Reformation was just an accurate assessment of how stupid Catholic doctrine was. This was so much the case that the CC had a counter-reformation.
And you have people like Moner talking about how protestantism is evil.
Obviously indoctrination and folly run deep in you. The Enlightenment was mostly a INTELLECTUAL movement, mainly philosophical, not a scientific revolution, even though many of these philosophers were scientists. However time has proven that their philosophical and social ideas were mainly delusions (equality anyone?) while their proponents were a bunch of hypocrites (the best place for a slave is under the yoke of master- so said my-Human-Rights Voltaire or abandon-your-5-children-and-then-publish-a-book-on-child-rearing Rousseau just to name a few).
Moreover despite some of their intentions their works were tainted with hatred towards Christianity (despite the fact that over 90% of the advance in Sciences during the time preceding the 18th century was owed to the Church who preserved the knowledge of the ancient Rome and Greece while promoting the development of Mathematics, Philosophy and Science within their ranks in spite of the dire circumstances of the Middle Ages) and a great anti-traditionalist bias (were not only against religion but against hierarchy ) thus sowing the seeds of Feminism, Marxism and most of the ills we have to suffer today. Your very comment shows the ignorance and non-sense you decry.
Moreover Reformation left a legacy of war and destruction of whole nations (The German sphere was destroyed in the 30 years war), led to the dumbing down of Christianity so that anyone who can barely read can start his own “Church” and if the Christian doctrine is right, to the damnation of millions.
How about make it simple enough for a bumper sticker?
“No Representation Without Taxation”
I’m stealing that.
Please do, I ‘got’ it years ago and have been spreading it. Make memes, put it on your bumper, spread it.
People living by the charity of others shouldn’t get a say in public affairs until they can demonstrate they can at least care for themselves. And they certainly shouldn’t be able to vote to tax others.
Sadly sometimes war is the only real solution ie: The Spanish Civil War
Great article, Woodrow Wilson was one of the most disastrous Presidents ever…a real progressive lunatic.
He was our worst. We suffer from his legacy more than any other president, except perhaps FDR.
What troubles me most these days is that the 4th amendment has been chipped away at or completely ignored. Police in my state have steadily increased their practice of seizing property without charging the owner with a crime. The victim then has to hire a lawyer to get 90% or less of their own assets back.
The 4th needs reinstated, with force, immediately.
We have a standard in Ohio which allows us to sue the local government (or the government office involved) if they deprive us of our liberties under color of law. This currently applies mostly to 2nd Amendment issues, but my thought is that it should be expanded to all of our rights. That means that the warantless “roadside sobriety checks” go away, there is nothing in the world that can justify a warantless search without probable cause, I don’t give a rat’s ass if some consider (wrongly) driving a “privilege”. A warantless search is just that and needs to disappear. This would also put TSA out of business. It would also, in theory, stop warantless wiretaps (without probable cause) and collecting “meta information” without the individual’s consent.
Hear, hear…
Just a few years back an open carrier sued Cleveland for being denied his right to openly carry a firearm peacefully and won around $275k dollars which came directly out of the budget for the police department that harassed him. We’ve seen that with quite a few areas around here since that was put into place, but it’s simmered down a lot since word got out to PD’s that they will lose their budgets if they give us shit. Now they’re all nice and compliant regarding our right to carry and even train in the academy now to leave us the fuck alone if we’re not actually breaking any real laws.
That’s great news. That crap where cops are taking money from motorists around the country and forcing them to prove in court that they legally earned it is some breathtaking bullshit.
If that isn’t checked soon, these guys will soon be knocking on doors looking for cash they can legally steal, instead of just fleecing the sheep at checkpoints and such.
Nixon had a lot to do with that I believe, as well as some idiocy that went on during the Reagan administration. The “war on drugs” is the vehicle whereby so many rights have been denied that it seems to me that even your most staunch anti-drug right winger would want that framework dismantled and abolished. But most are blind to it, doing the whole “wild west with drugs, abusers in every gutter, streets filled with drug fueled combat” thing that Leftists do regarding firearms.
A lot of powerful hands are in that drug-money pie…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6aa9771634832c0202c88b0f969efe94668695f1f9334dba720c7d619a45d5a2.jpg
More oddly, law enforcement is either maintaining or upping such seizures despite crime going down all across the board, since ~ 1992. Although a colossally stupid idea, carrying large sums of cash shouldn’t warrant an automatic seizure.
Ghost, are you aware that Ohio made it a felony to have a hidden compartment in a motor vehicle? It was aimed at transporting currency and drugs. So if one has such compartment, and it is empty, does one still get a felony case?
Yes, but that’s getting court challenges and I believe that only means after-factory ad ons, which is still wrong of course. The War on Drugs is the opiate of the Right, and they need to get over that shit, immediately.
It’s time to end prohibition again. It just never works.
Very true indeed. Right-wing and Conservative are not one and of the same. There is a difference to those with insight.
well if you’re going to repeal amendments lets start with the 1st, 2nd, and 4th…
oh — too late…
History dictates that war is inevitable…
if it repeats, or even rhymes…
then trump may be the Julius Ceaser of the Roman Civil war that ultimately brought it from Republic to Empire…previously was monarchy…
We Have had monarchy…
And Zucerberg wishes to be Emperor…
so after someone goes Brutus – Zuck can be Augustus…
In what world is repealing the 1, 2 or 4th even justifiable?
sarcasm — is what the left is doing…
Edit: they are the most important IMO…and greatest risk presently
Yeah, gotta repel that 19th Amendment. Wishful thinking I know but once women got the vote everything went to hell. While men were overseas fighting the Kaiser, the women got Prohibition put in. Drinking and gambling and whoring were declared unlawful. All those things which come natural to men became crimes.
I often wondered what life would be like had women never got the right to vote.
Switzerland until 1972 would be the answer to your question. They entered the modern era without giving women the vote, up to the 1970’s. They were nearly a paradise.
I had a swiss girlfriend some time ago. She was totally ignorant about politics, yet she voted everytime and for a green/socialdemocratic party (can’t remember the name right now). I asked her why she voted that way and the answer was, and I quote, ‘I dont know, they seem cool’.
Women should not vote.
That’s how a lot of women vote, either “I don’t know, it seems cool” or some stupid “threat” that doesn’t exist that they’ve been spoon fed by feminists/politicians “My body my right to murder my own children!” or some such nonsense. All emotion based.
Ironically the 19th Amendment assumes that women exist distinctly from men as a biological reality, and not as this nonsense about “gender” as a social construct, where people with broken sexuality can pretend they can change their biological sex.
The 10th is covered by the 14th, which allows all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to be universal across the nation, but nothing else really. It’s entire raison d’etre was due to the Southern states denying newly freed blacks their 2nd Amendment rights. It was NOT meant as a catch all “You have to allow our stupid degenerate California lunacy into your state, or else!” like it’s currently interpreted, which is the crux of the problem with the 10th (and 14th) amendments.
I’d also add these.
A House of Repeals. It would pass not ONE law, ever. BUT, it would repeal laws. That would be its entire job, to repeal Federal laws. There should be a built in aging date, so that they can’t immediately repeal any law Congress passes (say, 5 or 10 years to let the law “work” and be tested), but otherwise, they get elected on their performance of repealing onerous laws and regulations.
Severely restrict the vote. Ideally I’d remove it entirely from Da Womynz, but I doubt that would ever be able to fly, so instead I’d restrict it to tax paying landowners who held deed or are paying continuously on a mortgage note to real property (meaning property you own and are living on, not a deed to one square inch of a communal property, which is how the Left would try to get around this by selling 1″ parcels for ten cents to every welfare sucking moron in the nation). This is shorthand for saying disenfranchise the looting masses who contribute nothing and are a net drain on the common weal. No man who lives his life by having government steal from others should *EVER* be allowed to vote on anything. He’s a ward of the state and has concretely demonstrated sheer incompetence to run his own life and thus is not entitled to voting privileges, period, end of sentence.
An Amendment which would disallow anybody who makes a permanent change of address to a new state from voting in that state for a full 10 years from the date that they establish residence in the new state. No exceptions, ever. This would put a severe crimp in the Californification of red states by giving new residents from other states time to adjust to the local culture and habits of their new home. It is entirely unjust that a bunch of far Leftists idiots can pass a million laws and regulations in California then flee because those are too burdensome, then immediately start voting for the same insanity once they get to their new home in another state.
Last, tighten up the Interstate Commerce Clause so that it can’t be used as a catch all to regulate the shit out of everything in life.
“regulations in California then flee because those are too burdensome, then immediately start voting for the same insanity once they get to their new home in another state”
I wonder though whether those doing it — say from CA, and NYC, are the regular people or the actual invaders with an agenda…
Ask Coloradans that question. Prior to the 1990’s they were a very far-right leaning state. Any Colorado resident will tell you precisely who the invaders are.
Yep. As soon as you get out of Denver and boulder CO is as right wing as anyone could want. It’s a case of the tail leading the dog.
Can we at least keep weed though?
Yes. Weed is tight.
It’s a combination of both having seen this firsthand in a major metropolitan area of Texas. The city was primarily Texican and white but in the last ten years there’s been an influx of Arab “refugees” Sikhs, Hurricane Katrina transplants, Mexicans and blue state transplants. No one minds the Sikhs because they mind their own business and are willing to serve their country. The others have been flat out told to gtfo. Additionally, there were high hopes in the last few elections that Texas would turn at least purple but this has yet to become the case.
the same shit is done by Latin Americans, They escape their socialist shithole country, then vote for the same socialist shit in America, So the third or forth generation of them will need to move to another state when everything goes to shit again, so they can vote to the same shit again in a new state, until there are no more state and move to another country, is like a cancer.
Prohibiting all new immigrants to the nation from ever voting here at all seems like a good step. Any of their children born INSIDE THE U.S. AFTER MOM AND DAD ARE CITIZENS, can vote. But the original immigrants? Nope.
We in California are not the cause of “Californification” of other states. California used to be a very red state until we experienced a massive wave of immigration from New York and New Jersey in the 60’s-early 70’s. The effects of this Mid-Atlantian crisis are now just catching up with the rest of the country.
That doesn’t change the overall reason for the idea. If they come from New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii or Timbuktu, doesn’t really matter.
Many of those people were drawn to California by the promise of nearly-free college. In the 50s and 60s, the UC system was the best public system in the world, and it cost peanuts as long as you qualified as a state resident, granted after one year.
A previous wave of immigration, in the 1940s, came from Iowa. People forget that Long Beach was once called “Iowa by the Sea”. There were hundreds of thousands of people. They’ve been gathering for 115 years for an annual picnic in San Pedro.
And that stupid hippie song “If your going to San Francisco.” It was super gay and there has never been a calamity more disasterous for the Bay Area before or since. All from one stupid tune.
Get after ’em, homie…I’m right there with ya.
Funny how left-wing states want other states to recognize their marriage licenses, but they refuse to accept concealed carry licenses from other states.
I would, however, grant veterans (particularly disabled veterans collecting VA disability) the right to vote, even if they are not net tax contributors or land owners. The profession of shedding blood for the Republic is proof of stake.
In real financial terms, serving in a designated combat zone for a civilian means at least $150,000…for a six month contract. And that’s for jobs that don’t involve carrying a weapon, such as HVAC maintenance. For private security, it gets even higher. Comparatively, military members E4 and below do it for less than $20,000 every six months, and part of their mission (at least, for the Army and Marine Corps) is seeking out trouble (as opposed to private security which is supposed to avoid trouble).
And your CO can legally order you to your death.
Agree on restricting refugees from blue states from voting. most have not learned any lessons on why their home state came to be a middle class nightmare. All the transplants from Ca have turned the heart of my state into a nasty blue-purple bruise.
I would do away with democracy entirely and replace it with a system of corporate monarchy. This is done a lot in Native country and it works marvelously.
Create a corporation. Call it the Nation Corporation. Create a system in which executives are remunerated according to how well they do their jobs. Justice executives would be paid inversely with the amount of crime that occurs. Treasury executives paid on how much they directly affect the economy (minus market pressures caused by other markets that they can’t really help).
Create a board of directors of consisting of a certain group of people that holds the executive to account. A group of experienced senior citizens. A group of talented military officers. Anything really. I would personally make it consist of a group of people that can’t be appointed. In Native country, it’s usually a team of really old people with lots of experience.
The last part is the really hard one. That’s why nations must be completely culturally homogeneous and striving towards a common goal. This allows said board of directors to have the interests of the common folk while appointing competent people to run it.
I’ve seen nothing good come out of Corporate States.
I have. These states’ chief execs are remunerated according to the good they do. If they’re small enough, they can be ridiculously accountable.
It still has human beings involved. See, I found the flaw.
The solution to Californication in not just buying a little time before letting them vote. Keep them out in the first place with Anti-Blue Laws. Pass the sort of laws that will trigger snowflakes so hard they ‘just can’t’ move to your Red State. Even if you don’t even really like it yourself, the fact the laws will assure you of no snowflakes makes it worth doing.
History has proven that the 14th was never properly ratified. US inc. continues to pretend otherwise, and they should be dissolved ASAP!
Good article, though none of it will happen. The government is simply too big and has its fingers in too many pies.
Term limits are the answer. Failing that, there will be a violent revolution. Perhaps one of the civilizations that emerges from that conflict will be smart enough to disallow the female vote.
Term limits for:
1) Congress
2) SCOTUS
3) Local Statehouse Reps
4) The unelected bureaucracy (nobody should be able to make a full time career as a government drone).
No. 4 on your list is definitely a big burden on any gov., both, financially and ideologically. The leftoids have entrenched themselves in every branch of the government ready to implement or slow down any opposing ideology/legislature while being paid from the taxes obtained from the people they’re against.
Huge problems throughout the Western countries.
What about the Supreme Court? It would save us from having to worry about a supermajority of leftist justices which would stay on the bench for decades.
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States.
Ah. Missed that. My bad.
Ditto on #2. I think one of the biggest mistakes the Founders made was creating an unelected group that could serve for life. I think the idea was that unelected officials would not be swayed by the opinions of a particular constituency, but we saw how fast that house of cards fell. What I’d also add is an amendment returning the Supreme Court to its original purpose: to INTERPRET laws, NOT to MAKE laws. Marbury vs. Madison is NOT part of the Constitution, but yet we’ve been letting the Supreme Court march to that tune for hundreds of years. It got even worse with that “living document” crap, where the justices get to pencil in a new meaning or a new right afforded by a particular amendment whenever the case (or special interest group) calls for it. So now we’ve got a Supreme Court that’s acting in its own role as well as in the role of Congress, while Congress gets to fold its arms and whistle on down the road.
SCOTUS is supposed to interpret laws?
To interpret a law is to determine what a law entails, which is effectively making a law. Only Congress can do that.
Though I agree that Congress has hit upon the idea of (illegally) loaning its legislative power to SCOTUS “on the down low” so that the Congress critters who are accountable to their constituents can let the unaccountable SCOTUS make the unpopular calls.
Term limits don’t solve the overall problem though. There’s an endless supply of RINOs and they’ll just get elected in steady succession.
Meanwhile, any decent,”rarer then hen’s teeth”-type politician who does manage to be elected will be drummed out and replaced with a RINO.
I know that they don’t solve all problems. You’ll note my original post on the thread didn’t even touch term limits, I was simply agreeing and adding to the list provided by onetruth.
And I disagree that term limits are a solution or even a positive change for the positions that you specifically outlined.
Though I’m “on the fence” about #4.
Term limits seem like a good idea on first impression, but if you truly consider it, term limits are not the answer. Term limits are the emotional “feel good” quick-fix solution that people want so they can think they did something to clean up politics and then go back to their lives, ignoring those who are governing them.
In actual fact, enacting term limits on elected officials will significantly increase the power of the unelected political leaders of the Dems and GOP. Term limits will also give lobbyists and Washington insiders more power, not less.
We already have term limits: they are called elections. If a candidate has been in office too long, vote him/her out. If an official has been running a government agency too long, vote him/her out or vote out the person that appointed him/her to that position or oversees that agency.
The answer is restricting the vote to people who have skin in the game. The answer is holding officials accountable for their actions whether they’ve been in office 2 years or 2 decades. The answer is people who pay taxes and suffer under oppressive laws and regulations staying involving and forcing their elected officials to do their job or go home.
Agreed about skin in the game. If you don’t own property and/or a business, you shouldn’t be voting. And frankly if you’re under 30 you shouldn’t be voting, because you lack the life experience to make rational decisions.
But term limits are most definitely part of the answer. A big part. Teddy Kennedy serving in Congress for 40 years because the dipshits in Mass. were too stupid to stop re-electing a murdering immigrant-loving fool cannot happen again.
I would add soldiers to the list even if they don’t own property as long as they are noton welfare.
Fix the FED first and then worry about the Constitution.
In the video below Rep. Alan Grayson questions the FED inspector General about the missing $9 trillion dollars. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman hasn’t a clue.
Nine trillions have gone missing and nobody has a clue.
I know most of these are dreams, but sometimes they do come true:
1. Repeal the 16th amendment. The income tax allows for the government to use its taxing power to subvert other rights. Replace with an amendment that outlaws all payroll taxes and instead mandates use of a national, retail non-VAT sales tax on non-essential goods that cannot exceed 10%. In this, allow for states to opt out of federal services and lower the amount of federal sales tax that is collected in their jurisdictions. i.e., if Texas didn’t want to participate in the federal Medicaid program, it could lower the amount of federal sales tax from 10% to 9.5%, etc.
2. Repeal the 23rd amendment. Replace with an amendment that exempts all DC residents from any and all federal taxes. Establish DC as a self-governing territory similar to Puerto Rico, and give to the DC mayor all the powers a territorial governor would have.
3. An amendment that mandates that only natural born citizens may hold any public office at the federal, state and local level. We need protection from voters foolish enough to elect foreign communists like Leland Yee and Kshama Sawant.
4. An amendment that raises the minimum age for public office 35 years. We have too many people who have never worked a real job, or had real responsibilities, being permitted to govern.
5. An amendment that imposes term limits on Congress (12 years max for any given person) and possibly the Supreme Court (10 years max).
6. An amendment that mandates a death sentence for intentional voting fraud, and which restricts voting to people who have skin in the game.
I support repealing the 23rd, but Congress has to retain its complete control of DC. The Founders found that out the hard way.
TBH, DC’s attempts at self-government have been spectacular failures. Perhaps POTUS should be granted the ability to appoint an Administrator for DC, who’d serve at the pleasure of Congress and with Congress retaining its ultimate authority over the city?
On #1, the Constitution grants Congress the power to state “We need X dollars” and the states have to all chip a portion of that based on their population. I’d like to see that used. As a fringe benefit, that would make the State Legislatures seriously opposed to the 17th Amendment
DC only had failed government because of the people who live there and vote for the same. I’d rather they not have the ability to pick the president.
I also wanted to add that even if DC is a territory like Puerto Rico, it can still be directly administered by Congress if Congress so chooses to act.
dupe
Good starts. Term limits in Congress is a nice idea too.
My favorite was from Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. They had a third legislative house. The “House of Repeal” had no ability to filibusterer, no committees, etc…
Any member could propose to repeal any law, tax, or regulation and it would get a vote. Any proposal receiving a 1/3 vote or more was passed and the law was repealed (no veto either). THAT would keep the federal government limited to the proper size.
I already beat you to the punch on House of Repeals. Heh.
Ops – you sure did. I would enter politics just to run for the HOR!
However it happens, there is no escape from the inevitable:
“If a house [or nation] is divided against itself, that house [or nation] will not be able to stand.” – Mark 3:25
The division in the USA was cemented with the adoption of the US Constitution, which is the root of division and the root of our problems, with its so called “laws”. The anti-Federalists were dead on with their objections to it and history is a consistent witness to the Constitution’s failure. Sadly, like most truths, most people will fail to acknowledge this truth about the Constitution until it fully fails and is read about in history books years later. Then people will say with the spotlight of hindsight, as they always do, “How could people then not have seen this truth?”.
Better to prepare yourself for a worst case scenario than put any faith whatsoever in the man made idol called “The US Constitution”. Instead of its fake laws, the white man has a true law system, that is his birthright, and that has always led him to prosperity and happiness whenever he has implemented it whether personal, familial, social, communal, or national. Take America’s first Constitution, for example:
“New Haven Fundamental Agreement [1639]; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….”
Timeless witnesses from scripture:
“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of Yahweh, And in His law he meditates day and night. He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.” – Psalm 1
“Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” – Romans 3:31
“The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul;” – Psalm 19
“Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom [NOT man’s constitutional kingdom!] come. Your will be done [NOT man’s “executives”, “legislators” or “judges” will!], On earth as it is in heaven.” – Matt 6
Top comment!
Amen and Amen!
“The United States Constitutional Republic was destined to fall from its inception. This is borne out in the following two passages:
‘And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.’ (Matthew 7:26-27)
‘[E]very kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.’ (Matthew 12:25)
“The house known as the Constitutional Republic was not built upon the rock of Yahweh’s1 word, but instead upon Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.2 It began and continues as a divided house….
“The day is therefore approaching when the Republic’s cup of iniquity will be full3 and Yahweh’s longsuffering is exhausted. At that time, the Republic will be subjected to His judgment. Like all nations before her built on sand, she will cease to exist. The question that remains is whether that generation’s Christians will be prepared to build upon her ruins. If not, another ungodly nation will fill the void until finally a future generation of our posterity are prepared to erect a government and society upon Yahweh’s righteousness as expressed in His triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments).4
“It is therefore incumbent upon this and all intervening generations of Christians to do everything in their power to help prepare for that future generation of Christians to do it right(eous) the next time….”
Excerpt from the Preface of the free online book “A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government,” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.
Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.
Tell it, brother!
Obama just commuted 330 more drug sentences in his final official act as president. With his most recent offer of clemency, Obama brought the total number of commutations he has granted to 1,715, which is more than any other president in U.S. history (most of these people were mob-connected drug dealers, which has nothing to do with the mob influencing the government, I’m quite sure, wink-wink) –
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-final-act-as-president-obama-commutes-330-drug-sentences/ar-AAm1SGa?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Speaking of commutations, had Bradley Manning not become “Chelsea” Manning, HE would not have been pardoned, that was a final last-minute PR nod from Obama to the mentally deranged fringe of the homo faction.
God damn though that fucking senator Chuck Schumer did he just have to mention “any sexual orientation or gender identity”… good Christ THIS is why the libtards have got to be purged I am tired of politicians and the media rubbing degeneracy in everyone’s face all the time! How about cater to the 98% of the population who ARENT sexually deranged?
Nice photo of based Liam Gallagher’s eye.
Did you catch the new documentary?
No but thanks for reminding me. They were supposed to release the Knebworth ’96 DVD last year but they didnt, quite disappointed
Isn’t it amazing how much money someone can make with a just a webcam and a cucumber?
Tits or GTFO!
And clarify the commerce clause isn’t the Butterfly Effect where you breathing “affects” interstate commerce.
That and a way for states to officially nullify fed court decisions and laws.
Wyoming and Montana have nullified “the commerce clause” in regard to firearms in their states. If the firearm is made locally in state and sold to a resident of the state, they have legislation that declares right up front that the firearms are not subject to Federal laws and restrictions on firearms, since no interstate commerce is involved.
The commerce clause could be hobbled over night if more states did this in regard to locally produced items of any variety.
So does Kansas. The feds came in and the state failed to defend.
Prohibit the government from abolishing cash.
Obamacare was judged constitutional as a tax. Seems the Federal Government can actually compel us to engage in private commerce and can compel us to be party to private contracts even when we don’t want to. We need to correct this, quick. And in a very prejudicial way.
Roberts was totally against this until the very last minute when he reversed every single thing he’d said in private to other justices. Clearly what he ruled “constitutional” was anything but. Rumor has it that the Obama lackies had some dirt on him that he didn’t want to go public. It was almost “in your face” levels of corruption.
It wasn’t just 0bamacare. Things like the National Firearms Act (the reason why you can’t own a machine gun without a license) and Social Security were upheld as taxes.
All of these should have been struck down as forms of involuntary servitude.
There is legislation already written awaiting a vote on removing supressors from the NFA list; aka removing the tax, removing the need for Sheriff approval, and removing the FBI background bullshit.
And one of my favorites, although it never seems to gather much interest, is the House of Representatives needs to be an unelected body. It ought to be filled by lottery among eligible voters, about one year terms, one member replaced every day.
https://i.redd.it/cairk0xos6yx.jpg
And don’t forget your Skittles and grape drink…
Grape drank. Get with the nomenclature, dude.
My ebonics is admittedly a tad rusty…probably because I don’t live in Section Ape housing.
Homieclature GOJ Homieclature
Grape drank, purple drank, Lean, sizzurp…it’s all good. Don’t forget the jolly ranchers and cough syrup.
I hear that Obama is now “joining the ceremony” which means, yes thank God almighty, that his reign of terror is finally finished and done. He can’t sign any more despicable EO’s while standing outside for the ceremony and after the ceremony he goes back to being the “never held a real job” loser that he’s been his entire life prior to getting into government. Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we’re free at last!
He can’t sign any more despicable EO’s while standing outside
Check that. Remember he re-upped the Patriot Act while in Europe by using an autopen.
Even so, he has what, < 60 minutes? If anything last minute and devastating comes through I’m fairly certain that it will be immediately repealed later today by Trump.
Just sayin’.
Looking forward to repealing more than just the last minute stuff. Repealing the entirety of the last eight years would be a good start.
His last call was with Angela Merkel..
Probably something like this: “Shit, Merkel. We fucked up. I can’t hide or sugarcoat the shit you do anymore.”
Ahh, Good Times ahead.
Lawsy, lawsy, I gots tears in muh eyes…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/376dd26a96c5d352d72a200894ba08ec43323a84e3538935926d2da50c604369.jpg
Doesn’t it feel great to have a leader that actually loves our country, traditions & heritage of liberty?
There’s only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated: By Yahweh’s unchanging morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statues and judgments. When the Constitution is actually examined by this standard (instead of a bunch of dead politicians’ cherry-picked quotations), it’s found to be anything but biblically compatible. In fact, there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.
For evidence, see free online book “Bible Law vs. Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.
Ted R. Weiland is an anti-U.S. Constitution activist intent on replacing it with a theocracy run by a “Christian” dictator.
Beware! Grundune is a Mormon who rejects the Christ of the Bible and the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11; John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1:7-11; etc.) and whose Doctrine and Covenants demand he defend the Constitution as divinely inspired (D&C 101:80, etc.), much the same as with the Book of Mormon. He knows if the Constitution is exposed for the biblically seditious document it is, that the entire Mormon house of cards comes tumbling down.
He also rejects that Christ is our (ONLY) King now, despite a plethora of New Testament passages that prove otherwise. See blog article “The Kingdom is Not of the World But in the World” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/objection-the-kingdom-is-not-of-this-world/.
Tragically, many Christians are more inclined to follow Doctrine and Covenants than they are the Bible when it comes to the Constitution.
Ted R. Weiland gets angry when Mormons take issued with his desire to abolish the U.S. Constitution. Because he is wrong about what we believe, he thinks we should be quiet and not question his anti-U.S. Constitution zeal.
The U.S. Constitution has proven it’s worth with over two centuries of guarding Americans against government tyranny. Now with a new president who is restoring and honoring the Constitution we are better off than we have been for the last eight years.
Ted R. Weiland, you can take a hike.
Beware! Grundune is a Mormon who rejects the Christ of the Bible and the Word of God (Psalm 19:7-11; John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1:7-11; etc.) and whose Doctrine and Covenants demand he defend the Constitution as divinely inspired (D&C 101:80, etc.), much the same as with the Book of Mormon. He knows if the Constitution is exposed for the biblically seditious document it is, that the entire Mormon house of cards comes tumbling down.
He also rejects that Christ is our (ONLY) King now, despite a plethora of New Testament passages that prove otherwise. See blog article “The Kingdom is Not of the World But in the World” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/objection-the-kingdom-is-not-of-this-world/.
Tragically, many Christians are more inclined to follow Doctrine and Covenants than they are the Bible when it comes to the Constitution.
On a side note… has anyone seen Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife’s despondent facial expression?
The cameras from all news outlets spent way too much time on her revolting nauseating mug. I was provoked to rage and disgust and yells of GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE BITCH YOU LOST
Yeah I did and it was annoying. She kept deflating my rock hard boner from that absolute babe holding The Don’s arm. My god…
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/images/folder358/300x/13674358.jpg
Other than your third proposal I really don’t see much good in them. Personally I would like to see the supreme court modified with in addition to the Judges appointed by the president I would like to see additional judges one appointed from each of the states to rule with them. At the same time I believe Term limits for Federal judges would also be a good idea. I would like to see state legislatures having more power that if they gather together can override the abuses of the federal courts and congress. One of the ideas of the Confederacy to protect the rights of states in their constitution is granting state legislatures the power to bring articles of impeachment against officials of the central government so I think this would be a good modification to our constitution. Another thing I would do is rewrite the Second Amendment to its original proposal which stated No Citizen Shall Be Denied the Right to own a firearm unless convicted of a felony or proven to be of unsound mind.
I would like an upper age limit on all government office.
Problem is that would likely eliminate the wisest and most mature in power, history is filled with young, inexperienced leaders leading their followers to disaster. I am inclined to want the minimum voting age restored to 21 so kids can grow up, get jobs, start with some life on their own before they walk into the voting booth and vote with some experience in life. Many of today’s young Hillary voters will be voting for Trump in 2020 after four years of real life on their hands, four years of working for a living, paying taxes, maybe contemplating kids of their own. Besides the corrupt and degenerate much of the liberal power base is the young and naïve. Today’s young irrational naïve liberal filled with ideals is usually tomorrow’s mature, wisened conservative filled with experiences both good and painful.
Nobody over 65 has anything to contribute. Too many senile old fools with outdated ideas.
Liberals Yes Conservatives No
Scumbags are out doing their thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-3sNWc6t2I
Jesus titty-fucking Christ look at those fat, ugly, insane humanoids…
Dirty stinking Leftists.
Their rabble do whatever they’re told, and their leadership is utterly blind to why nobody likes them or wants them around. They feel that if they protest (what precisely nobody knows) and throw temper tantrums then this will “start a conversation” aka “Sit down and shut up and let met Marxist in your face!” and then all will be right. So utterly clueless why they’re being rejected wholesale, they are.
how frustrating – actual military defeated by snowflakes…
hopefully they get retribution.
Don’t know how they keep their cool…
1. Balanced federal budget amendment unless in times of declared war.
2. Terminate the federal reserve.
3. Eliminate universal suffrage.
Balanced budget would be nice, but I live in a state where such a thing is required by law and politicians historically have lied and cheated to achieve it.
The feds even have some experience with that lying and cheating, as we’ve seen for 20+ years with the claim that Bill Clinton “balanced the budget”.
I definitely agree with 2 & 3.
http://i.imgur.com/sQ4Qp0p.jpg
Are you a gamer?
Former, not so much anymore.
“giving power back to you the people” Trump…
Although this article was well thought out there’s no time to debate about what we should do to the constitution. Those in Washington don’t care about your rights and with the help of the Federal Reserve have almost fully dismantled the constitution by twisting words in their favor. Gold = money. End the Fed.
I feel like he’s My President now:
I’m a believer – but wary…Maybe he will do nothing like Obama, and Mayor Dinkins.
But, sure sounds like he will not be politics as usual…
Gentlemen, just moments ago ended the Reign of Leftism in this great nation. What a fantastic “Fuck You Establishment” acceptance speech, which in no unquestionable way indicted every sitting ex-President and Congressman at the ceremony.
America first? Radical Islamic Terrorism? These words haven’t been spoken since GWI took the stage.
And he barely said “I” or “my” at all. Such a contrast from the exiting Narcissist nobody whose name is best forgotten by us and by history.
“Before this guy, no income tax, no female vote, no federal reserve, the “peace” at Versailles just to name a few things. Everything changed.”
The role of Untermeyer and Brandeis may be of interest here. There is some suggestion of (attempted) blackmail, although it’s difficult to ascertain how much is ‘conspiracy theory’ and how much is true (and played a factor in what happened). There is some suggestion that Wilson regretted the consequences of some of his actions in later life, and that may have included his role in establishing the federal reserve
1. Hard cap on the % of federal income tax that can be collected. Even commie states only collect 10% max, that’s peanuts compared to D.C.
2. Cap number of laws. Make them all expire. And have the Supreme Court sign off before any law gets enacted. Freedom over legislation.
3. Cap the size of government as a percentage of population.
Number 2 heavily violates the separation of powers. SCOTUS already has too much power, they need to be clipped back a bit, not empowered more.
Nope. Congress has way more power. They make buckets of crazy laws they know aee unconstitutional and it’s the law of the land till the Supreme Court gets around to overturning it…. maybe
Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch of the federal government.
SCOTUS is supposed to have next to no power.
Trump said he would recind 2 laws for every new. IIRC
He’s not the congress. But I hope he applies pressure
he said he will…
we shall soon see.
either way — times are IMO changing rapidly…
SCOTUS already has a greater power than #2, it can make its own (de facto) laws on which their is no check.
You miss the point. Thousands of bad laws become effective until an egregious case is finally heard years later.
Eg. Heller vs D.C.
Also you can’t legislate from the bench when you have so few laws to review
Cap the number of laws
Bottleneck them going live with scotus.
Then let freedom ring.
SCOTUS is not designed to legislate, and the fact that it has been effectively legislating for centuries has been the cause of much woe in the USA.
Even if we assume that SCOTUS does/should have the power to “assess Constitutionality”, it should be moot as all Congressmen take an Oath to uphold the Constitution. Enforcing that oath would do more good than letting 9 unaccountable radical partisans have more unconstitutional power.
On that, Congress actually has the power to add as many judges to SCOTUS as it sees fit.
Nope. They aren’t designed to legislate. Which is why they would make a great bottleneck.
They would not make a bottleneck worthy of anything.
Congress could-and would-pack the court. SCOTUS legislating would also go against the principle of Republican government as SCOTUS is a wholly unaccountable body.
SCOTUS involved in the legislative process would also be the federal government serving itself as SCOTUS is appointed entirely without the direct input of the People.
And, as we’ve seen, SCOTUS has a pretty sorry track record when it comes to determining whether or not a law is “Constitutional”.
Do you understand what a bottleneck is?
Do you realize that congress already approves nominees.
Do you not accept that the sc is already part of the legislative process?
Looks like you’ve seriously edited your post.
Again, there would be no bottleneck as SCOTUS is effectively controlled by Congress.
The bottleneck that you propose shouldn’t exist, there is already enough strife caused by the “Tribunal of Nine” being illegally involved in the “legislative process”.
Unfortunately, repealing the 17th Amendment won’t have much of an effect until Reynolds v. Sims is overturned as that SCOTUS (de facto) law prevents state legislatures from representing the state.
Congress needs to have more Representatives. Congress was supposed to expand the House in step with the population, not just swap a meager 435 seats around every 10 years.
While that doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment to achieve, it might as well.
Other ideas:
Term limits
No job, no vote
English as the official language
Abolition of welfare
Remove the right to vote for anyone who is a net moocher of government money, including all government employees and workers at government subsidized companies. If you don’t pay for gas, you don’t get to choose where we go.
This one change would result in smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom (basically fix everything) within a few decades at most. When moochers don’t get to vote, they can’t vote themselves more moochies, and hardworkers soon tire of paying them for nothing. This eliminates welfare over time, which eliminates the vast majority of immigration problems.
Congressmen couldn’t vote in elections but could vote for laws? That’d be a strange circumstance.
After 0bama and seeing the result of his social engineering in the US military, I’m not so adverse to your proposal of military members being barred from voting.
I’ve had a couple of ideas for a while for changes:
1) All fees, fines, duties, taxes, or other levies, and all rules, laws, regulations, or other constraints, shall apply equally to all.
2) Any new law, program, regulation, or fee, fine, levy must be passed in 2 consecutive sessions of the legislature with an intervening election. No changes whatsoever may be made to the bill following the first passage. If it is not passed in the second session, it dies. An exception is granted for a temporary rule during a national emergency as declared by 75% of both houses of Congress and the President. Such an emergency rule or fee shall last not more than 2 years, and can NOT be renewed in any form.
3) Any rule or law may be repealed with a simple majority vote with no intervening waiting period so long as the repeal does not increase fees or taxes or restore previous laws or regulations. (e.g. repeal a repeal). When proposed, the repeal proposal must be voted on within 60 days, and cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
1) ends special favors of any kind, e.g. no protected classes, no protected industries or businesses. 2 and 3 – Easy to repeal laws and taxes, hard to enact new ones.
Just a couple of random thoughts.
Amendment 420, legalize weed and tax it BIGLY
USA out of debt in a decade.
The founding fathers toked up and envisioned a hemp economy, so lets be patriotic and get it done!
Weed is a social issue. Should be left to the states (see 10th amendment). There are many dry counties across the nation. Should they be forced to allow pot?
Only if theyre “forced” to allow alcohol and cigarettes.
Point 2 is already in the Constitution. Article 4 Section 3.
If you can get Congress and the State Legislature to agree, which is consent that they should have to give, part of a state can break away into its own state or join another state.
I would change it to have the house selected by random draft of the population, similar to jury membership. I’ve got more faith in my local 7/11 clerk or the folks at WalMart to apply common sense with an eye on the debt than the folks who are elected.
dare i ask what kind of wal mart cashiers youve been talking to? mine are dumb as a sack of bricks
And a sack of bricks is still smarter and has more common sense (as well as utility) than the average congressman. WalMart cashiers, no matter how stupid still understand bills have to be paid, you can’t run up your household debt beyond your means to repay.
wal mart cashiers only understand bills have to be paid….and thats it. and nearly everyone understands that.
but you are jumping to a false conclusion. america did not become a country with 20+ trillion in debt(only the official on the record number mind you) by having a country full of financially wise people. the wal mart cashier in question, may understand they need money to pay bills….but they suck at anything resembling money management and are not the people i would ever get financial advice from, ever.
im sure there are the rare exceptions to this rule, but as a rule, wal mart cashiers are dumb as a sack of bricks. you can call congress stupid all you want, and they are, but there is no way your average congressman is dumber than your average wal mart cashier.
your average american is in massive debt which means they do not understand “you can’t run up your household debt beyond your means to repay.”
how in the hell you think the average american citizen, much less idiot working the wal mart register understand this, i have no clue.
the 10th amendment is generally fine but sadly it means nothing today
interesting point about the states splitting up.
i agree completely about amendment 17. i would in general say every amendment past 15 has been downhill. i would even amend the slavery amendments so they no longer mean anyone born in the US is a citizen which would close the stupid mexicans get a free citizen child loophole.
amendment 16 is also a critical one that needs to be axed.
All good points in this article. The representation also needs to be reworked. The Constitution was not totally clear on how House representatives were supposed to be created. If you go by the idea of population, we should have several hundred if not a couple thousand house representatives.
The 14th Amendment has two major flaws: a clause that protects the national debt, and an unclarified “equal protection” clause. The national debt is long out of hand, and the equal protection clause has been abused as a power grab over the states by the feds. It should be tossed.
The 16th Amendment is documented as fraudulently declared ratified, and should be thrown out. Go back to a direct tax that is apportioned, and not progressive.
The 17th Amendment should be tossed. Give that power back to the state legislatures.
Amplify the 2nd with a new amendment.
Ah, Switzerland, the motherland. I still need to visit, one of these years.
The best way would be to actually put in protections for property etc so the government just couldn’t tax away everything you own.
I’ll take the Torah over the biblically seditious Constitution 8-days a week.
Oy vey
Confederacies do not work in the age of Globalism.
The elites push Socialism and Global Trade agreements and such to be able to bribe few individuals and force their will upon the masses.
Essentially both Putin and Obama have centralized a lot of power.
Except Putin cares about Russia and Obama does not give 2 damns about America.
Regionalism is a far fetched dream at this point. We need a high degree of centralization, but the guy in power has to be OUR guy.
It’s a war and leftist won’t give you the choice to refuse gay and pedosexual rights, mass migration or drug legalization.
The time for federations ended. It’s time for Ceasars and Mussolinis.
If you are not willing to force your will against others prepare for others to do it to you.
Any country with a bill of rights embedded in its constitution will always be a judicial tyranny, so if you want a republic again, you need to start there before moving on to repealing the 17th and 19th amendments. Otherwise, ya you’re getting a civil war, and it will take less than a week after it starts for it to collapse Canadian governance as well (at least there will be some benefit of your second civil war).
1) Increase the minimum age for president to 50.
2) Same for senators, and require them to be natural-born citizens.
The original 1st amendment guaranteed a certain level of representation. All the states with the worst representation are the most corrupt(CA). New Hampsphire despite having a massive congress, has few, and wise laws, its a great example of what the US could be like. They also talked about the right of medicine. Really if I have no right to harm myself I have no right at all because the Government will argue that I am harming myself so they should be able to decide how best to treat me and my family.
This date of 1913 keeps popping up on my radar-its when The central bank the Federal Reserve was put into place, it was when a federal income tax was instituted, it was when 2nd wave feminism was at its peak(they were given the vote 5 years later). Its also when Woodrow made this interesting statement “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me
privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields
of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that
there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so
interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak
above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”