Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Rashputin

The proposed amendment is redundant, congress already doesn’t technically have the authority to make laws which are non-uniform across the country.

The problem is congress and the president appoints the federal courts who have in turn usurped the final word on the meaning and enforcement of the Federal Constitution. As a result the Federal government is pretty much lawless(without a constitution).

As for amendments i would go with something like this:
* This Constitution shall not be construed as to deny the inalienable rights of the people and their States to leave this union by act of their own convention and vote. Upon such leaving they shall be no longer regarded as a member of the United States or subject to its laws and shall only be readmissable to this union upon request of the State followed by consent of Congress.

* The application of an Income tax shall not be construed as to allow
discrimination in the rate of tax. Direct sales tax shall be less than 100% of the value of the sale.

* The abuse of the so called “supremacy clause” which clams to make ONLY acts which are in Pursuance of the limited authority granted to the Federal Government as the supreme law of the land, NOT simply any act that the same government may illegitimately(and self-serving) judge to be within its employeers authority, nor that judgment in itself.

It is perhaps necessary that we amended the Constitution to clarify that Acts in Pursuance to the State or local Constitution and not prohibited by the Federal Constitution are also the supreme law of the land.

* The court which resolves Federal Constitutional matters must be accountable to the State not Federal government power interest, or there can be no effective Federal Constitution which protect the rights of those it rules period.

* Land ownership issues with regard to the Federal Government must be clarified, as to prevent the abuses we have
observed to take place, in which the Federal government has calmed and exercised Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over land it hypocritically recognizes as to be part of a state, and merely holds the Economic Ownership(Title).

This is a most serous issue particularly for western States whom the Federal government has refuses to sell its Economic Ownership(Title) of the vast majority of our lands and now exercises Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over the same land to the exclusion of our own Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) and our equal self-deterioration rights as a state.

While again an amendment should not be necessary to fix this over-site one is apparently necessary insomuch that the Federal government and its employees the Federal courts refuses to recognized our rights, and that a forceful confrontation is not preferable.

We must clearly define that the Federal government is only authorized to excersise Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) over land ceded to the Federal government under the terms of the Federal constitution which requires the consent of the State legislator (As described in Article 1: Section 8: Clause 17).

That the States of the United States may only loses their Sovereign Ownership(Jurisdiction) under that terms or for the formation of a new State(As described in Article 4: Section 3: Clause 1), or in the general and willful ceding of their jurisdiction rights over a territory (As described in Article 4: Section 3: Clause 2). That in either case the Consent of the state legislator is required for the Federal government to obtain any jurisdiction over land which the State clams jurisdiction.

That in the admission to this union of any State the Federal government is recognizing the jurisdictional supremacy of that same State with in the agreed bounty of the State. That no special stimulation on the behavior of such State shall be in anyway binding upon that State if it is not binding upon all other States.

That the Federal government shall not be empowered to exercises any inherent domestic authority(such as Eminent domain) over any territory over which it does not have State level jurisdiction, that any attempt to do so shall be lawfully arrested by the State or States which it effects.

* Federal Tax powers must be more clearly state to eliminate the vast majority of the abusive federal
powers over the individuals. Perhaps by means of requiring every federal spending act to be part of a program which must be funded by a specific set of taxes that can then be nullify by State authority if any part of that program be deemed beyond the Federal Governments authority. Effectively reserving to the States and their people the ability to opt out of such programs, both benefits and burdens alike.

* The 17th amendment must be repealed in-order to restore some level of practical check on federal power helping to preventing the initial usurpation in the establishment of theses programs in the first place.

* The 16th amendment must be repealed in order to restore the link between the power to tax and the power to spend.

* The 14th amendment must be repealed to eliminate its countless abusive uses by the court.
Such abuses include the courts choices to effectively rob from the people of their right to protect their
weakest and most helpless(the unborn) from being murdered.(Roe v. Wade). This is among other just
as aggressive usurpation such as our right to freedom of religion with regard to our State governments property. As well as dealing with the practical issues that arise from automatic birthright citizenship regardless of the illegal immigration status.

* Balanced budget except for military spending in the limited duration of a time of Declared War.

19 posted on 09/09/2010 12:53:10 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Monorprise

Good list.

Also, need to clarify “separation of church and state.” It is not reasonable to exclude religious statements in public places. Just because someone is offended by an exercise of free speech, particularly of a religious nature, does not mean they have a right to use government power to inhibit that speech.

To protect the right of free speech, we also need to put a lid on “political correctness,” whereby government power is used to hinder the exercise of free speech if found offensive to some.

We need to put more controls on what the courts are able to do. And we need to have the ability to recall judges, even Supreme Court justices. We should not allow a temporary lapse in judgment, such as electing Obama, to seat radicals in the highest court for life.

20 posted on 09/09/2010 2:39:47 AM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson