I don't know if this is representative. They don't like some Constitutional Amendments that come after 1913 ( like women voting ? smile). So, do they not consider the provision on the Constitution on Amendments valid , or what ?
CB http://taxdayteaparty.com/2010/01/constitutional-reform/ Constitutional Reform Posted by Eric Odom on Jan 12, 2010 in Daily Tea | The following was submitted for posting and I’ve published it on behalf of the author. -Eric ——————– I am perplexed by the issues that are facing our nation right now. But I am even more concerned that the root of these problems are not being addressed. The answer to everything that ails this nation is the Constitution. We are losing our freedoms because we are ignoring the Constitution as put forth by our Founding Fathers. Washington is taking liberties that do not belong to them, and they have the arrogance to ignore the citizen protests in the process. The Constitution is very clear in stating where the power lies. It is with the people, and the States in which they reside. We have been far too complacent in letting the Federal government, aided and abetted by the Progressive movement, to erode and transfer this power, beginning with the constitutional amendments ratified in 1913. In much the same way that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage, the States sold their birthright to the Federal government. It is time to take this birthright back. What I would like to explore and debate, with the help of other conservatives such as the Liberty Alliance, is using the ballot initiative process (in the 24 States that use ballot initiatives) to force a Constitutional Convention designed to restore the Constitution back to a document designed to ensure the liberties of its citizenry. Some of the restorative changes I would like to see are as follows: 1. Reiterate the 10th Amendment which already states that the federal government does not have the power or authority to introduce programs such as health care. 2. Rescind the 16th Amendment. Let the States set the Federal budgets and collect monies needed for the operation of the Federal government. This will end the progressive movement, pork barrel spending, most corruption, influential lobby groups, and much more. It will also allow the States to make decisions that are better suited to the needs of its own citizens in areas such as healthcare, education, and much more. It will also put an end to tax dollars being used to bail out companies that should be allowed to fail. This change would make the federal government subservient to the States, rather than controlling the States. In turn, this would put an end to enough wasteful spending that would allow States to balance their budget deficits. 3. Force a balanced budget amendment. No more borrowing or printing money. Put an end to the Federal Reserve. This will protect our currency and allow America to lead the world economically. 4. Rescind the 17th Amendment. Let the State Senators be appointed by the States. This will give direct power to the States and put an end to the need for term limits. 5. Require that all foreign treaties be ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority, essentially letting the States determine foreign policy by virtue of the States appointing and controlling the Senators. This will ensure against being absorbed into the International community and protect our Sovereignty, and respect for American law over International law. 6. Define the meaning of “regulating interstate commerce” to mean that Congress shall encourage interstate commerce and shall do nothing to hinder interstate commerce. 7. Reiterate property rights by restricting eminent domain. It is not my intention of defining in detail the Constitutional changes that need to be made that will end federalism, shrink the government and restore freedoms. I need the feedback of those much smarter than me. But I see no alternative. Fighting and debating Washington is like debating your four year old. It is pointless, when neither of them have any power except that which you are willing to succeed them. If I could come up with specific language to be used in any ballot initiatives, I see great synergies in using the grassroots movement that has developed this past year in moving these initiatives forward. I am looking for assistance in this endeavor. Although I would prefer to just raise my family and run my business, I sense an urgency in correcting this and am willing to dedicate my time and efforts to this cause. Regards, Lyndon Brittner lbritt...@connect2.com 54 Responses to “Constitutional Reform”« Older Comments Eric Smith says: February 8, 2010 at 3:35 am Lesser words are not meant in less meaning… Politics has become a business. From there, all evil has sprung. We NEED to stop the career minded campaign politician. Term Limits. << That little punctuation right there is a period. I don’t infer that there are no other problems to solve. Only that explaining that further is like describing what happens when you shut a door. Unnecessary rhetoric. If half of those in office knew they would need a different job at the end of 18 years- outside of representing their state -and if the lobbyists knew that business relationships were short lived, we wouldn’t have HALF of the mess we have now. Healthcare, unsecure borders, bailouts, etc…all would dwindle to minimal debate. Before Constitutional revision, we need Constitutional enforcement and we ALL know it. Jim L says: January 21, 2010 at 11:58 pm I agree 100%. But we need to once and for all say that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that it Shall Not Be Infringed Upon by any means. With out the ability of the people to take up arms and put the people back in charge of the Government. Then simply put, all the other rights of the people are just words. The founding fathers knew that and that is why it is the 2nd amendment only after Freedom Of Speech. William C. says: January 20, 2010 at 10:50 pm I basically agree with John Thomas, but I would go further and say that a Constitutional Convention is the last thing that we need. What we DO NEED is a more intelligently educated electorate. One that was not educated in lockstep mass by the governmental bureaucracy following their own Liberal interpretations of the Liberal governmental legislative bodies, but the same educational foundation that existed at the time of the writting of the United States Constitution. Of course there wiuld be a Liberal argument against that, as the hate the Constitution as it is, but when one thinks of the intensely powerful document of civic order that was written by our Founding fathers, one has got to honestly admit that there are feww of todays products of government run education that come close to comparing with the vastly superior intellecual pool as evidenced. John Thomas notes, and rightly so, that if there is a real need for another amendment to an already perfectly clear document, then it is the job of the legislators to bring it before Congress, work out the detasil in no unclear terms, and then submit it to the people. Then, we need to be absolutely certain that we elect Congressmen and Senators who will not stand by with their thumbs inserted, the better to swivel with, who will hold out also out of control United States Supreme Court from stripping our rights away in the name of some special interest groups, such as the gun haters, the abomination lovers, and the outright stuoid ones who reject the very foundation upon which the Forefathers built this Christian nation. Put the power back into the family. Put the power back into the Church the Peter built for Christ, and put the Power back into the people to tell the government, be it the administrative branch, the legislative branch, OR the judicial branch, to get their corrupt noses out of the people’s business, be it educational, be it a matter of free speech, be it a matter of the right to possess and bear firearms (the Constitution does nor make any distinction as to what brand, caliber, or any other factor, or even prior conviction for any crime whatever . . . once a felon has served his court mandated penalty, he is supposed to be released and not strapped with a label of ex-convict for the rest of his life; if he screws up again, lock his hinnie back up for a few times longer and make his life utterly miserable for all the time the fool has bought for himself). Probably the two things that need to be done the most is, No. 1. Make it very damned clear to politicians that holding political office is not a career; thet they ARE NOT our leaders; that they are indeed elected public servants and they can either act like it or be held to recall [stating unequivocally that being recalled is mandatorily grounds for criminal prosecution], and No. 2. The nationwide setting of Term Limitations on the holding of politcal office at a maximum of twenty-four year and any and all levels of government with a maximum of twelve years at any one position. Right now, possibly No. 2, above and certainly the necessary corrections to the Eligibility Conditions provision are the only two things that need to be considered on the Amendment question. If a little boy has to show his birth cirtificate to0 play Little League baseball, then the fool who wants to be president needs to show a whole lot more besides. As for the marriage question, if the people would insist that the government, from puke-mopper-upper in the Congressional Lounge to the yahoos in black on the federal benches would get their noses out of the peoples businnes on the matter of the Church, which is the entire intent of the First Amendment (to keep the government’s nose totally and forever out of the matters of religion and any so-called exclusionary clause be damned)and gave religious rights back to the people and their churches, the matter of marriage would revert to the church, where it belongs (marriage is a sacred institution belonging to God) and the government would loose one more tax on religion - the marriage License is a government tax on marriage). I could go on and on, but I think you begin to get my point. Whether you do or not depends, of course, on whether you are a beffuddled fool following a fantastic fallacy, or you are an honest and realistic thinker. You ARE one or the other, by your own choice. John Thomas says: January 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm I do not believe a Constitutional Convention (please grow up and stop using con con, article V and other meaningless terms) is not the proper way to go about it. I feel we should heed Madison’s warning on the issue. It would be a worse mess than congress is now. Who would decide the number or delegates? Yes it is limited to proposing amendments, but what kind of idiotic ideas would come out of it? We do need amendments, but by electing people to Congress who agree with us and getting them voted on. If we can’t get it through Congress, what chance do you think we could have enough delegates to steer it in a way we like? As far as the 750 plus calls by States, it never reached 2/3 of the number of States on any issue in even a liberal interpretation if being contemporaneous, which I believe is a proper interpretation. If you really feel it is the way, and I heartily disagree, then work on your legislature of your state and have them issue a request for a convention. « Older Comments Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website On 2/18/10, c b <cb31...@gmail.com> wrote: > I gotta find some of their interpretations of the Constitution. I'm > sure they are gungho on the 2nd Amendment and probably the 10th > Amendment. I don't know that they have much truck for Miranda warnings > or Warren Court interpretations of the Constitution. They probably > think affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment - not > > Anyway, they might be splintering the righjt rather than starting a > majority fascist party. > > On 2/18/10, Shane Mage wrote: > > Common ground? > > > > > Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded > > > constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, > > > given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, > > > though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — > > > would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member. > > > > Shane Mage > > > > > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it > > > always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, > > > kindling in measures and going out in measures." > > > > > > Herakleitos of Ephesos > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
