ArchiveCategory Archives for "Constitution"
The meaning of the Constitution. Also, proposed Constitutional Amendments.
The meaning of the Constitution. Also, proposed Constitutional Amendments.
The powers over commerce and money granted by the Constitution are very limited. The Congress can:
Of course, the government now exercises absolute power over commerce. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the power to tax justifies forcing everyone to buy health insurance or else pay a fine. Even though this new precedent gives the Congress a way to force us to buy products and services, it was still not satisfactory to the four so-called “liberal” justices because they wanted the decision to include a direct assertion that the commerce clause empowers the Congress to force us to buy products and services. How is it that so-called “liberals” want to force the little guy to buy products and services?
The so called “liberal” Clinton administration argued before the Supreme Court that the power to regulate interstate commerce justified banning the presence of guns in homes within 1000 feet of a school because guns impact education, and education impacts the economy, and the economy impacts interstate commerce, and the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce! Amazingly, five of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Clinton administration. Of course, once one of those five justices has been replaced by Obama, his plan to ban guns everywhere within, not 1000, but 5000! feet of a school will pass the Supreme Court.
Given the new precedent that Congress can make us buy products and services, the many existing bans on products and services, the millions of pages of regulations, the fact that our money is printed out of thin air without competition, and the federal debt; I think it is fair to say that government now exercises absolute power over commerce and is not wielding that power in good faith.
Such extreme power and corruption requires an extreme remedy. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Separation of Commerce and State:
Separation of Commerce and State
The Congress shall make no law with respect to commerce.
Given that money is part of commerce, the Congress shall not borrow money and shall make no law with respect to money.
Given that labor is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to keep the fruits of their labor shall not be infringed.
Given that trade is a part of commerce, the right of everyone to trade the fruits of their labor for the fruits of another’s labor shall not be infringed. Nor shall the Congress compel the states or the people to trade the fruits of their labor.
The intent of an armed citizenry and of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not sufficiently clear and protected in the Second Amendment, and thus a deeply entrenched culture has evolved where the government feels it has the right to disarm us, spy on us, indefinitely detain us, and even assassinate us. As a proportionate solution to such extreme and such deeply entrenched culture, and as a solution to the lack of clarity and protection in the Second Amendment, I therefore propose a new Freedom Amendment:
The Armed Citizenry Amendment
The right of the states and of the people to form militias shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear any individual arms, such as those borne by any individual serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution, shall not be infringed.
The combined number of armed persons serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution shall never exceed one tenth of one percent of the people.
The government authorized in this Constitution shall never declare martial law. The states shall never declare martial law.
Persons serving any branch of government authorized in this Constitution shall never fire on the states or the people. Given any individual who, while serving any branch of the government authorized in this Constitution, has fired upon the states or the people, the right of the states and of the people to terminate the life of that individual and the life of the individual who gave him that order, shall not be infringed.
In a nutshell, the federal government might still develop and purchase military technology, but the actual defender of the states and the people, would be the states and the people – not the federal government.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
More specifically, government is, and always will be, the tool of those who cause the problems.
Better legislation does not work.
Eternal vigilance does not work.
Better candidates does not work.
Transparency works. In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, transparency is the only way government can be anything better than a force multiplier for the takers.
Transparency works, which is why we don’t have real transparency. In fact, the lack of curiosity in the media is truly breathtaking. It seems almost as if the establishment media exist solely to fabricate a sufficient illusion of transparency to prevent revolt, but of course, we know they also exist to fabricate other illusions, such as the illusion of representation (e.g. They fabricated The Myth of Obama).
Given the entrenched forces resulting from so many generations without transparency, extreme measures will be necessary for about a generation. Therefore, I propose a new Freedom Amendment – The Transparency Amendment:
The Transparency Amendment
The President, Vice President, and every member of the Congress shall wear a device to capture the surrounding video and audio every second of every day while in office. Failure, for any cause, to publish all content to every citizen within one hour of capture by the device shall constitute forfeiture of office. Publication to a web site shall be considered sufficient to meet the requirement to publish to every citizen. Once published, such content shall remain continuously accessible to every citizen in perpetuity. Intentional or accidental removal or disabling of the device, by any cause, shall constitute forfeiture of office.
This amendment shall also apply to the Chairman and governors of the Federal Reserve, to all federal judges, and to all justices of the Supreme Court.
This amendment shall take effect sixty days after ratification.
This amendment shall expire twenty years and sixty days after ratification.
The Honest Labor Amendment would disqualify candidates like Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama because only those candidates who had performed sufficient honest labor would qualify.
Let’s first define what we are calling honest labor. Honest labor complies with honest laws, competes with other honest labor, and is voluntarily exchanged with another individual who voluntarily traded the fruits of his own honest labor.
Now let’s explore what is not honest labor.
By definition, governments spend money they either borrowed, printed out of thin air, or collected from other people by force. Governments also tend to forbid competition with their services. Governments ban the fruits of some labor, subsidize other labor, and even force us to buy some products and services. Governments even compel people to serve in their military. Therefore, any labor performed for a government is not honest labor.
The legal profession is a special case. Everyone knows it has a dishonest reputation and is intimately dependent on government, but perhaps more important is that about 90% of Congress has a law degree, and Congress has an approval rating of 11%, and our goal is to improve Congress …
Even work done by private sector doctors is not honest labor because doctors are protected from competition.
Volunteer work is also not honest labor because even those rare volunteer jobs that avoid the taint of government are not a two-way trade.
Therefore, very few people actually perform honest labor, but we don’t have to be purists to make an effective amendment. The Honest Labor Amendment merely needs to be fair, effective, and enforceable.
The Honest Labor Amendment
No one shall qualify for the Congress or for the office of the President of these United States without having first performed 10 years of labor separate from government and independent of individuals and organizations receiving government funding.
Progressive economists agree. Enough government spending (of any kind) would fix the economy. For example, building pyramids would fix the economy. War would fix the economy. Fighting an alien invasion would fix the economy, and building the Death Star would fix the economy. Therefore, the government could fix the economy by performing one of its very few Constitutional roles – regulating the militia.
The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it says the people have a right to form militia, and it also recommends that the government regulate those militia by providing them with regular (standard/uniform/sufficient) equipment and training.
Of course, providing equipment and training in no way obligates a free individual to show up when the government calls forth the militia. A individual militiaman shows up only when he has decided it is the right thing to do, and he shows up only for as long as he continues to believe it is the right thing to do.
Of course, just as those who have freedom of speech are all of us, and the media (the press) are all of us – the militia are all of us.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure freedom by ensuring that the people are a much greater military force than the government. Therefore, every individual has the right to keep and bear – not just any kind of arms the government has – but any kind of arms without limitation – without infringement.
To avoid distraction, let’s quickly address weapons of mass destruction. Until the Constitution is amended, the people also have a Constitutional right to own any weapons. With or without such an amendment, the government would not have to equip the militia with weapons of mass destruction. Now, back to our point …
The government could equip the militia (all of us) with the best weapons, training, and gear.
Although the militia are all of us, it wouldn’t make sense to equip everyone, and the test of whom to exclude from the program of free regulation must be objective, ethical, and simple. For example, it must be free of conflict of interest. The test is thus – pretty obvious.
Only those who pay taxes are eligible, and regardless of whether one pays taxes, anyone who receives income from the government is not eligible.
If you are a progressive, the economy would be fixed.
If you are a conservative, America would be impossible to invade.
If you are a libertarian, freedom would be ensured.
Government soldiers forced their way into house after house in Boston because there was a chance that a 19 year old US citizen might be hiding in one of them. (He wasn’t.)
The people were not allowed to leave their homes – except for those who were forced to leave their homes at gun point and were then patted down. I have seen no evidence yet of a warrant, but of course, a Constitutional warrant must state a specific place to be searched, so there could be no Constitutional warrant in the instance of a house to house search.
As far as I know, this has never been done in America before.
I wonder if the soldiers in the video have thought about how when they are out violating our homes, there is no one guarding their own homes? Are they sociopaths who don’t even care about their own families?
Given the limited audio, some may claim that it is not what it appears, so let’s listen to some testimony from the citizens themselves.
These witnesses were ordinary people who thus have faith in government and who did not know that their rights were being violated. Now let’s hear from a witness who understood what was happening.
Everything you saw in these videos was unconstitutional, but this is not what anyone saw in the mainstream media. Instead, the mainstream media showed us the nice soldier bringing milk to the children, or the man who said he felt safe because the government was searching his home.
This unprecedented violation of the Constitution by Obama’s DHS not only failed to find the 19 year old US citizen, but it actually prevented his discovery. It was only after the government allowed people to leave their homes again that a citizen found him hiding in his boat.
This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, but it achieved its more important goal, which was to set the precedent that government soldiers can come into your home without a warrant whenever they want and the mainstream media will cover for them.
This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, and it also failed to achieve its most important goal, which was to provoke armed conflict with the American people. The US Government was hoping that one (and preferably more than one) citizen in this all white neighborhood would defend the Bill of Rights with AR-15s and high capacity magazines. The government’s goal to provoke armed conflict with the American people finally became 100% clear a few weeks earlier when Obama’s DHS began practicing shooting white children.
We know the DHS wanted to create this whole scenario because they called this man and his brother at home and told them they were coming. The brothers predictably fled in an unprepared manner, thus creating the opportunity for the government to react – like we saw in the videos.
If the Obama administration is capable of what we now know, then it is capable of anything.
The Constitution distinguishes between the states and the District of Columbia, and it authorized only the states to vote for the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Therefore, the residents of the District of Columbia were not allowed to vote for the President or the Congress.
In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution enabled the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for the President – but still not for Senators or Representatives.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
The reason that the Constitution prevented the residents of the District of Columbia from voting is because that would have been such an unhealthy conflict of interest.
The intent was clear, but the mechanism was clumsy and inadequate for the leviathan that is government today, so why not amend the Constitution to let the residents of DC vote, while removing unhealthy conflicts of interest across the nation?
Such an honest voter amendment could lead to very small numbers of voters in some places like the District of Columbia, so let’s also fix the electoral college while we’re at it.
The Honest Voter Amendment:
Only an individual human being may vote.
One may not vote while one voluntarily seeks employment with the government, loans money to the government, borrows from the government, receives a check from the government, or works for a business that sells goods or services to the government.
No American citizen shall be compelled to serve the government, loan money to the government, borrow from government, or work for any business or individual.
States in existence as of the end of 2013 shall retain their original count of senators. A new state or district whose proportion of the nation’s eligible voters is less than one tenth of one percent shall have no Senators. A state or district whose proportion of the nation’s eligible voters is equal to or greater than one tenth of one percent, but less than one half of one percent, shall have one Senator.
If a state is formed by secession of more than 50% of voters from another state, then both parts of the former state shall be considered new states for the purposes of this amendment.
To remedy federal laws and orders that promote extortion, one may not vote if one has attempted to secure employment, promotion, compensation, or any non-mutual transaction, for oneself or as any form of advocate, by having coerced any individual, or organization of individuals, with the threat of government action.
Friday, January 13th, 2012 (from the WSJ):
The debate surrounding such laws contains some extreme hypocrisies about rights and the Constitution. Before, we look at the hypocrisies, let’s try to enter a reasonable and fair frame of mind.
We cannot simply look to the Constitution on abortion itself because whether it grants rights to a fetus depends entirely on whether a fetus is a person having rights. The Constitution offers no guidance on whether a fetus is a person, and even if it did, we would still have to consider amending it if the knowledge we have gained since 1792 proved otherwise. However, the knowledge we have gained since 1792 does not resolve the question. It is still a purely subjective question, and both sides can have rational, consistent, and noble reasons for their position – although most people on both sides are just rationalizing what they want to believe. For a more thorough discussion of abortion read my article: Reproductive Freedom.
Now let’s look at the hypocrisies elicited by this new law. First, let’s look at the conservative hypocrisy.
A large minority of Americans support an honest interpretation of the Constitution, and anyone who supports an honest interpretation of the Constitution must oppose this law. Even the pro-life majority among those who support an honest interpretation of the Constitution must admit that it is unconstitutional to force doctors to perform a procedure just because it might possibly persuade some women to choose differently.
To support this law is to support the existing unconstitutional big government apparatus that progressives have built over the last century so that they can make take as much of the fruits of our labor as they want so that they can reward their friends and make it difficult for people who try to buy guns, who try to make a profit, who try to express wrong ideas, who try to improve their children’s education, who try to hire the best employees, who try to be self-sufficient, etc.
To support this law is to abandon one’s traditional liberal American principles and support only the one principle behind all forms of big government:
Government rightly has the power to implement any good idea.
The temptation to give up our traditional liberal American principles and adopt such pragmatism for the sake of expediency is the temptation that has been used The Prince to divide us against each other and lead so many of us down the path of progressivism, socialism, fascism, communism, and every other form of big government.
Now let’s look at the progressive hypocrisy.
Progressives say that if a woman wants to carry a gun for self defense, then government absolutely must make her first learn about carrying a gun; whereas, now progressives are saying that if a woman wants to abort her baby, the littlest of the little guys, then government absolutely must not make her first learn about it.
Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it has enormous ability to affect the economy, but our Representatives are pretty well insulated from the economic effects of their decisions. I think we can all agree that Congress needs to feel the effects of their decisions – even more than we do.
Let’s also consider that if the economy is going really well, then the Congress should benefit too. If you believe that Congress can improve the economy, then they would have earned it. If you believe that Congress can only harm the economy and deserves no credit for a good economy, it would be a small price to pay to reward them for not messing it up.
As an additional incentive, removing the upper limit on what our Representatives could earn under our new karma system would magnify how much the economy affects them personally, and that can only be a good thing. Also, the potential to earn more would attract better quality Representatives and make them more immune to bribes. Again, even if you believe that Congress should do nothing to impact the economy, then higher quality Representative will be more likely to know that. It would be a small price to pay for a good economy.
Representatives will feel the effects of their decisions much better if we also give them unlimited retirement benefits that could disappear entirely depending on the economy. This is a particularly effective measure because the effects of most Congressional decisions continue to affect us decades later, and sometimes the impact actually grows over time.
Of course, they should be immune for the first year of their first term.
I therefore propose the following Constitutional amendment:
Beginning in the second year of the first term, and continuing for the lifetime of the each Representative (to include the House, the Senate, and the President), all compensation from all government sources shall be calculated on a scale that begins at zero and has no upper limit. The first year of the first term shall not be affected by this amendment.
When the annual growth in the entire material product of all American citizens is zero, then the compensation of our representatives shall be zero. When greater than zero, each Representative shall receive 0.0001% of that growth, and the President shall receive 0.0002%.
Suppose an increase in growth worth 500 billion dollars. Each Representative would receive 500,000 dollars that year.
I would like to see the government out of the marriage business entirely, and thus I propose the Freedom of Marriage Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of marriage, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of parents, or of procreation; or the right of the people to peaceably engage in sexual activity.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, the Freedom of Marriage Amendment is not the law, and so the government is all up in our business about marriage – and everything else. Therefore, we have many government laws about marriage; and thus we have gay marriage advocates claiming that equality under the law demands those laws apply equally to gay marriage because they claim gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to the government.
Does equality under the law really apply? If only straight people could own slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to own slaves? If only straight people could be slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to be slaves? If government is all up in our business about hetero marriage, would it also be necessary for government to be all up in gay people’s business about marriage? If everyone must be forced to subsidize hetero marriage, then would it also be necessary to force everyone to also subsidize gay marriage? If only some gays wanted marriage laws to apply to them, would it also be necessary to force those laws on all gays?
Government has a monopoly on making laws, so from government’s perspective, is gay marriage the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to government?
Libertarians like myself do not consider the differences between hetero marriage and gay marriage to be very relevant. If gay people say they want to get married, then that is a good enough reason to change the definition of marriage. Whereas, progressive advocates (usually not gay themselves) violently resist all of the evidence of differences, and they use the full force of their dominance in academia, media, and government to dishonestly suppress these points and advance fallacies.
Do you remember in 1987 when Oprah was one of many voices who were spreading alarmist propaganda? She said that AIDS would kill one-fifth!
… of the hetero-sexual population!
… by 1990!
Progressives would be apoplectic if the army forced men and women to shower together because naked people cannot relax when other naked people are sizing them up sexually and also looking for an opportunity to initiate a sexual encounter, and yet, progressives are determined to force straight men to shower with gay men.
Have you ever noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge how homosexuality is a factor when men rape boys in Catholicism, Judaism, athletics, charities, etc.
Have you noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge any evidence that Obama is gay?
Why do progressives feel the need to take away the tax-exempt status of churches whose doctrine will not allow them to perform gay marriages? Why are progressives so obsessed in their desire to force others to conform? Why can’t progressives ever mind their own business?
The repulsive hypocrisy, dishonesty, and fascism of progressives is unnecessary because …
Now we know there is another group of people who genuinely want marriage law to apply to them too.
… and their claim is sufficient.
To deny marriage to gays would just be mean.
To summarize, libertarian advocacy is fundamentally different than progressive advocacy. Whereas, libertarians say the law should apply the same, progressives also want to create new fascist laws, such as punishing churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. Whereas, libertarians embrace reality and tolerance; progressives are evasive, hypocritical, and fascist.
Test Yourself – Polygamy vs. Gay Marriage
Whenever any progressive advocate asks me if I support gay marriage, I say, “I’ll support your right to marry another man if you support my right to marry more than one woman.”
Now, any principled and honest advocate for gay marriage would respond, “Hmm… Well, yes of course. That is only fair. After all, the law must apply equally to all marriages. Thank, you for enlightening me.” However, not one progressive advocate for gay marriage has ever responded anything like that, although two have reluctantly kind-of sort-of agreed after a few minutes of arguing.
The typical progressive advocate for gay marriage gets angry, and the typical responses I get from progressive advocates are:
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a person and another person.”
“Polygamy is unnatural.”
Now compare those responses from progressives to the responses I get from conservatives when I ask them to support gay marriage:
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“Gay marriage is unnatural.”
Note how …
Progressive advocates and conservative opponents sure do sound a lot alike.
I expected as much from progressives given how the media promotes and celebrates gay marriage while disparaging polygamy. What would their so called “liberal” friends think if they didn’t conform!?
At least conservatives are not being hypocritical. They are just being consistent with their instincts and with pretty much every major religion.
Libertarians, and in some ways conservatives, are more liberal than liberals.
As we learned from the issue of polygamy vs. gay marriage, we can learn so much more beyond the legal questions on gay marriage by comparing the various factions themselves.
Everyone agrees that gay marriages claim to be partnerships between consenting adults who expect from each other a lifetime of exclusivity, sex, cohabitation, income sharing, etc.
Libertarians agree with conservatives that gay marriage is different in some ways, but libertarians disagree with conservatives that we can’t redefine marriage. Libertarians also disagree with progressives who claim that marriage has always included gay marriage.
Libertarians know the world is the result of our individual choices, and the future is limitless.
Libertarians disagree with progressives, who want to create additional laws to force everyone to promote homosexuality and gay marriage. For example, forcing churches to perform gay marriages is pure fascism.
Many libertarians disagree with both conservatives and progressives who claim that gay marriage has been illegal in recent decades:
Polygamy has been illegal – Gay marriage has not.
For a long time before Obama was president, gays have been allowed to form marriages just like hetero couples. What gays have not been allowed to do is use the government to force others to react to both marriages identically.
Libertarians agree with conservatives who have noted progressive hypocrisy where progressives thought it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was a choice, and then progressives decided that it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was predetermined. Why did progressives flip flop on whether homosexuality is a choice vs. predetermination? Although predetermined homosexuality elicits more sympathy from others, it also invites others to find a “cure.”
Whereas, many gays would have actually welcomed a cure (before they were conditioned by the media to conform to the progressive agenda) most progressives would block development of such a cure because they would lose some of their political base. Progressives care more about political power over those they hate than they care about gay people.
The Elites (a.k.a. The Prince) behind both progressives and neocons (Republican progressives) want to divide us against each other in order to keep us distracted, to keep us weak, and to gain more power. The Prince wants greater division until its power is permanent. Then the prince will want greater conformity – including a cure for homosexuality. The Prince cares nothing about gay people.