Why do we need Constitutional Amendment Repeal and Repair?

You pay the freight, for the State!

Over the last 100 years, the Freight has become too great.  If we don't lighten the load, we will all collapse.

Q – Can't the States control the Federal Government of the United States?

A – There is no United "States".  That is now a misnomer.  Since 1913, with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the States are no longer part of the Federal Government (17th – no State election of Senators) so they have no vote or veto.  The States are dependent on, and controlled by, the Federal Government's doling out of tax revenue it collected from the State's citizens. (16th – direct tax on income).   Previously Senators were elected by State Legislatures and taxes were collected by the State which then funded the Federal Government.  We need to repeal both these amendments to restore the State's power to check and balance the power of the Federal Government.

Q – But why Amendments?  Can't we just elect different people?

A – No matter who you elect, one or, at most, two Political Parties will still control the government.  Political Parties which can control more than one branch of government, break Constitutional checks and balances.  They set the agenda and select the candidates for office, limiting democracy and the voice of the people.

Term limits don't matter since the Party always stays in power no matter what faces fill the seats.

Why do people think they need Political Parties?   The first Political party was formed to gain power.  Thomas Jefferson formed a party to combat the power of that party.   Eliminating Political Parties would level the playing field and restore power to the people.  Only an amendment can assure this.

Political parties are one of the reasons for the stalemates in State Legislatures which led to vacant Senate seats and the justification for the 17th Amendment.   Therefore, an Amendment to remove Political Party Control is necessary before repealing the 17th amendment.

See: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPress/archives/1309

Q – But why Amendments?  Isn't the Constitution, as written, enough? Doesn't it cover everything already?  Shouldn't we, rather, educate the populace so they will demand we enforce the Constitution or change some laws?

Education is absolutely important but we can not enforce "The" Constitution.  The Constitution that our current legal code is based upon, is not the original.  It is a reinterpretation and rewrite of the original Constitution based on the Supreme Court's prior rulings.  Congress is already obeying this virtual Constitution.   The Supreme Court version is the only "Constitution" that can legally be enforced.  This broken system, and its laws, are protected from change by the power of legal precedent.  The Court's version gives Congress virtually unlimited power over the individual. 

Changing laws will not solve the problems. No matter what laws are passed, as long as the system remains broken and the government controls the people rather than the people controlling the government, any temporary improvement can be washed away by the next legal tweak.  Only an Amendment can fix this Systemic problem and take back the power usurped by the Supreme Court.

Q – With the right Judicial Appointments, couldn't the Supreme Court overturn their earlier rulings?

Not likely. Not while Political Party ideology bias the Judges thoughts and determine who is appointed.  Also the Judges are bound by their legal precedent.  Even if they did change it, the next court could overrule them again.  Only Amendments carry the authority and weight to eliminate Party influence and Control and override the Supreme Court's precedents.

Q – How can you guarantee that these Amendments will be Politically Viable and gain bipartisan support?

We are trying to end Partisanship.  Worrying about fitting Amendments to the liking of the Political Parties is self defeating.  The focus should be how to get by the Political Parties to pass amendments that they will probably resist.

The first step is to convince America that Political Parties are bad. That means reversing the false trust and hope that solutions will come with election of YOUR party.   It is never YOURS. It is theirs only. It also means disarming the hate for the OTHER party that has been programmed into the people.  Divided we fall.

The divisiveness and hate Political Parties foster is reason enough to get rid of them.

The will of the people and the States, to restore their power, will dominate the self centered will of the private clubs we call Political Parties.

Q – Who says we are smart enough to change the Constitution?

No one here wants to CHANGE the Constitution from what the Framers intended, we just want to repair the damage, restore and re-balance usurped powers and add more protections against corruption that the Framers could not anticipate.

Q – What if Congress will not propose these Amendments?

The States will tell Congress to call an Article V Convention (not a "Constitutional" Convention) of delegates from all the States to propose Amendments for ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

Q – Can we control what Amendments are proposed in this Convention?

Not necessarily.  Therefore, before calling a convention, the populace and the Legislators must be educated in American civics, the Constitution and its history, Natural Rights and responsibilities, original intent, why there is a problem with the current system, what the government system is supposed to be, what we are trying to achieve and why it is better than what we have. 

Even people (mostly Republicans and Libertarians), who understand most of the above, do not understand all of it and may not realize just how broken and irreparable the government system is, and therefore see the need for Amendments.  Before their Convention, the Founders educated and convinced the Public with the Federalist Papers.   We should do something similar.

Q – America is the richest Country on earth and we have an obligation to provide for everyone.

A –  There is no such obligation on the Federal Government.  Our personal American values encompass this obligation.  If anything the Federal Government is restricting us from this personal obligation.

Secondly, America is not a wealthy country. It is a country that has wealthy citizens.  The "Country's" wealth is taken by force from its citizens thanks to the income tax amendment.   It would be more accurate to say that those who have power in government, have pirated a wealth of booty that they will distribute, under the guise of providing for everyone, to make people dependent voters, and keep themselves in power.

Morally and Constitutionally the Federal government can not take your wealth to give to someone else or to provide a service for someone else. It is theft.  It is Forced taking of property without just compensation.  Entitlement is stealing a persons title to give to another, who did not earn it.

Wealth taken by force is VIOLENCE, which breeds resentment and violence in those being taken from and violence and rioting in those who have become dependent and face losing the unearned benefit.

Wealth taken involuntarily by force (stolen) corrupts the individuals who distribute it.   Politicians gain excessive  power which they jealously guard with more violence of laws and regulations.   So much wealth and power attracts corrupt, or easily corruptible, Politicians who then corrupt the system even further.  Since it is not their money, they have no incentive to be thrifty, so they spend and waste and give each other personal wealth, privileges, perks and exemptions.  With no accountability and easy access to everyone's pockets, they use your money to reward political contributors and implement any and all schemes and experiments that have no need for good results other than getting Politicians re-elected.  Re-election, not service, becomes the overriding goal of the Politician.  An Amendment is necessary to fix that.

Government allocation of wealth disturbs the free markets, into which it is distributed by force, thus making it harder for the individuals to produce wealth.

Wealth distributed, without being earned, corrupts the individuals who receive it.   Incentives to stay dependent (to keep the Politicians in power) get in the way of of learning a useable skill, making contacts, gaining experience and accumulating the wisdom and the maturity that comes from the process of earning.  Missing skills, maturity, experience and wisdom, they become trapped and generations stay dependent on the largess of the politician.  To be dependent is to live in fear.  Easy come easy go.  Dependency breeds resentment which breeds violence.

Social justice is not built on theft and violence!  Social Justice is built on individuals and their communities taking care of each other VOLUNTARILY!

If you see a person bleeding from a gaping wound would you
a) Close that poor person's wound and stop the bleeding?
b) Give that poor person more blood?

Politicians pick the second option and do not close the wound.   As long as the poor person is bleeding the Politician has a purpose.  As long as the Politician provides blood for the bleeding poor, the Politician has a job.  Of course, the Politicians do not give their blood.  The State has no blood of it's own so it must take it from the people. Bleeding the people eventually leads to unconsciousness and the inability to function.

Stealing from the rich, a minority, has been justified in the USA since 1913 with the rationalization that the rich are supposedly "Greedy" and "Evil" and must be "liberated" of their ill gotten wealth for the "Good of the people".  The rich control the world and won't let us achieve so we have to take the wealth from them by force.  Victims are created to justify entitlement.

National Socialism (Nazi) used the same rationalization in their Anti-Semitic caricatures of the Jews to justify stealing their property.  The Germans were the victims of the Jews who controlled the world and wrecked the German economy.

Have the Politicians and Political Parties not devalued and dehumanized the rich just like the Nazis did to the Jews?   People are already at the point of feeling morally justified to steal from the rich, by saying the Rich deserved it because "they didn't pay their fair share".   People already are programmed to HATE the rich.  So why earn money, if it is evil.  We get more "victims" and more need for the government to steal for them.   This is corrosive to our economy and Societal virtue.

How much further is it to justify stealing from another country?  Maybe a filthy rich one like the USA?  How much farther for the US government to feel guilty enough to redistribute US citizens' wealth to other countries?   That's right.  We are already there.

How far is it from justifying the violence of theft to the violence of war?

Every country in the world including the Jewish State of Israel has accepted the Collectivist/Statist/Communist/Socialist immorality that it is acceptable for the government to steal from the few, for the benefit of the many, as long as we can view it as "Justice" or compensation to a victim.  Ever wonder, aside from Islamic fanaticism, why there is still war?

If this seems incredible, it's because once we get used to something we no longer notice it.

We accept income taxes and don't even think about it.  But if we stop and pay attention we would notice that the constitution was subverted in order to allow this direct tax.  Not to mention the Tax breaks which control our behavior.

We think ourselves virtuous for helping the poor but we steal the earnings from taxpayers and the wealthy to do so.


For further elucidation, please read the rest of the material at http://www.TheSocietyProject.org


Comments are closed.