Talk Elections

http://www.libertyamendment.org/

Wyoming • Texas • Nevada • Louisiana • Georgia • South Carolina • Mississippi • Arizona • Indiana

Have all passed resolutions endorsing the amendment, though some were more recent than others. If your state isn't one of those, flood your state legislature's inbox. :)

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

I'll go for it. :)

Glad my state already endorses it.

Count me in. :)

PS And you were wondering why Libertarians like Ron Paul.

Who are the two people who voted no?

Make that who are the five.

Please post; I'm interested in hearing why.

Because this idea sucks. That's why.

You always have such an objective analysis on thing, how do you do it? ;)

Liberty sucks? Um, what?

good idea; at LEAST a decade away from being plausible

I disagree. If Hastret can push a good tax reform bill through the House of Reps then there's the slight but real possiblity we could eliminate the income tax.

That would set the trend for this to pass, making it permanent and secure. Plus it would end any UN-type body. :)

It would require massive spending cuts or a sales tax.  The government took in $793.7 bn from personal income taxes in 2003, $22bn from estate and gift taxes.  They're not going to just cut $800bn from the annual budget, they're going to need a new tax.

I know, a national sales tax. But that's far better than an income tax, because it isn't a violation of basic privacy rights and would abolish the IRS.

Plus, people would get sick of the sales tax and vote for people to lower them and make spending cuts.

I do not like the idea of a national sales tax because I think that it inordinately hurts the poor and middle class.  A gallon of milk costs the same amount for Bill Gates as it does Joe Blow.  I believe cutting wasteful spending and reforming the income tax is a better idea.

Not if we provided a national rebate up to the poverty spending level through the Social Security Administration.

If you look at lifetime income, it's about as progressive as the system is now.

Shouldn't the idea be to get rid of bureaucracy.  A S.S.A. managing and rebating spending creates a bigger, more inefficient bureaucracy than the IRS.  Also, if we rebate only to the poverty level-The middle class gets screwed.  AGAIN

The middle class pays tax on everything it buys past poverty level spending, but everyone would get a rebate.

I don't claim to be a Social Security Administration expert, or even remotely aware of how it works, but as I understand it it's already set up to make payments.

I do understand that a flat tax (with some amount exempted) would be a much less radical transition. Perhaps the best thing to do is reform the income tax for now, work to cut wasteful spending, and then switch to a federal sales tax when it wouldn't have to be so high (probably about 15%).

Against.

This is a closet attempt to undo many social services.  The loose language allows for easy misuse.

^^Government already releases a "cost of living" statistic each year. The rebate would be a flat rebate payed to everyone based on the cost of living statistic.

Over the course of one's lifetime, studies have shown that it would be about as progressive as the system is now.

If the rich save their money, they aren't benefiting from it, so who cares? If they do spend it, they get taxed 15% of the, say, billion dollar cost.

I don't see how depriving the government of basic powers of taxation and economic development has anything to do with liberty. I guess they though the word was catchy.

I cannot understand how the states get the hubris to act in such an insubordinate fashion to the federal government. Our system is based upon the supremacy of federal law, and our weakest moments (e.g. the Civil War) have happened when the states were too powerful. The inability to generate revenue would produce profligate deficits that could not possibly support the defense expansion the conservatives so desperately want. With regard to a national sales tax, the excess tax money going into the economy will likely cause inflation, and in the longer term discourage spending as prices rise. Getting rid of progressive federal income taxation would be a catastrophe.

No PERSONAL income taxes. Not BUSINESS taxes.

Personal taxes are just double taxation anyway--one half is payed here, another there...but the same people pay it. It violates the 4th amendment, except for that 16th BS.

Our system is based on the supremacy of the states. The federal government is as an INSTITUTION supreme, but it derives its power from the states. If a state wishes to nullify the Constitution, it can. It just can't continue to be part of the union while doing so.

With regard to "sales taxes cause inflation" line, I suggest you think about that statement for a few minutes.

The "progressive" federal income tax is trash. Anyone who thinks its elimination would be a catastophe is un-patriotic and un-American. Please move to Europe where you'll fit in.

Liberty = Freedom
4th Amendment = Property Rights

Liberty + Property = American
Dependent + Pathetic = European

And no, I don't care about all these people who don't earn a living wage. You know, in other words, all the people LIVING who don't earn a living wage. It really is a hilarious concept.

I protest!

I meant Socialist Europe, heh :)

I would hope any genuine civil libertarian could separate political debate and free speech from "insubordination."  Christ, what a mini-fascist thing to say.  Acting like the states are pupils and the federal government is the principal.

Cruddy idea. The worlds best nations have, and pretty much always have had, a federalised government. the US has only become the worlds' most dominant power after the federal govt. really took over the reigns.

Liberty has absolutely nothing to do with states rights, and I would happily vote against this bill if I was an american congressman.

Those the are willing to give up an essential liberty in exchange for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.

It is illegal for any state, with the exception of Texas, to secede. That's why we sent troops to the South in the 1860s, if you recall.

I don't see how having an income tax violates the 4th Amendment, considering that IRS agents don't enter private homes without a warrant to conduct audits. They happen to send a notice which tells you the date and time. No one is frisked or has their stomach pumped in the process. The 16th Amendment has the same authority as law as any of the other amendments, including the one you cited. Since a necessary supermajority of the Congress and the states ratified it, it's in there. You can ignore if you like, but that doesn't change what the Constitution says.

I don't see how my allegiance to my country is affected by not writing a laissez-faire economic policy coupled with radical decentralization. Most Americans lost faith in states rights when states like yours used it to segregate people.

They take proprety without due process of law.

Wrong. Any state can secede and dissolve all political ties to the union. I don't know why you made an exception for Texas, because Virginia and a handful of other states also reserved that explicit right.

The laws of reason and diplomacy would apply.

The 16th amendment repealed 4th amendment recognition of property rights. It didn't repeal those property rights.

The sections of the Constitution dealing with the expropriation of private property are in the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth. That amendment deals with search and seizure rules.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

By the way, that's the amendment that magically says abortion is legal

If you read Roe v. Wade, it was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that made abortion legal.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You want to try to explain what this has to do with abortion? At least I could make a huge stretch with the 4th amendment.

For a state to ban to abortion, it would violate a woman's liberty without due process.

Don't act as if abortion is a clear cut issue - it isn't, no matter what either side says, and I despise it when they do. Clearly there is a conflict of rights, and whenever rights conflict you must determine whose rights take priority. Especially in this conflict, and some others of this type, the law goes outside the logical(which it normally should stay in) and into the realm of the philisophical.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Give me a break. It's not fair; I want to kill my neighbor, but the state won't let me. I WAS NOT TAKEN TO TRIAL AND TOLD I COULDN'T KILL MY NEIGHBOR!!!

Forget whether abortion is right or wrong. Saying it's legal because of the Constitution is a joke.

There is only one way I could say that abortion would be constitutional.

Amendmen IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is about the broadest statement in the Constitution, and the most open to interpretation - it say the Bill of Rights does not list all our rights, meaning we have other rights. Now, I think the right to control one's own body would be one of these other rights, which I think you would agree with Phillip. Using the logic that one can control their own body you could say abortion is legal.

BUT, this could be interpreted another way too! As I said, it is the most open to interpretation. So, therefore, it could also be said that the unborn have the right not to be aborted!

Since, as I said earlier, this conflicts with the right to control one's own body, a determination of which right is higher has to be made. Since the Constitution does not explicitly say this one way or another, and the only way to determine this issue via the Constitution is so complex(The Constitution was meant to be a simple document), I believe it is an issue best left to the states to determine.

The 9th amendment does not 'grant' any additional rights to the people, it only states the enumeration of some rights can not be used to discredit others.

Everything a person does is controlling his or her own body. It's a nonsense argument.

Well, in the first place the Constitution doesn't 'grant' rights. I never said it did. The Bill of Rights says 'These are our rights, and the government is not allowed to violate them'. Our rights are innaliable.

And by to control one's own body, someone has to have the ability to do what they wish with their own body. So, if people have the right to control their own bodies, they should be able to legally take any drugs they like - it's their bodies, let them do as they wish with them, even wreck them.

I disagree with the idea that the 9th amendment says that those listed in the constitution are our only rights - I think it says that we have other rights, just that they are not all listed, or possibly that some are implied by the others listed.

I support this. I especially like sections 2 and 4.

Since the conversation got off on abortion, I don't see how anybody can talk about "rights" and ignore those of the unborn. The idea that the Constitution gives someone the right to terminate their unborn child is sadistic and completely ignores the rights of the unborn to exist.

What if I use my body to put a knife in someone's back?

I didn't say the 9th amendment says "these are our only rights." Just the opposite; it says that the Bill of Rights can't be used to discredit other rights.

Well if nothing else this forum gets people thinking about the constitution and that's a good thing.  :)

Philip
This seems like a really bad idea. Suppose the federal government decided to make a National park in the area where your home currently stands. The law would say all private property in the area, including your home, is to be confiscated. No compensation will be paid and the Supreme Court may not hear any cases over this issue. What would be your recourse? How could you obtain justice?

Also at the time of the founders in 1795, congress decided to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing suits filed by a citizen of one state against another state. But they did that by the 11th amendment. Apparently the founders thought they needed a constitutional amendment to do this, not just a law.

OOPS. I meant to post this in the Juducial review of marriage / pledge  thread. Sorry about that.

I believe states disputes are in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which can't be limited by Congress.

What if the Supreme Court did hear my case and ruled that I had to give it all up? Would you follow the decision? What ifs don't happen.

What happened to your avatar???  ???

Abortion is legal because in Griswold v. Connecticut the Court found that a birth control law harmed the privacy of married couples.  Privacy was found to exist in the "penumbra" (look it up, chillins) between the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments.  In other words, Douglas said those rights suggested an inherent right to privacy.  Abortion falls under this heading, and the 14th both secures privacy (under Due Process clause) and guarantees it from the states.  That's how they did it.

Of course it's wrong, though.  The right to life extends constitutionally to all 'persons' and makes no exceptions for those conceived but unborn.

The reasoning why abortion is a constitutional right is somewhat complex, but for those of you who are open-minded enough to give the argument a read, and not preemptively issue moral condemnation.

We can all agree that citizenship is what guarantees you Constitutional rights. Citizenship is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment as beginning at birth or naturalization, so fetuses are not citizens, meaning they do not inherently have Constitutional rights.

If a legislature creates rights for fetuses, they are thus secondary to the Constitution as written. It is quite obvious that the Due Process Clause protects the life and liberty of citizens. Since fetuses are not citizens, they are not guaranteed a right to life. Women, as citizens, are entitled to their liberty, which by any reasonable interpretation extends to basic physical autonomy and reproductive liberty. Since this is Constitutionally mandated, it overrides any legislative rights fetuses might acquire. Also, it can logically be argued that denying women the right to make a choice about abortion can prevent them from exercising their political, economic, and social rights to the same extent as mankind. It can thus be said that they are denied the equal protection of the law.

I'd also like to note a glaring legal inaccuracy in cwelsch's post. The Griswold decision was based, as he said, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, which are non-textual constructions. Roe was not based on a penumbraic theory. It was based on a text-based construction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You have not shown me anywhere in the Constitution where abortion is a right.

1. Your using the knife on another is violating the right of the other person to control their body. You know that. Don't be silly. It's benieth you.

2. If the 9th says that the Bill of Rights can't be used to discredit other rights(which you are right, that's part of it) that implies we have other rights, does it not?

The right recognized is free exerise of choice. Not specifically the choice to abort or not, but it isn't prohibited either. Thus as a choice it is covered.

Exactly, dustinasby. It protects a broad range of personal choices, including the abortion decision.

Liberty = freedom = choice. So again, I guess I can put a knife in someone's back because of the 14th amendment?

Liberty freedom != anarchy freedom. You know that - as I said such extreme and silly examples are beneath someone of your intelligence. Don't act like an idiot.

I know, but I don't consider abortion part of liberty freedom. The point is, it's been misconstrued and stretched by the courts to mean what they want it to.

*Murray Rothbard comes back from the dead and smacks you with his hundredpage works.*

I'm not disagreeing with that. The Constitution makes no mention, or even implication, of it. And since the issue is so mired in individual philosophy, I still say it should be left to the states.

But, your choices arn't allowed to purposly deny other humans of their choices. Not dying is a choice that people make.
I expect you to counter with something to the effect of, "but a fetus chooses to live too..." To which I respond, "this is the real heart of the matter. And it is many people's opinion that a foetus doesn't have the same rights as a developed human (just as children don't have as many rights as adults, i.e., more developed humans)"

From a constitutional p.o.v., a foetus is not expressly defined as or protected as a human. From a Biblical p.o.v., the punishment for killing a foetus is distinctivly lower than the punishment for killing a human or a slave (not considered human by Biblical standards). From a feminist p.o.v., the foetus is a part of the expecting mother's body until birth and it is her choice what to do with her body. From my (current) p.o.v., the foetus is a part of the expecting mother's and father's bodies (and to a lesser extent the expecting grandparents, great grandparents, and so on) and thus it is their choice what to do with their bodies. [A bodypart doesn't have to be "attached" (however that can be defined) to be a part of a person's body]


John Dibble, not everyone knows that "!=" means "not equals." :)

Yeah, I forgot about that. I'm a Computer Science major so I sometimes forget that not everyone knows basic code.

I know PHP/Perl/Javascript, so I'm used to != being not equal.

What kind of choice should be honored and what shouldn't? Yes, me blowing up my neighbor's house is denying him a choice to not have it blown up. But if I don't, then his freedom of choice is blocking mine.

We all know what that amendment means: no one can be thrown in jail or put under house arrest except as punishment for a crime.

Well, obviously so. However, we have already said that sometimes rights will conflict with eachother, and precedence must be determined. In the case of you blowing up the guy's house, things are clear - it's his property, so his right not to have his property blown up supercede your right to choose to do things. Property rights are the 'dominant' rights in this situation. You would also be doing him harm, as his shelter would have been destroyed. This is common sense - when you allow choices that cause direct harm to other people, you have anarchy, which does not result in freedom at all, quite the opposite in fact, because it results in tyranny.

Now, as abortion goes, I do not feel it is nearly so clear cut. I think there's clearly a conflict of rights, but which rights are dominant are not clear(Though I personally lean towards those of the fetus). There is much philosophical beliefs and questions within it. For instance, what constitutes a person? Is a fetus a person, or when does it become one? Is a fetus part of the mother or seperate(clearly symbiotic, but still the question is asked, and which is closer to the truth)? And there are more. Different people will have different answers, and on both sides you will find some are thoughtful and some are assinine. I think we all agree that in a perfect world nobody would feel the need or desire to have an abortion, but it isn't a perfect world so the issue will continue to be debated, probably forever as we will not have a concrete answer to most of the questions.

Which is exactly why we need publicly paid philosophers! :)

I took C++ 2 years ago, I always want to use "!=" when I'm  online. Then I took Logic and got used to "~".