Judeo-Christian tradition going back many thousands of years teaches us that yellow and blue combined together become green; one entirely new color. However, Liberals today are trying to sell us the proposition that yellow and yellow can make green and that blue and blue can make green. I for one am not buying it. I love all colors, but I have more sense than that.

In this article, Coulter says basically that states can establish a religion (respecting the establishment of religion); and therefore that the establishment clause of the 1^st amendment does not limit their power, but earleir in the same article she said the free exercise clause of the 1^st amendment does limit the power of the states.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of Religion;

I can only imagine that she believes that the first clause of the 1^st amendment doesn’t limit the states because the first 10 amendment were added to the constitution with the intent to limit the power of the national government and not that of the states, and because she does not agree with the Incorporation Doctrine, which holds that the due process clause of the 14^th amendment imposes the Bill of Right limits unto the states as that is the most common argument for allowing states to do what they did for years in this country.

However, I have never heard anyone take the position that there can be a partial rejection of the Incorporation Doctrine that  applies to only one part of the 1^st amendment like Ann seems to be taking.  I’d like to know how she’d defend that position, if she can.

Such inconsistency seems to suggest that she has no firm principles about interpreting the constitution, and that she is simply willing to make, whatever she wants it to say and mean, her default position – how indefensible.

Oh and before I forget, Ann if you’re out there and you usually are, you might also want take note of your candidate’s problem before you come down on others. His is a credibility problem.

It’s not that Romney can’t defend his positions; it’s that no one believes his true positions are conservative.

Today Leader Obama has once again disregarded the Constitution and established law. This time by appointing officials to offices without Senate confirmation when the Senate is not in recess ( a clear violation of law), basically saying again, “F – You America I don’t need no stink’n limits to my authoritah; I wipe my butt with your silly Constitution.” 

Andrew Johnson was impeached for less. In this election year, impeachment would be a self-defeating project for sure, but this cannot be allowed to go unchecked. During this election year, we need to beat the drums of this and similar abuses in the court of public opinion until this man is himself drummed out of office.

I see Santorum as being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative. Some might even call him a statist when it comes to his ideas about what is right and wrong. Being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative means Santorum is willing to impose his one size fits all ideals upon the whole country through the national government regardless of what the Constitution says.  Here’s an example of Santorum’s very unconservative view of the Constitution:

Luntz: Should the states be able to say no to Washington?

Santorum: I’m a very strong supporter of the 10^th amendment […], but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.

Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong.  As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong.  And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that.

 I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together.  America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

I have to ask, am I the only one that wonders if Santorum has actually ever read the 10 amenmdment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Prior to the 13^th Amendment, the states did have a right to allow slavery to exist in their territory, and it is only that amendment that denied them that right. I wonder is Santorum trying to revise history too?  For him to suggest that there is some other shadowy list of natural principles or ideals that actually prevented states from allowing slavery, sets us all on a slippery slope where the Constitution’s meaning is based less on its historic textual meaning, and instead is more open to arbitrary interpretations and revisions inspite of and contrary to the text. If we disregard our written Constitution in favor of unwritten natural law, then the future of our rights will be even less certain, and establishing what is or isn’t our (natural) rights will be increasingly determined by (as in cases of establishing the terms of verbal contracts)  judges rather than the people.

I believe Santorum would be perfectly fine with activist federal judges who legislated from the bench so long as they were his judges and their judicial legislation advanced his opinions and rules. I’m sure there are a lot of folks (who call themselves Conservative and complain about activist judges and unconstitutional federal usurpations) today who would, just like Santorum, look the other way if these judges and federal intrusions only violated the constitution in ways that imposed their rules upon the nation, rather than those of their political rivals. I for one can’t stomach such hypocrisy.

This unprincipled hypocrisy is shortsighted and foolish because the pattern of demographic change over the last 40 years in this nation does not bode well for Santorum’s slice of America, and looking the other way when the federal government rides rough shot over the Constitution because his faction is in the saddle, will only work against his ideals later, when in the shifting demographics makes the prospect that his faction holding national power even less likely.

This is the tenth of the several amendments to our Constitution I’m hoping Santa will magically bring me Christmas morning in order to restore limits to our national government  so that when I tell my kids with a straight face that two of the principles of our Constitution are limited government and federalism. Also below are links to the first 9 proposals for those people who like to read a old man’s ramblings

Proposal #10 – Clarifying Personhood and the Power to Regulate Immigration and Citizenship and Removing Incentives for Illegal Immigration

 Section 1. For the Purpose of this Constitution, the Word ”Person” shall not be construed to exclude any Human Being born or unborn, from Conception to Death, Viability outside of the Womb notwithstanding.

Section 2. Only Citizens of the United States shall be permitted to exercise the Right to Vote, and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to deny a State from excluding Ballots challenged on the Suspicion of Fraud from the final and official Enumeration of any Vote, unless the Voter (Elector) verifies their Qualifications to Vote within seven Days.

Section 3. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to deny the Congress or the several States the Power to require that Aliens carry and present (under Penalty of Law) the Documents that testify to their legal Status, nor is the Power to regulate the Commerce (other than emergency Services) or to impair the Contracts and Agreements with a Person on account of that Person being unlawfully in the Territory or Jurisdiction of the United States or the several States denied the Congress or the several States, nor shall the several States be denied the Power to seize, detain, or deport such a Person if the while he or  national Government fails to do so upon Notification by that State.

Section 4. The Phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” (the United States) was included in the 14th Amendment to this Constitution, along with the enabling Clause of that Amendment, to give the Congress the Power to regulate who, among the Persons born in the United States that are not a Child of a Citizen of the United States, shall be considered a Citizen of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Section 5. The first Clause of the ninth Section of the first Article of this Constitution explicitly reinforces the Principle that regulating Immigration is a concurrent Power held by both the Congress and each of the several States, and this Fact is further reinforced by the absence of any Prohibition against a State executing such Power either in the tenth Section of the first Article or anywhere else in this Constitution, therefore the Congress cannot deny the Right of any State to prohibit or limit the migration of Aliens into its Territory.

Section 6. Any Citizen of the United States who is under the Age of 18 (a Child), not emancipated, and whose only custodial Parent or legal Guardian is deported must also leave with said Person (Parent or legal Guardian), unless said Person (Parent or legal Guardian) willingly transfers legal custody to a fit Guardian who is a lawful Resident of the United States, or unless a Court duly transfers legal Custody or grants the Emancipation of the Child when it deems it in the best Interest of the Child, and what is to be construed as “fit” or “in the best Interest of the Child,” in accordance to this Provision, shall be governed by the Law of the Jurisdiction from which a particular Case arises.

Proposal #1 Clarifying the Limits of the Commerce Clause

Proposal #2 Judicial Accountibility (Nullification w/ a Congressional override)

Proposal #3 Clarifying the Definition of Federalism (States Rights)

Proposal #4 Clarifying the Limits to Treaties

Proposal #5 Clarifying Eminent Domain

Proposal #6 Prohibition of Conditional Grants to the States and Clarifying Mandates

Proposal #7 Prohibitions of certain Entitlements and Bailouts

Proposal #8 Forfeiture of Legislative Pay and Establishing the Line Item Veto in Years When Budget is Out of Balance

Proposal #9 Executive Orders and Regulations and the President’s Power of Clemency

This is the seventh, eighth, and ninth proposals for new amendment to our Constitution I’m hoping Santa will magically bring me Christams morning in order to restore limits to our national government  so that when I tell my kids with a straight face that two of the principles of our Constitution are limited government and federalism.

Proposal #7 – Statutory and Regulatory Expiration and Oversight

Section 1. All laws enacted by Congress and the Regulations and Orders made pursuant thereof by the Executive Department shall expire 10 Years from the Date they are enacted, and any law in effect longer than ten Years shall expire immediately after this Article becomes effective.

Each expired Law and the regulations and Orders made pursuant thereof must be reauthorzed individually, and no collective reauthorization of two or more of these Laws shall be permitted no matter the significant amendmends made to each.

Section 2. Whenever one thrid of the Senators or one third of the Members of the House of Respresenatives petition their repect…….

Section 3. This Article shall take effect 2 Years from the Day it is ratified.

Proposal #8 – Clarifying the Power to Tax and Reigning in Congressional Spending by Granting the President Limited Line-Item Veto

Section 1. The first Clause of the eighth Section of the first Article of this Constitution (the Commerce Clause) shall not be construed to empower the Congress to pay for anything not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the Powers enumerated in this Section.

Section 2. Whenever the total Amount of the public Debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal Year is greater than the total Amount of such Debt at the close of the preceding fiscal Year, each Representative in the House of Representatives and Senator in the Senate shall forfeit and repay to the United States any and all Payments they received from the United States in that Year that just closed and shall not receive any future Payments from the United States until that Amount is repaid.

Section 3. Whenever the total Amount of the public Debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal Year is greater than the total Amount of such Debt at the close of the preceding fiscal Year, the President may (during the next annual Session of the Congress) in any Bill authorizing the withdrawal of Money from the Treasury, disapprove any Item of Appropriation, or reduce the Amount of any Item of Appropriation without disapproving the remaining Parts of the Bill, provided that no Amount of Money for the operation of the Congress or the Judiciary Department of the United States is affected and provided that the Grants to the several States remain proportional to the most recent Census, he may likewise disprove any such Item of Appropriation without disapproving the remaining Parts of the Bill.

Section 4. In the fore mentioned Case, if any Bill is approved by the President, any Item or Amount of any Item of Appropriation contained therein which is not disapproved shall become Law, while any Item or amount of any Item of Appropriation therein which is disapproved shall not become Law. In such cases he shall, in signing the Bill, designate any Item of Appropriation disapproved, note the Amount remaining of any Item reduced, and return a Copy of the same, with his Objections to the House of Representatives, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and may proceed to reconsider any disapproved or reduced Item of Appropriation; and any such Item of Appropriation shall become Law in the Manner prescribed in the Case of a Bill disapproved by the President.

Proposal #9 – Limiting  the President’s Recess Appointment Power, and His Power of Clemency.

Section 1.  Appointment made by the President to fill a Vacancy while the Senate is recessed must be confirmed by the Senate within 30 Days of the End of that Recess, or that Appointment shall be Null and Void and the Position shall be considered Vacant until it can be filled according to the Methods established in this Constitution.

If the Senate fails to confirm an Appointment made when the Senate is in Recess within 30 Days of the End of that Recess, then any rule, decision, or action made by that Appointee under the authority granted to that Position by the laws of the United States or this Constitution shall be Null and Void.

Section 2. Prior to being granted by the President, any Reprieve or Pardon for an Offence against the United States must be recommended by a Committee of the United States House of Representatives selected according to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the Purpose of recommending Reprieves and Pardons.

This is the fourth, fifth, & sixth  of the several amendments to our Constitution I’m hoping Santa will magically bring me in order to restore limits to our national government  so that when I tell my kids with a straight face that two of the principles of our Constitution are limited government and federalism. This is what happens when I get a week off before Christmas…

Proposal #4 – Clarifying the Limits on Treaty Making Authority

Section 1. The Power to make Treaties is limited to direct (explicit and enumerated) Grants of legislative Power to the Congress found in this Constitution, and no Treaty shall be Valid and Lawful under this Constitution if it governs an Issue or Person that the Congress is not so explicitly authorized to govern; nor shall any Treaty, Compact, Confederation, Federation, or Alliance cede or delegate any Sovereignty, Right, or Power of the United States or the several States to another Person(s) or an Institution.

Section 2. The Power to regulate Issues or Persons not granted to the Congress can be delegated to the Congress for limited Times by a State; or uniform rules governing such Issues and Persons can be adopted by Compact between the States for limited times with the approval of Congress (see the third Clause of the tenth Section of the first Article of this Constitution).

Proposal #5 – Limiting the National Government’s Ownership of State Land and Power of Eminent Domain

Section 1. Private Property within a State shall not be taken for public Use without just Compensation or the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which said Property is located (as per the sixteenth Clause of the eighth Section of the first Article of this Constitution).

Section 2. The United States shall not own Land within any State in Amounts in excess of one-fifteenth of the total Territory of that State, and the Ownership of any Land in excess shall be transferred to that State at no Cost to that State. The United States shall have one Year to determine which Parcels of Land it shall retain and which will be transferred to the respective States in accordance to this Article, but failing this, each State shall determine the Split thereafter.

Whenever the United States is found to own more than one-fifteenth of the total Territory of a particular State, the United States shall not sell or grant any such Land to a third Party in order to comply with this Article.

Section 3. The Phrase “public Use” as used in this Constitution shall not be construed to mean public Uses like raising or enhancing Revenues, private Development, or transferring Ownership to another Person or Persons.

Section 4. This Article shall take effect within 1 year of it Ratification.

Proposal #6 –  Limiting Bailouts, Prohibiting Congressional Entitlements to Individuals and Conditional Grants to States and Limiting Mandates to States

Section 1. The Congress shall not provide any Grant or Loan directly to any Person, except Loans to Banks so as to regulate the value of the Money of the United States; nor shall it authorize any Part of the Government of the United States to do the same, notwithstanding outlays drawn from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds for Persons who contributed directly to said Trust Funds prior to the date this Article is ratified, but thereafter all such Programs and Benefits shall not be administered by the Congress, but by the States or the People respectively.

Section 2. Neither the Congress nor the several States shall abolish or assume any Debt, but this does not preclude them from mandating, in Cases of Bankruptcy, reasonable changes in the Rate of Interest and the Payment Schedule, and granting Deferments for a limited Time.

Section 3. The Congress shall not condition any Grant to a State, and the total Value of all Grants to each State in any given Year shall be proportional to their respective Population in relation to the several States  according the most recent Census and this amount shall be henceforth known as its annual Portion.

If in any Year, excessive Damage is caused to the People or Property in a State due to War, Rebellion, or natural Disaster and the Chief Executive of that State may requests additional Aid (to help offset the Expense of this Damage) in excess of that State’s aforementioned annual Portion and the Congress may appropriate this Amount;

 Section 4. The Congress shall not mandate a State carry into Execution any Law unless the Power to enact such a Law is explicitly enumerated and delegated to the United States in this Constitution, the eighteenth Clause of the eight Section of the first Article notwithstanding; nor shall any such Mandate be enacted without just Compensation; and such Compensation shall not be considered a Part of a State’s aforementioned annual Portion.

Section 5. This Article shall take effect within 1 year of it Ratification.

It’s ironic that the U.S. House passed a 1 year payroll tax holiday December 13, but did they skip town daring their counterparts in the Senate to pass it or suffer the wrath of the electorate? No, that’s what the Senate did though. They passed only a 2 month version of the tax holiday, and then they went home for the holidays before the work was done. That’s what the cowards do, and that’s what people who care more about their own holiday plans than they care about doing the job they were elected to do. It’s time the representatives of the U.S. House and their supporters occupy the U.S. Senate until they return and work out a compromise bill in conference.

This is the third of the several amendments to our Constitution I’m hoping Santa will magically bring me this year in order to restore limits to our national government so that I can tell my kids with a straight face that two principles of our Constitution are the ideas of limited government and federalism.

This amendment seeks to clarify the division of powers under the Constitution and define federalism.

The first ten amendments to our constitution were and are intended to be limits upon the national government, and not the states. The internal affairs of the several states were intended to be left to the people of each state for the most part. The Framers understood that it would be a mistake to compile an extensive list of uniformed rights that apply to the people throughout the union because it would open the states and their people to dictates of the national judiciary as it settles disputes over these rights. Such a scheme would (as it has) lead to a gradual usurpation by these courts of sovereignty intended to be reserved to the States. In my opinion, had the Framers excluded slave states from their new union, the great national disgrace of slavery would never have necessitated the national movement and leadership that opened the door to other later national dictates over the internal affairs of states.

Proposal #3 – Clarifying the Sovereignty of the Several States within the Union

Section 1. The Limits upon the Authority of the several States that are provided by this Constitution are generally explicit and enumerated, but whenever they are not explicit or not enumerated, the Power to delineate these implicit or vague Limits or Liberties is reserved exclusively to each State and their People respectively. The intend being that the People and their respective State may do within their Territory whatever is not explicitly denied them by this Constitution in order to pursue their compelling Interest of protecting the public Safety, Morals, Health, and Welfare as they perceive it. And thus they are free, in accordance to their State Constitutions, to limit or not to limit the Authority of their respective State Government more than those explicit and enumerated Limits provide by this Constitution.

Section 2. A State shall not, without the Consent of the Congress, exercise Authority outside its respective Jurisdiction as defined by its Territory and the explicit Provisions of this Constitution, nor shall a State tax or impede the Government of the United States from carrying into execution its Powers that are enumerated in this Constitution, nor shall the Government of the United States tax any State.

Section 3. The Powers of the Government of United States are few, enumerated, and generally explicit. Limits upon the authority of the United States are infinite, but few Limits are enumerated; most Limits are implied. The Government of the United States shall not intrude upon the Sovereignty reserved to the several States unless (1) it is necessary for carrying into execution the explicit Powers of the United States enumerated in this Constitution, and (2) the Method or Manner of carrying into execution said Powers is the least intrusive to that State and its People.

This is the second of the several amendments to our Constitution I’m hoping Santa will magically bring me in order to restore limits to our national government  so that when I tell my kids with a straight face that two of the principles of our Constitution are limited government and federalism. Again, I won’t be holding my breath on this. We are all entitled to a bit of fantasy now and then so here’s one of mine.

This amendment provides judicial accountability by explicitly establishing  that a state has the power to nullify judicial decisions affecting it, but with the caveat that the this nullification can be overridden if the other two branches of the national government affirm the court’s ruling within 90 days.

As an afterthought I added a section to allow three-fourths of the States to collectively nullify judicial decisions and Acts of Congress.

Proposal #2 – Restraining the National Judiciary and the National Government

Section 1. Any Decision of a Court of the United States about a Dispute arising out of a particular State (or the Effects of that Decision upon that State) shall be null and void and shall have no force of Law within that State or bearing on the Affairs of that State whatsoever and the Judges in that State and the Judges of the United States shall be bound to this Nullification in all similar Cases that arise out of that State until the Legislature of that State repeals the Resolution against the aforementioned judicial Decision, whenever the Legislature of that State approves a Resolution to that Effect and three-fifths of each House of the Congress and the President fail to approve a Resolution to affirm the aforementioned judicial Decision within 90 Days of this States approval of the nullification Resolution, provided that the approval of this Resolution is announced to the Public at least within 1 Day after its approval.

Section 2. Any Decision or Law made by the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Departments of the United States shall be null and void and the Judges of the United States and the several States shall be bound to this Nullification, whenever two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States each approve a Resolution to nullify said Decision or Law.

In the spirit of Christmas I am asking Santa Clause to bring me a 2nd Bill of Rights in order to restore limits to our national government so that I can tell my kids with a straight face that limited government and federalism are two important principles of our Constitution. This is the first of the ten amendments I’m hoping he magically brings me. I’ve been pretty good this year so I’m crossing my fingers, though I won’t be holding my breath.  Merry Christmas 

Proposal #1 – Clarifying the Limits on National Regulation of Commerce

Section 1. The third Clause of the eighth Section of the first Article of this Constitution (the Commerce Clause) shall not be construed to empower the Congress to regulate the Commerce or non commercial Activity within a State without its Consent; and a Person in the several States need only obey the Regulation of Commerce enacted by the Congress when directly engaged in transporting commercial Goods and Services across the Border of that State or when directly engaged in blocking or attempting to block such Traffic, not including any indirect Action or Inaction no matter how significant the accumulative Effect; and said engagement cannot be mandated, extorted, or otherwise coerced (for example under the Threat of a Tax for not doing so) by the Congress; nor shall this Clause  be construed to prohibit the several States from regulating Goods and Services within their Territory, but no such Regulation shall discriminate unreasonably on Account of Citizenship, Residency, or the Origins/Route of Traders or Goods and Services.

Section 2. Each State may prohibit the Importation or Migration of any Commodity, Material, Plant, Animal, or Pestilence that it has by general Law prohibited within its Territory, but no State may unreasonably discriminate against the Citizens of another State except with regards to the Importation or Migration of Refuse and hazardous Materials, Plants, Animals, Diseases and Pestilence.

Section 3.  No State shall directly grant to Anyone the exclusive Right to engage in any Type of Commerce within its Jurisdiction.

Section 4.  The Congress may regulate the Commerce within a State during Times of War as Victory requires it, but such Regulations must be approved by two-thirds of each House of the Congress (as Evidence that Victory requires them), and each Regulation shall expire upon the formal End of the War or two Years after the Regulation’s Enactment whichever comes first, or sooner if the President declares the Regulation to be no longer necessary for Victory.

Sections 5. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to affect any other enumerated Power of the Congress besides the aforementioned Clause.

 The intent of this amendment is to overturn decisions like Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005), and at least restore the understanding of the commerce clause to that which swayed the Court in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935).  And while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will also be a casualty, thankfully the protection of civil rights throughout the country no longer hinges on national law, or on any law for that matter. This is not to say that all is well.  In 1964, that clearly was not the case. The political and economic power that racism had in our national culture back then, had the effect of a monopoly against Blacks, which for the most part relegated them to a second class status. Does racism still exist today? Certainly, but unlike then, the monopoly is broken, and no longer is racism so widely accepted, excused, or ignored. Is there more to be done? Yes, racism and prejudice will always exist, we’ll always need to be on guard, we’ll always need to fight it, but we need not always be so mobilized, disciplined, and controlled. All is not perfect, but at least now we are at a point where we can say that continuing the existing precedent on the commerce clause does more harm to liberty than good. Now is not the time to forget the dangers of racism, now is the time to move ahead, and we should no more let fear hinder our advance, the advance of liberty, than we let rose-colored glasses blind us to the pitfalls on our path ahead.

A friend of mine, and I guess someone who is now leaning towards Ron Paul, told me that Newt wants to give up our liberties for alleged security.

 He sent me this link and warned that Newt supports the patriot act.

http://www.ology.com/politics/ron-paul-newt-gingrich-clash-over-patriot-act-video

 Honestly, the Patriot Act has been on the books, for what 10 years, and I don’t feel any less free. On the other hand, multiple terror plots have been uncovered and stopped, and there hasn’t been a successful terror attack since 911, so I do feel more secure.

The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a suicide pact. Moreover, I find Ron Paul’s hysterical cries that having the Patriot Act puts us at risk of being a police state simply ridiculous and more suspect than those who decry the threat of terrorism in support of the Patriot Act.

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul wants to give up our very real security for alleged persecution. 

Ron Paul has some good points about the Constitution, but our Presidents swear an oath to defend and protect our lives, liberties, property (rights enshrined in the Const.). This oath often forces the President to make hard choices because sometimes protecting the lives, liberty, and property of some means disregarding or infringing upon that of others. Given his oath, the President does not need a declaration of war to protect Americans, their liberty, or their property when they are threatened. The alternative puts these things at greater risk while the President dithers and waits for Congress to debate and pass such a declaration. I would consider such a stance by any President as dereliction of duty (a violation of his oath) and would demand he be impeached. Conversely, I believe the President cannot (constitutionally) order troops into a war that is not (so) provoked.  This is why I agree with Ron Paul that our involvement in Libya is wrong.  However, when we are attacked it is just plain stupid to say the President needs Congress to declare war when the war has already been declared by our attacker. FDR did not need Congress to declare war against Japan or Germany as they already did that by their official words and their attacks upon us. Moreover, a resolution passed by Congress in support of and authorizing the President to take unprovoked military action, but not formally titled a ‘declaration of war,’ is no less legitimate and the military action taken in support of this resolution is no less constitutional than if it had been authorized by a formal declaration of war. Ron Paul disagrees with most of this. He is a Libertarian idiot, and anyone who would vote for him is a fool.

Phase 1:  (the length of time in each phase is as yet unspecified)

• Give people the choice between:
• Paying a 20% modified flat tax with generous exemptions for all and for those earning under $500,000 certain favored deductions, or
• Paying the old progressive tax.
• Adopt a parallel program of reducing government expenditures.

Phase 2:

• Exorcise all refundable credits (ACTC, EIC, etc.) from the old progressive tax code and maintain them as standalone programs apart from the tax code – the application of/for these benefits will be no longer connected to taxes or filing for one’s tax return.
• Taxpayers choosing the 20% flat tax will no longer have to pay payroll taxes this burden will be taken from their 20% flat tax payment, BUT the people earning incomes over 200,000 will no longer be allowed the favored deductions previously allowed under the flat tax.
• Taxpayers still choosing the old progressive tax, still pay the payroll taxes.
• Taxpayers choosing the 20% flat tax are still permitted the generous exemptions, BUT with the caveate that they will not be permitted to exempt more than 50% of their income from taxation.

Phase 3: (The real push to encourage people to switch from the old to the new tax begins)

• All deductions previously allowed under the 20% flat tax are eliminated for all choosing to pay this tax, BUT the rate will be reduced from 20% to 16%.
• Taxpayers still choosing the old progressive tax, still pay the payroll taxes.
• No one will be permitted to exempt more than 50% of their income from taxation no matter which income tax code they choose to follow. (One’s payroll tax burden will not be factored into the 50% not exempted)
• Starting in the first year of this phase, a four year limit will be placed on the welfare programs (credits) exorcised from the tax code above, after the fourth year of receiving these “credits” individuals will no longer be eligible for them.

Phase 4:

• All income earners will be required to pay the 15% flat tax.
• The old progressive tax code is eliminated.
• No one will be permitted to exempt more than 50% of their income from taxation.

Phase 5: 

• Over time the flat tax rate could be further reduced in exchange for corresponding reductions the percentage of one’s income that is permitted to be exempted from taxation.

53 million human beings have been legally killed in the U.S. since 1973 in most cases simply to convenience others, but according to PETA the real tragedy is that 6 whales are being held captive at SeaWorld where they are better cared for than are most people in the world today… What do you say to people like that?

The irony of a movement that ignores the savage treatment of unborn human beings including procedures that leave their little bodies torn to pieces in order to focus on winning human rights for whales and apes is that the very beasts they seek to champion and protect are commonly known to kill and tear apart those human beings like the members of this movement who are already born.

In the interest of full disclosure, I like Cain’s moxie, but the idea of a national sales tax coupled with the income tax is a nonstarter.  Perry is my first choice, followed by Newt, then Cain (if he drops that last 9).

The problem with 9-9-9 is that there are too many 9s, and 9+9 comes too close to 18% for many poor and retired individuals and families that consume a large portion of their income. I say get rid of the last 9 and then you got an awesome plan – raise the other numbers to 10 or 12 to make up for the revenue lost by dropping the sales tax and just call it a straight flat tax on business and individual income.

According to an analysis of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan in the Washington Times, (*) the amount of revenue it (999) can generate (based on current economic numbers) is $1,768 trillion, but with the growth that is expected to result from this tax plan, it is estimated that revenue would rise to $2,170 trillion which is more than the revenue currently raised of $2.16 trillion

Here’s the numbers from the article:

• A flat income tax on individuals of 9 percent — brings about $1.12 trillion.
• A flat tax on businesses 9 percent — brings about $270 billion.
• A national 9 percent sales tax — brings about $378 billion.

=$1,768 trillion in total revenue

After anticipated growth 9-9-9 brings in $2.170 trillion in total revenue:

• A flat income tax on individuals of 9 percent — brings about $1.4 trillion.
• A flat tax on businesses taxes at 9 percent — brings about $321 billion.
• A national 9 percent sales tax — brings about $450 billion.

Using the same economic numbers in the Washington Times Analysis, you can estimate the amount of that would be raised by a 12%  flat tax on businesses and individuals by simply not calculating the sales tax and doing the following:

• (1.12 trillion/.09)*.12=1.493 trillion — from individuals
• (270 billion/.09)*.12=360 billion — from businesses

A flat income tax of 12% on businesses and individuals will bring in about $1.853 trillion in total revenue.

But would the boost to the economy with a reduction to a 12% flat tax on income be the same as with a drop to 9%?  I’d like to think that without the extra burden of the 9% sales tax, that it would be close, but even the Times article admitted that the anticipated growth projections were based on the Obama Administration’s projections.    

If the expectation of growth from a 12% flat tax on individual and businesses (w/o the sales tax) is the same as from 9-9-9, then this would result in the flat tax raising $2.294 trillion in total revenue:

• (1.4 trillion/.09)*.12=1.866 trillion — from the flat tax on individuals
• (321 billion/.09)*.12=428 billion — from the flat tax on businesses

(*) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/25/curl-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan-is-fairer-share/

In the interest of full disclosure I’m no lawyer or accountant, I don’t like the idea of a national sales tax, I think the current system is out of whack, the government needs to get off our backs, and if our elected leaders can’t fix it, then I want my money back. Oh, and Rick Perry is my first choice.

Neither earning great amounts of income nor consuming great amounts of goods and services is inherently evil or bad for the economy in fact the converse is truer, so why overly penalize either? Instead, why not keep things simple and stick to one type of tax so its easier to keep rates low and just for everyone?

THE PROPOSAL

I’d like to propose a national flat tax on income to replace all other national taxes on income; one national tax that taxes individual, corporate, and capital gains (indexed for inflation) income at the same effective rate, allowing businesses to fully expense all new equipment in addition to the other currently deductible costs of doing business, and with no double taxation (which means no separate payroll tax, and no tax on dividends, inheritances or repatriated dollars).

The JUST-ONE Tax:

• Just one national tax on individual, corporate and capital gains income
• No double taxation (no FICA, dividend, or inheritance tax)
• With just one low effective rate (10%)

THE TAX BURDEN

Even without all our favorite deductions (save business expenses), exemptions and credits, the impact of the tax burden from a flat tax on income can be moderated by keeping its marginal rate as low as possible.  I recommend a rate of 12% or less because most employees already pay about this amount in payroll taxes (15.3% in FICA taxes) on our income under $107,000.

Employees pay directly 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare, and their employer matches that for a total of 15.3%. Even Fair-Tax proponents argue that employers once unburden from income taxes, will eventually pass some of these saving to their employees in the form of increases in salary, wages, and benefits.  So it seems reasonable to argue that if these same employers are unburdened with their share of payroll taxes, they will also then pass some of these savings on to their employees.  The extent of this increase may be debatable, but some increase to employees is likely.

By removing all the other deductions and exemptions and keeping the tax rate the same for all, everyone has an interest in keeping the rate low. On the contrary, under our current tax code, because of offsets and payment many are insulated from high tax rates while also enjoying other generous government benefits at the expense of those of who are not shielded from paying income tax.  The sheltered class has little reason to demand low rates or less government spending.  And so, the inequity inherent with our progressive tax system creates great tension pitting one class against another in our country, when they should be working in the same direction to promote the welfare of all.

Shifting to a single flat rate and eliminating all deductions, exemptions (beyond the double taxation mentioned), and credits will give all income earners (skin in the game) and an equal appreciation of the taxman.  Both rich and poor who may have effectively paid no or very little taxes on their incomes because of offsets and payments will now come to appreciate the yoke that has burdened the rest of us who have for years paid more, and will help diminish the squabbling and class conflict that gridlocks efforts to mend our fiscal problems.

For some the burden will be greater, but for most in the middle the actual amount paid in taxes will change very little because they already pay effectively close to 15% on their income in the form of individual income and payroll taxes. The family of five above (considering its current amount of FICA payroll withholding) will only pay about $50 more a month under a 10% flat tax on income.

The biggest barrier to enacting a pure flat tax is that it necessarily requires that personal and dependent exemptions and other deductions are excluded from the tax code. This of course raises the complaint that this makes the tax burden extremely regressive.  Much of this criticism can be deflected by the extremely low rate of taxation  that the stripping away of these offsets will effect or rather allow (i.e. 10%).   Even with the extremely low tax rate, without the payments: The refundable credits for children and the Earned Income Credit, the tax burden will still be seen by many as being too regressive.  However, this complaint too can also be deflected by arguing that a pure flat tax like the one proposed here does not have to necessarily eliminate any such payments just because they are removed from the tax code and are no longer applied for and paid out on the basis of one’s tax return.  More precisely, these payments can still exist but as stand alone welfare programs (which after all they are welfare just not standalone programs) cut-away and removed from the tax code.  Ideally under this flat tax proposal there would be no need for most people to file a tax return. Do taxpayers file a return each year in regards to the social security tax they pay? No they don’t, and the same should be true of any true flat tax in which everyone pays the same effective rate, but I digress. Once such payments like EIC and the child tax credit are removed from the tax code and properly placed among the other welfare programs their expenses can be better controlled. For example if we could put a time limit on other welfare programs, then why not on these, let’s say four years?

Even with an extremely low rate of 10% a pure flat tax may be too much of a shock for most people, so the only hope of ever enacting a flat tax is to at least start with a modified version that has personal exemptions and a higherrate of taxation (i.e. 20%).

Any flat tax may very well increase the deficit, but this prospect may do more to help focus lawmakers to reign in the rising burden of entitlement spending than if we simply continue to bury entitlements into the tax code.  Again such a muddling of the tax code only makes it more difficult to achieve lower tax rates and to cut   spending because the discussion inevitably grinds to a halt over the issue of class: Rich vs. Poor.  And although it can’t be denied that lowering the rate of taxation to 10% will initially cause deficits to rise, it also can’t be denied that it will have an explosive effect on economic growth as these tax savings are injected into the more efficient and innovative private sector of the economy.  Not only will this growth result in higher revenues for the government softening deficits, but it will also result in higher wages and incomes softening the negative impact this new tax code will have on taxpayers.

REGRESSIVE vs. PROGRESSIVE

Some will argue that a flat tax is regressive and thus hits the lower-income earners disproportionately harder and thus is unfair, but they’re only looking at the costs and not the benefits of taxation. A LOW flat tax, even if regressive is FAIR and more just because we lower-income earners generally receive a disproportionately higher share of the direct benefits provided by (the government) taxes.  The key of course to this assertion is that the rate of the flat tax is low enough so that the tax burden it imposes on lower-income earners is equally low.

For example, under a 10% (effective) flat income tax rate, a family of five who earns $25,000 (in wages) a year will only pay $2,500 in federal income taxes, but in return they qualify for tens of thousands of dollars in direct benefits like food assistance, Pell grants, Medicaid, Social Security, disability, and Medicare, etc., and many more thousands of dollars in indirect benefits like infrastructure maintenance, subsidized mail delivery, public safety inspections, law enforcement, and military protection to name just a few.  Even under a flat tax they’re making out like bandits, and the rich are still paying more: Anyone making 10 times more than this family will pay 10 times as much in taxes. If they earn a million dollars they will pay 40 times as much, if they earn 10 million dollars they will pay 400 times as much in taxes, and so on.

If any form of taxation is unfair it is progressive taxation because it attempts to squeeze even more from the upper classes to give the lower classes more benefits at little or no cost to them.  Under such a system, the lower classes have no incentive to demand taxes be kept low as they rarely have to pay them, nor do they have much incentive  to demand that government benefits (spending) remain modest as they are the primary recipients of much of that (entitlement) spending.  And since the lower classes comprise a majority in society, they simply can use their political (numbers) power to discriminate unjustly against the minority and use the instruments of government to legally take their property.  Under our current progressive income tax, the family of five above will not only receive the same benefits identified above, but they will pay nothing for them, and in addition can receive over $8,000 in refundable tax credits. So not only are they given benefits for free, but they’re being paid further to enjoy them.

“FAIR” IS NOT SO JUST

The Fair-Tax purports to be more fair because the marginal tax rate is the same for everyone and everyone generally gets about the same size prebate payment.  Some have argued that the Fair-Tax is also a regressive tax because most consumption taxes are.  However, with its use of prebate payments; the Fair-Tax does attempt to shield the lower classes from some of the tax burden much like  a progressive tax does.  There is nothing wrong with helping the poor, but doing so through the tax code only muddles the whole issue of fairness in taxation, and effectively frustrates any hope of achieving a reasonable and “just” tax code or keeping one (let alone bringing spending under control).

Under the Fair-Tax, the above family of five will still qualify for the same government benefits, and they will most likely consume a large percentage of their income.  However, for argument sake let’s say they only consume $18,000 and save or spend the rest on non-taxed consumption.  The Fair-Tax rate is 23% so their tax burden on this consumption would be $4,140, but they get a prebate payment (check from the government) of $7,562 to offset their tax burden so their effective tax burden is -$3,422.  This is about a third of the payout the family would have received under our current progressive system, but just like with our current system, they’re getting tens of thousands in government benefits for free, and then a surplus ($3,422) to help make it all the more enjoyable (maybe they’ll spend it on a vacation living large in Mexico or Canada so they can avoid the Fair-Tax there too).

Clearly, at least on the surface the Fair-Tax is better than our current progressive tax, but not by much.  At first glance, it seems to spread the tax burden evenly to all citizens, while shielding those and at the bottom.  However, it doesn’t take a genius to see how this so-called “Fair” tax will devolve into a tax haven for the rich and possibly the poor.  Thus one of the biggest problems with the Fair-Tax, and why it is not as “just” as a low flat tax, is that the upper class can easily afford to avoid the Fair-Tax (in this case by doing most of their consumption abroad), the lower classes are given a break (the prebate subsidizes a large share of their consumption), and the middle class is left holding the bulk of the tab.  It doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination to see how effective rates graphed for the various income groups under the Fair-Tax would resemble a bell curve with those rates for the poor being negative then increasing initially as income and consumption increase, reaching a plateau with the middle classes and then sinking as income continues to rise and people are more capable of taking their consumption to a jurisdiction where consumption is not so penalized.

Strangely, Fair-Tax advocates tend to minimize the very real threat that revenue may fall short of expectations due to the inflationary effect and availability of substitutes such as after-market and black market goods, and cross border living and consumption. What’s apparently insignificant to them has led many critics to assert that the Fair-Tax’s marginal rate will inevitably rise in order to make up for shrinking revenue, and this will lead many to demand the prebate amount also rise to shield a lower classes further from the higher rate. Under such steps, not only would the tax system become more progressive, but consumption and economic growth would suffer as more consumers seek alternatives to taxed consumption.  Skirting the Fair-Tax I fear will become as fashionable and acceptable as flaunting Prohibition was for 1920s Americans.

Because it offers less of a sticker shock than the Fair-Tax of 23%, Herman Cain’s 9% national sales tax proposal, will arguably have less an impact on consumption especially in the lower and middle classes.  However, what seems to be most understated or ignored about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is that 9+9= 18, or nearly an 18% flat tax (as  many will not consume their entire available income).  Alas, for the lower and middle classes who are less able to avoid consuming basic necessities that are taxed, and for which such things make up a larger proportion of their income, their effective tax rate is very likely to be over 15%, while for the upper class, like many ultra liberal actors who make millions from films but live abroad, their effective tax could easily be closer to 9%.  At least under the Fair-Tax, the lower classes will be spared paying an effective tax rate of over 15% (with the prebate and no income tax), but this offers little consolation for the middle class especially when the upper class can easily get away with paying an effective rate closer to zero (but I digress). This is not to say that Cain’s tax is excessive, except in comparison to a single low effective flat tax rate of 10%.  Instead, more than anything, it illustrates how his (Cain’s) tax hits harder the lower classes.

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan places a higher burden on lower and middle class people; with the Fair-Tax the burden is carried by the middle, while both plans favor the upper class with effectively lower rates.  How fair is that? One could argue ( I won’t) that if the lower classes receive more of the direct benefits of taxation, then they should pay a higher effective rate of taxation in support of those benefits than those who receive less of them.  Such an argument however, fails to include the cost of indirect benefits in the assessment.  What about the indirect benefits, like national defense and the courts?  Isn’t it true that someone with more wealth has more to lose, thus more to protect, and the more one has to protect, the greater their cost for that protection should be?  It seems only fair that this also be considered when assessing the tax burden of each class.  If the lower classes receive a larger share of the direct benefits (payments) and the other classes receive a larger share of indirect benefits, then don’t their benefits balance out in the end?  All things being even, why not erase the existing tax code and simply keep one low flat tax on income for everyone?

Our current tax system is clearly out of whack, it is as unjust as it is overly complicated, but the answer to fixing it should never include adding an entirely new type of tax like the consumption tax that make up the Fair-Tax or the 9-9-9 plan.  Advocates for these plans claim that their new tax will remain fair and low, but no one can guarantee this.  Suggesting otherwise is naive at best.  At least with a plan to lower and flatten the income tax, we are not handing  the government yet another tool (tax) with which to squeeze and attack our liberty and property.

 More just than the Fair-Tax, and simpler than 9-9-9, it’s just one… JUST ONE-Tax 

I’d like to propose a national flat tax on income to replace all other national taxes on income; one national tax that taxes individual, corporate, and capital gains (indexed for inflation) income at the same effective rate, allowing businesses to fully expense all new equipment in addition to the other currently deductible costs of doing business, and with no double taxation (which means no separate payroll tax, and no tax on dividends, inheritances or repatriated dollars).

The JUST-ONE Tax:

• Just one national tax on individual, corporate and capital gains income
• No double taxation (no FICA, dividend, or inheritance tax)
• With just one low effective rate (10%)

ACHIEVING A FLAT TAX IN 6 EASY StEPS:

First: Exorcise (get a priest if necessary) all payments/credits (EIC and ACTC) from the tax code, and set them aside as standalone programs.  They are rightfully welfare programs, but only apart from the tax code will they be properly viewed and treated as such by the general public. However in fighting for this change, do not call these credits/payments welfare; people who think they’re still in the middle class don’t like to be told they’re on welfare. When it’s a tax credit it’s not welfare and they may oppose this change just so they can look themselves in the mirror lie with a straight face. Eliminating or changing them should be a separate and later debate(separating them will make this task easier);under taking that debate now or allowing these paymentsto stay connected to the tax code will only act as a barrier to simplifying the tax code. Retaining these payments if only as standalone programs will helpto defuse much of the regressive tax criticism that a flat tax invites since they’re a large part of the reason why our current tax code is progressive.  Thus, we can argue that the new flat tax code is essentially no more regressive than our current progressive tax code, and more importantly, it begins theprocess of disciplining the public to evaluate the regressive nature of a tax on the basis of how much the a person receives in (welfare) benefits from the government as oppose to comparing the proportion of their disposable income that is left after being taxed with that of others.

Second: Adopt a modified rather than pure flat income tax.  The easiest and best way to modify a pure flat tax is to offer a generous base exemption for each person, while allowing an individual to claim the exemption of dependents. The public generally likes the idea of everyone paying the same income tax rate, and that everyone pays at least something towards the income tax, but once the reality of that burden on themselves or the poor sets in they will be swayed by the argument that a pure flat tax is too regressive.  The combined exemptions of a household should cover enough of their basic living expenses so that most other existing offsets (deductions) can be eliminated. However, include a corollary that the total amount of one’s exemption(s) cannot exceed certain percentage of their total income, like 95% so that everyone will pay something for the income tax even if it is a token amount. This gives everyone an incentive to demand that the rate stays low. If this invites regressive tax criticisms remind them that the payments and credits of the old tax code still exist just apart from the new tax code and this more than effectively zeros-out the tax liability of most lower-income earners.

Third: Structure your rates and exemptions so that supporter of this flat tax can legitimately argue that in most cases taxes will go up only for those who currently don’t pay taxes or who don’t currently pay their fair share.  The poor won’t lose a thing, under this new arrangement, the only thing different is how they get it. One could even argue that instead of receiving refundable credits once a year in one lump sum, they now can have the money disbursed in smaller more frequent payments just like with other forms of public assistance. Finally, argue that just as it is only fair to insist that everyone whether rich or poor (especially those who currently don’t pay income taxes) ought to pay something, it is also only fair that those who currently have their income double taxed (overseas profits, dividends, estates, etc.) just have their income taxed once under any new code.

Fourth: Make the rate low enough to help spur economic growth and make the rate the same for corporations as it is for individuals; try not to distinguish between the two, but begin the formation of the mindset that this is just one tax to help make raising one over the other in the future just a little more difficult. Allow individuals and corporations to deduct all expenses related to the development, production, distribution, and sale of goods and services including 100% of investment into the means for future production, distribution, and sales of goods.

Fifth: Introduce the flat tax in phases. In the first phase, the flat tax could be an alternative to the existing progressive tax code with taxpayers given the choice between the two. The second phase would be to require all people follow the flat tax and completely do away with the old tax code including the payroll taxes. The third phase would make the tax code even more pure: exemptions would be reduced in exchange for a lower rate (15%). An initial high rate high rate of 20% and the corollary that no one may exempt more than 95% of the income from the flat income tax will make this transition to a purer flat tax an easier pill to swallow. The fourth phase would also initially be optional, but it would be a pure flat tax with no exemptions and a rate of 12%. The fifth phase would be mandatory and rates would be lowered to 10%.

Sixth: Make the flat tax one part of a broader plan to revive the economy. The foundation of this revival must be based on encouraging the growth of the more efficient and innovative private sector of the economy by decreasing the size and influence (regulatory reform) of the more wasteful and parasitic public sector of the economy. Deficit reduction is never as important as cutting overall spending – the public needs to be made aware of the difference. Some will argue that a low flat income tax will not generate nearly the same amount of revenue raised by the current progressive tax and deficits will rise, but the deficits caused by the reduction of taxes are not nearly as debilitating as deficits caused by increases in government spending because whenever the government spends money it represents economic activity that could have been done by the more efficient and innovative private sector.  Moreover the politicians that create deficits by increasing spending above what can be supported by current taxes and rates are obsessed with raising those taxes as the only means for addressing the deficit they created. Government attempts to stimulate demand with increased spending are never sustainable and generally the demand lasts only as long as does the government money.

Cutting and capping spending now and further controlling it in the future with a balanced budget amendment will not only help to eliminate deficits, but it will enable taxes to be dropped further.  Just like a person that is overburdened and overworked is more susceptible to ailments and breakdowns so too is an economy over-yoked with excessive taxes and regulations.

Clearly, a flat tax is an easy way to simplify and lower taxes and the costs associated with tax compliance.  And even though critics argue that revenue will decline and deficit and our national debt will rise,  in the long-term, a low flat tax will lead to an explosion of growth in the private sector, and this will in turn (more than) make up for the initial loss of tax revenue.  This growth will be even greater if the flat tax is part of a broader plan to further encourage growth in the more efficient and innovative private sector by decreasing the size (spending cuts) and influence (regulatory reform) of the more wasteful and parasitic public sector of the economy, and by enacting legislation to help lower other costs (i.e. energy and torts), while working to expand access to foreign markets and to promote fairness in that trade.

Finally, no serious effort to cut spending can be honestly deemed successful, unless the $1 trillion white elephant in the room is targeted. Entitlements are destroying the moral fabric of our nation while they continue to pile on to the burden of those Americans who still find it worthwhile to be productive here.  Really who wants to learn to fish or even fish for themselves, when fish are (readily) given away for free? No wonder we have problems with education.  Is it any wonder that the lowest standardized test scores come from children raised in households that are maintained by entitlement programs? We are killing ourselves as a nation with this quilt-affair with entitlements. Enough is enough.

The way Progressives treat (interpret and apply) our Constitution, you’d think that this was the document they were reading when (if) they ever do bother to read the Constitution:

We the People of the United States of America, in order to do whatever we want, do establish and empower the National Government of the United States to tax and to regulate anyone and everything.

I think most us here recognize that the Framers were far too conservative and not so naïve as to have wanted our liberty to be so freely usurped, and thus were more inclined to limit the power of those who would govern us with more precise and explicit provisions, rather than enabling their power to endlessly expand with vague and implicit ones (provisions). Maybe that’s why our Constitution is actually a few thousand words longer than the musing above.

It’s sad that Progressives are so blinded by their ends that they’re willing to risk being oppressed by those who don’t share their goals simply to break down some constitutional barriers to their factional mischiefs.  It reminds me of a so-called Conservative who, when I proposed rejecting all federal direct grants to individuals that are not explicitly authorized by the enumerated powers, squawked that that was a bad idea because it would prevent the future institution of federal vouchers for education.

What got me thinking about this was an opinion piece by James Antle in the American Spectator, entitled “Chaplin’s Constitution.” Antle makes quick work of refuting the progressive assertion that the Constitution is virtually unknowable and is more about procedural than substantive constraints of government. Here’s a sample: 

Now you can edit Legal Affairs and write for the New Republic, the New Yorker, U.S. News and World Report, and the New York Times while guided by the apparent belief that these basics are incoherent mumbo-jumbo. There have been disagreements about the size and scope of the federal government since beginning of the Republic. But the notion that the Constitution imposed substantive, rather than merely procedural, limitations on that government was for a long time fairly uncontroversial.

As recently as the early 20th century, the consensus was that it would require a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to ban the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. In 1933, it took a second constitutional amendment to repeal this power. Today, if Washington were inclined to ban Demon Rum it would be justified under the pretext of regulating interstate commerce.

While Progressives may find it difficult to comprehend the Constitution’s many substantive constraints of the national government, they’re quite astute at finding substantive constraints upon the states and by default all sorts of rights under the 14th amendment.  I think Antle would agree that these progressive interpretations of the 14th amendment are equally confused. Clearly such substantive constraints of the states were never intended when the 14th amendment was ratified as evidenced by the consensus that even its equal protection clause did not guarantee blacks and women the same right to vote that white men enjoyed at the time, and that an amendment would ultimately be needed to make these rights constitutional.

The Obama administration is seeking to bailout teachers. 

Mr. President, I am a public school teacher and I’d just like to say no thank you. 

Last summer my salary was cut and we switched to a cheaper health insurance to help my district balance its budget, and next year all teachers in my state will take a cut in salary to offset retirement costs.  We are in difficult economic times, but we got here because well intended people (like you) threw money at education as if it could solve all our problems.  Like many districts, mine greedily spent the money thrown at it for fear of losing it, and this led to incredible wastes: excessive staffing, compensation, technology, and unnecessary building projects, all in the name of education.  But alas, none of those things can guarantee educational success, and in fact, success in education rarely has anything to do with them. Throwing more money at us will only enable us to continue to waste the public’s money.  Our hard times are a necessary evil that will force us to become more efficient, more focused on our mission, and thus more effective educators. So please stop trying to micro-manage what you clearly don’t understand. Thanks for your empathy, but your help is definitely not wanted or needed.

I came across this little story printed in the London Telegraph about a preacher who was arrested for hate speech because he basically said in public that homosexuality is a sin, and it reminded me of a speech in the movie “The American President.”  (It was a awful little film that’s basically a 114 minute campaign commercial for the Democratic party) In this speech, the President starts by saying he wants to defend the Bill of Rights, but then ends with a promise to attack those rights, but it was the part about defending a man who advocates that what you oppose that came to mind when I read the story in the Telegraph.

How Ironic, that only 15 years later many liberals around the world are actively contradicting that particular sermon, ah, speech.  Well, that got me thinking, how would that same speech sound coming from a conservative President today, what might he say? Curious, I found a transcipt of the speech, and began to alter it for just such a President. I have to say, it was fun, and I highly recommend the exercise. Here’s what I came up with:

Reporter: Robyn, will the President ever respond to Senator Rumson’s question about being a member of the National Rifle Association?

 President Shepherd: Yes, he will. Good morning. [Members of the White House Press Corps begin to rise] It’s alright. Please keep your seats. Good morning.

For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I’ve not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.

For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the NRA, but the more important question is “Why aren’t you, Bob?” Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend freedom in the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you’re smarter than I am, because I didn’t understand it until a few hours ago.

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then acceptable speech in this country cannot just be that “Gay is Okay.” Acceptable speech also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to call homosexuality a sin, and to pray for the salvation of all sinners. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

I’ve known Bob Rumson for years. And I’ve been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn’t get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Bob’s problem is that he can’t control it!

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of students, minorities, and union members, and you ply with ad hominem and straw man fallacies, you talk to them about polar bears and melting ice caps, imperialism and class warfare, and you convince them that they’re oppressed and entitled, and you wave an old photo of the President’s girlfriend and you scream about exploitation. You tell them she’s to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a racist.

Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but run a successful business, represent the interests of gun owners, and lobby for the responsible use and stewardship of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, ’cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.

I’ve loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other ’cause I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well, that ends right now.

Tomorrow morning the White House is sending an amendment to Congress for it’s consideration. It’s White House Resolution 455, an amendment prohibiting Congress from regulating intra-state commerce. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of progressive activism. The other piece of legislation is the entitlement reform bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I’m throwing it out. I’m throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address fiscal responsibility without getting rid of federal grants to individuals and progressive taxation. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I’m gonna convince Americans that I’m right, and I’m gonna get the subsidies.

We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you’d better come at me with more than a fiery sermon, and a membership card. If you want to talk about science and exploitation, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I’ll show up. This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.

My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President.*

Now that’s a movie I’d like to see!

* Adapted from the film “The American President (1995) a Rob Reiner film (of course)

Arizona recently passed a law that requires nothing more than what is currently required by the federal gov’t and nearly every government in the world (that immigrants carry documentation and present it to its officers when requested). The major differnce between Arizona’s immigration law and the federal government’s is that Arizona intends to enforce theirs.

In response to Arizona’s effort to combat the flow of drugs and violence into the state from across the border, and its desire to stop the sucking sound thousands of illegal immigrants make when leeching away at its public services, the Left sponsored several rallies and protests this weekend. They called for amnesty: legalization, and for the end of depotations, raids, and racial profiling.

But what the Left conveniently failed to say in all their anger and outrage is that Arizona’s new immigration law specifically prohibits racial profiling – Officers can’t inquire about legal status or documentation, unless in the process of a lawful stop (for an unrelated violation) the person DOES or SAYS something that leads the officer to suspect he/she (is not a lawfully documented immigrant) has violated immigration laws. This law basically makes it a state offense for immigrants not to be lawfully documented, and in very LIMITED circumstances gives state and local officers the authority to inquire about such status and documentation. The person still has due process rights.

Clearly that is not enough for the Left. What is considered due process for the majority of nations just doesn’t cut it for them.

ONLY IN AMERICA is what is illegal in nearly every other country of the world considered a human right.

ONLY IN AMERICA do visitors, guests, and trespassers have a sense of entitlement.

Hey, this is America, and the Left says, we can afford it.

AMERICA: Where citizenship has no privileges – as far as the left is concerned.

After all, they say illegal immigrants are poor (wow, who’s profiling now) and America is rich, and thus America is their golden ticket to a better life.

AMERICA: The Nanny-State to the World.

Yes, but certain human actions are (illegal)!

“We are all immigrants.” Maybe so, but clearly not all immigrants are legal – some are here illegally which means they are here in violation of the law, which means they’re criminals – not all, but many.

My family members were immigrants too, but they came over legally, and stayed legally, and became (naturalized) citizens legally because unlike illegal immiigrants, they respected America, its laws, and its people, and they expected only what (that) respect and hardwork could earn them, and in return they were respected.

So to review: Some immigrants are criminals and are or at least should be treated like criminals, while others are not, they work hard, respect others, and expect nothing more than what they give, and thus deserve respect.

Rant over. Have a nice day.