Tomorrow the sun will rise, but if this election proves anything, it is that we are truly in the twilight of America.  Therefore, I suggest you build your walls high and guard your children well for the secular-hedonist parasites that are animated by Liberals and their policies represent the equivalent of a very real life zombie apocalypse. 

“Governor Romney, how exactly do your economic policies differ from those of George W. Bush?”

Liberals are so dumb. I would love to be asked that question.

Here’s my comeback: “Honestly Mr. President, I’m still trying to figure out how your policies are any different from George W. Bush’s.”

I would also have loved it if Lloyd Bentsen had said to me: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of my, Senator you’re no Jack Kennedy.” 

Here’s my comeback:  Wait for the audience to quiet. “Well, for that  my wife has reason to be thankful, (long pause) but let’s just say you’re absolutely right sir. I am no Jack Kennedy and clearly no Loyd Bentsen either. That’s two for me, two for my wife, and none for you.”

Do you remember OWS protesters? How can anyone forget. They were the so-called “99%,” who were defecating on private and public property and complaining they were the victims of the 1%, of corporate greed, and of government neglect. They complained about how as they see it, the government bails out the 1% and banks, but they get nothing; no bailouts.

Nothing? Really? How could they say something like that? How could they be so insensitive?

As far as I can tell, Romney’s video taped comments were simply voicing the frustration many Americans feel whenever they hear people, who are  already well subsidized by taxpayers and yet pay no income tax themselves,  complain that  those who do pay most of the taxes in this country aren’t paying enough, when what they should be saying is thank you.

But a bailout need not be a sellout, and that’s the difference between Obama and Romney on saving these two companies. Obama disregarded bankruptcy law, and structured a sellout to the UAW in which property was redistributed from creditors, bondholders, and stockholders to the UAW. Everyone else lost, and now the UAW is one of the biggest stockholders in GM. That was wrong, and that’s what Romney opposed.

 The simple fact is that those companies could not afford to stay in business while paying the excessive wages and benefits required by their UAW contracts. Had the structured bankruptcy followed the rule of law used in prior bankruptcies, then an unbiased judge (clearly not Obama) would have opened those contracts and reduced the wages and benefits to a point where GM and Chrysler could become highly competitive again. This would have been done without stripping creditors and bondholders of all their property, senior citizens who had their pensions and IRAs invested in those company bonds would not have lost everything, and the surviving companies would be in far better shape to build competitively priced autos than they are today.

My response to them is that when they’re ready to agree that unborn human beings are people under the law, I’ll agree corporations should not be. And hey, by their rationale this’ll be easy for them to accept since they execute unborn human beings every day.

We don’t do these things because we don’t want a mouthy forty year-old “kid” thinking he/she can live in our basement, or we don’t want to wake up to find our garbage scatter in our yard and possibly a bear in our refrigerator.

So why all the shock and uproar over at CNN/Obama Campaign headquarters when Romney criticizes our country’s bloated and excessive welfare state?

Contrary to the Democratic talking points, Republicans believe senior citizens should be guaranteed the Social Security and Medicare they spent a lifetime paying for.

Republicans believe we should help those who become unemployed, disabled, or who are currently struggling to survive due to some other misfortune.

The major difference  between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to helping the unfortunate is that Republicans believe that unless a person is unable to help himself, then there ought to be time limits on the help he receives and there ought to be some strings tied to that help to discourage dependency and to ensure that we don’t weaken the incentives to work, create, and contribute to our great country.

Democrats on the other hand, seek to increase the amount of help, and to remove the limits and conditions placed on that help people receive from the government. For Democrats, dependency on (government) means-tested programs to continuously pay for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. is a means of redistributing the wealth, and is a matter of social justice.

The Democrat’s perverted idea of justice only blinds them to the destructive consequences of their policies. They can’t see that the over-subsidization of the lower class has an inflationary effect that diminishes the purchasing power of the middle class, and they can’t see that squeezing the private sector (the most productive and innovative sector) of the economy to (redistribute the wealth) pay for more entitlements ultimately causes the private sector to shed more jobs leading to increased unemployment, poverty, and consequently more dependency on the government. In effect, under the leadership of Democrats the government  becomes a poverty making machine. They say they’re working to end poverty, but instead they’re encouraging it.

Is it any surprise then that under Democratic leadership, more jobs have been lost than have been created, the number of people on welfare and food stamps has dramatically risen, and the Democrats have tried to eliminate the work requirements for welfare?

For Democrats, dependency is a means to an end – social justice.  For Republicans, dependency only deepens the divide between the rich and the poor.

The election comes down to this: If you want more poverty vote for Obama, but if you want more jobs vote for Romney. It’s that simple.

Although, I rather like Andy Taylor’s version: “Millions for Charity, but not one penny for tribute.” (a.k.a. Andy Griffith in ‘Opie and the Bully,’ 1961)

Which makes me wonder, when does a tax rise to the level of being tribute?

James Madison rightly pointed out that:  “The government of the United States is a definite (limited) government, confined to specified objects. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

For years that principle was generally adhered to especially since progressive taxation and thus the government’s access to easy money (easily taken without much popular opposition) was largely prohibited by the Constitution’s provision that (federal) direct taxes be proportioned to the census thereby ensuring a flat rate of taxation. That ensured that everyone’s rate would be low and that if anyone paid, then everyone paid and paid the same rate; now that’s a fair share. The people with the most to protect would still pay the most (10% of a million dollars is far more than 10% of a thousand dollars), but the rest would also have an interest in keeping the tax rate low to spare themselves too.

That’s probably why Benjamin Franklin had this to say about entitlements, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Of course Benjamin Franklin wasn’t opposed to helping the poor, though he, like many Conservatives today, would disagree with how Liberals today want to “help” the poor.

Franklins was noted for saying, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”  I couldn’t agree more.

His insult to American job creators disgusts me because I can see where he’s going with it. Thankfully, not all Presidents shared his socialists view of entrepreneurship. I’m reminded specifically, of Ronald Reagan and a speech he gave on freedom in which he touched upon the subject of entrepreneurs and government.  Reagan’s opinion of entrepreneurs as you will note was much more appreciative of their role in creating value in our nation’s economy and his view of the government’s role in their success was more realistic.

But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom — freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication.

The renowned scientist, scholar, and founding father of this university, Mikhail Lomonosov, knew that. “It is common knowledge,” he said, “that the achievements of science are considerable and rapid, particularly once the yoke of slavery is cast off and replaced by the freedom of philosophy.”

You know, one of the first contacts between your country and mine took place between Russian and American explorers. The Americans were members of Cook’s last voyage on an expedition searching for an Arctic passage; on the island of Unalaska, they came upon the Russians, who took them in, and together with the native inhabitants, held a prayer service on the ice.

The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United States was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home. Some people, even in my own country, look at the riot of experiment that is the free market and see only waste. What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the successful ones; often several times. And if you ask them the secret of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that they learned in their struggles along the way; yes, it’s what they learned from failing. Like an athlete in competition or a scholar in pursuit of the truth, experience is the greatest teacher.

And that’s why it’s so hard for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true. The fact is, bureaucracies are a problem around the world. There’s an old story about a town — it could be anywhere — with a bureaucrat who is known to be a good-for-nothing, but he somehow had always hung on to power. So one day, in a town meeting, an old woman got up and said to him: “There is a folk legend here where I come from that when a baby is born, an angel comes down from heaven and kisses it on one part of its body. If the angel kisses him on his hand, he becomes a handyman. If he kisses him on his forehead, he becomes bright and clever. And I’ve been trying to figure out where the angel kissed you so that you should sit there for so long and do nothing.”[Laughter] […]

We Americans make no secret of our belief in freedom. In fact, it’s something of a national pastime. Every 4 years the American people choose a new President, and 1988 is one of those years. At one point there were 13 major candidates running in the two major parties, not to mention all the others,
including the Socialist and Libertarian candidates — all trying to get my job. About 1,000 local television stations, 8,500 radio stations, and 1,700 daily newspapers — each one an independent, private enterprise, fiercely independent of the Government — report on the candidates, grill them in interviews, and bring them together for debates. In the end, the people vote; they decide who will be the next President. But freedom doesn’t begin or end with elections.

Go to any American town, to take just an example, and you’ll see dozens of churches, representing many different beliefs — in many places, synagogues and mosques — and you’ll see families of every conceivable nationality worshiping together. Go into any schoolroom, and there you will see children being taught the Declaration of Independence, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights — among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — that no government can justly deny; the guarantees in their Constitution for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Go into any courtroom, and there will preside an independent judge, beholden to no government power. There every defendant has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, usually 12 men and women — common citizens; they are the ones, the only ones, who weigh the evidence and decide on guilt or innocence. In that court, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the word of a policeman or any official has no greater legal standing than the word of the accused. Go to any university campus, and there you’ll find an open, sometimes heated discussion of the problems in American society and what can be done to correct them. Turn on the television, and you’ll see the legislature conducting the business of government right there before the camera, debating and voting on the legislation that will become the law of the land. March in any demonstration, and there are many of them; the people’s right of assembly is guaranteed in the Constitution and protected by the police. Go into any union hall, where the members know their right to strike is protected by law. As a matter of fact, one of the many jobs I had before this one was being president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild. I led my union out on strike, and I’m proud to say we won.

But freedom is more even than this. Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to dream — to follow your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you’re the only one in a sea of doubters. Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put on this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.

America is a nation made up of hundreds of nationalities. Our ties to you are more than ones of good feeling; they’re ties of kinship. In America, you’ll find Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians, peoples from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. They come from every part of this vast continent, from every continent,to live in harmony, seeking a place where each cultural heritage is respected, each is valued for its diverse strengths and beauties and the richness it brings to our lives. Recently, a few individuals and families have been allowed to visit relatives in the West. We can only hope that it won’t be long before all are allowed to do so and Ukrainian-Americans, Baltic-Americans, Armenian-Americans can freely visit their homelands, just as this Irish-American visits his.

Freedom, it has been said, makes people selfish and materialistic, but Americans are one of the most religious peoples on Earth. Because they know that liberty, just as life itself, is not earned but a gift from God, they seek to share that gift with the world. “Reason and experience,” said George
Washington in his Farewell Address, “both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. And it is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to     keep government limited, unintrusive; a system of constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only in family and faith.  (– Excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s speech given at Moscow State University, 1988)

I first read that speech,  about a year ago for a county education conference to promote historical thinking and literacy. The speech was use to demonstrate different reading and writing strategies that could be used in the classroom. We were asked to read Reagan’s speech, identify and rank six important phrases, and to determine what Reagan’s definition of freedom might be. Afterwards, one of the other teachers questioned, whether to be fair to our students, we should give them an additional primary source written from a Democrat’s point-of-view in order to give the kids both sides. To which I said, “What are you saying, Democrats don’t like freedom?”  He then went on to blame all our current national troubles on the Republican administrations of the last 30 years. Good times.

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.

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.

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.

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 Deathm regardless of Viability outside of the Womb.

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 Congress or the several States denied 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 United States or that of the several states, nor shall the several States be denied the Power to seize, detain, or deport such a Person if the  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 directly 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

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 third of the Senators or one third of the Members of the House of Representatives petition their respective House, to review an executive Order or Regulation made pursuant to a Law of Congress, the Congress shall have 90 days to review and affirm said Order or Regulation and by majority vote in each House, and if it fails to obtain this Affirmation, said Order or Regulation shall be Null and Void.

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 there is no annual budget Deficit.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.