In several boards the idea of adding amendments to the constitution to protect us from the lefties has been tossed about. Assuming we could (probably not in the near future-we won’t have enough numbers until at least 2 election cycles), here are my top 5-ideas for Amendments. If there are any lawyers out there, maybe you could figure out how to phrase them better.

#28) Americans may be taxed in equal share, either by dollar value, percent of value purchased, or by percent of their income. However, no American shall ever be taxed a greater portion by percent AND dollar value than his fellow citizens. And no product or service shall be taxed by both higher dollar amount AND percent of value than other products.

#29) By no means is the American tax code to be construed as redistributive in nature. Tax refunds, exemptions, and exclusions may be given to promote a government or social interest, but can not by any means be given with regard to personal wealth or hardship, nor race or social class, nor any other distinction whereby money is taken from one class, segment, or race and given to another.

Basically

1) No more redistribution by tax code-everyone pays in.

2) No more protectionist taxes or levies

3) No more using the tax code as a cudgel to “beat” people into buying green products, healthy products, government approved products etc.

And then my personal favorite

#30) The human fetus, once having established for itself the means within the womb to grow and develop into a viable human being, shall be granted personhood and citizenship from its first heartbeat onward. It may not be deprived of life or future without due process of law, and only then may be deprived of such if presenting a direct and immediate threat to the life of its mother.

Also another great idea from theancientmariner

#31) Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff in whole or in part from any other law, federal, state, or municipal. All such exemptions are hereby declared null and void.

#32) Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

A group of like-minded conservative bloggers are organizing a coordinated Google search for Stupak’s challenger Dr. Benishek. To help out just go to Google and search terms like “Donate Benishek” and this will generate hits for Stupak’s challenger, which will create a blip on Google tracking that all the news people and pundits will see. Also it will ensure that Benishek stays at the top of the Google page.

Despite the fact that my representative is a flaming liberal, I have made an attempt to change her mind on healthcare. I didn’t argue on grounds of cost, economics, or taxation–Democrats either don’t get these concept or care. Instead I tried to use “Liberalspeak” to show her why public health care could be a bad idea. While I’m just one voice, I encourage others in areas with liberal representation do the same. If enough voices oppose Obamacare using language Democrats can relate to we might plant seeds of doubt in the minds of many Blue-Dogs.

Congresswoman DeGette,
I would like to relay to you my concerns over the current Obama health care plan.
1) Currently, as of a re-vote called by Waxman, abortion coverage would be included in all states. This removes the “fig leaf” of conscience that has appeased many pro-life Americans. Now, instead of simply tolerating abortion (some say evil by omission) we all would be subsidizing abortion, as tax money and cost pool shifting help pay for abortions (evil by commission). In other words, pro-lifers would have no outlet left for their conscience and would be forced to partake in a practice many find as abhorrent as slavery, the Trail of Tears, or even religious cleansings. Pro-lifers would be faced with one of four options. a) Limit their income to the point they won’t be paying anything into the system b) Refuse to pay into the system, and be criminalized c) Expatriate d) Radicalism.
The current abortion status-quo which ensures that public funds don’t pay for abortion in many states has been a good compromise and has kept protests (with a few notable exceptions), peaceable, civil, and reasonable. Removal of the right to conscience would be a terrible violation on the part of the government and would be met with harsh push back.

2) Although originally intended to be a tiered system with both private and public options, the Obama plan would likely eventually result in a public plan for most Americans. This would reduce patient autonomy. Currently, American are free to contract with insurance to cover the benefits they may need or desire in the future, whether or not these benefits are cost-efficient. By doing so, a patient can insure they get the treatment that is best for them, rather than the treatment that is nationally cost effective.
To illustrate this point I will refer to England’s system. In England, the majority of heart attacks are treated with TPA (tissue plasminogen activator), a clot buster. In the US we only use TPA if the time to get to the catheter-lab is too excessive. Balloon angioplasty is best for most patients with better outcomes. However, it is not cost effective. So, in a government option open to all, we find that a patient’s autonomy (to provide for the best treatment in case of a heart attack by contracting with an insurer) is limited. An individual is no longer free to protect himself against future illness, but must rely on the government to do so. In some cases they will not do this as well; the patient’s life is worth less to society than it is to that individual.
I know that the answer often given to this question is that in a “public option” people can still contract for their own insurance. Given the history of European healthcare, this is only partly true. As more people move to the public option, private insurance becomes more expensive, until only the extremely wealthy can afford it. The end result is that celebrities and politicians get balloon angioplasty, the rest of us get TPA. Thus, a system intended to be egalitarian, effectively cuts the middle class out of ideal healthcare and furthers the class divide.
Currently there is already a “public option” for some people; it exists in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and children’s programs like CHIP. In most cases, you must be eligible based on disability or income. By having an income requirement for the public option we encourage the private sector, which keeps prices of insurance within the realm of possibility for middle-classers, and allows them to protect their future health as they see fit, allowing them to make investments in insurance that will give them more and better options in the event their health fails.

3) Supply is also a concern with public health care. While America certainly doesn’t have the most cost effective health care in the world, we do have the most rigorous health care education in the world. So rigorous are our qualifications, that many MD’s from other countries have difficulty passing our boards, and often must repeat residency within the US. The converse is usually not true, US doctors can practice anywhere in the world, and any country would be happy to have them. Considering the rigor and excellence of current training, we must consider if our physicians will tolerate slowly becoming government employees. Will they continue to work the same hours? Will they except government interference in their field? We need to ask how we can maintain our current excellence and professionalism.
For example, in Germany, where Medical school is paid for by the government, and is not as lengthily as in the US, there have been physician strikes over patient/physician autonomy and wages. Recently, the doctors in Peru were on strike. To my knowledge, US Doctors have never been on strike. Also they work 80h weeks, while in Germany residents work less than 40 and in England they work 50. So the greater expense of our system does buy us something. We get more patient autonomy, as well as professional, well paid physicians who work longer hours and don’t go on strike. Our private system ensures constant, uninterrupted provision for health care.

I hope you will consider the above concerns. I realize that as a Democrat you feel a strong responsibility to the uninsured and hope to find solutions for them. I definitely think that there are good solutions that can provide for their health. I also think that these solutions can be achieved in a way that does not compromise individual conscience, patient autonomy, or the smooth and uninterrupted provision of care to the rest of us. There are good solutions out there. I highly applaud Colorado’s CHIP program as one of them.
Obamacare is not one of these good answers, and runs the risk reducing an individual’s rights and options for “the good of society”. Please remember that society is no more than a mass of individuals and not a “good” or an entity of itself. Please protect individuals by voting against Obamacare, and give us more good programs like CHIP instead.

Because it is a stupidly easy procedure in the first 12 weeks, and everything is being done by pro-choice librals to make it seem benign as possible, and gloss over ethical objections. For example here’s an e-mail from the Woman’s Health Group at my medical school.

“ <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Berlin Sans FB”; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-alt:”Times New Roman”; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> The Reproductive Health Interest Group is looking for students interested in leadership positions. Each year, we plan five to six events or lectures that help educate students on relevant reproductive health issues.  Our past events have included:  Doula and Midwife Panel Discussion, AIDS Day Dinner and Movie “Absolutely Positive” (Co-sponsor), MVA Papaya Workshop (Mechanical Vacuum Aspiration-used primarily for abortions!), Oral Contraception Lecture, Taking a Sexual History, and many more!”

MVA’s and Papayas?!??! Reminds me of condoms and banannas-only now, instead of teaching your daughter how to safely fornicate, your tax dollars are going to teach young doctors how to safely (for the mother that is) end an unintended pregnancy (ie. evacuate and kill a 6-12 week old unborn human being)

Don’t let the ease and benign nature of early abortion blind us to it’s malefecence and the ethical travisty that ends the lifes of millions of potential people! Sure MVA or abortion pills seem simple. How could something that looks like a squirt gun and is over in a few minutes without much crying, or pain or blood be wrong?-don’t let these arguments blind you to the truth-a heartbeat is stopped. Remember the ever-wise words of Dr. Seuss “a person’s a person, no matter how small”-the ease at wich a fetus is killed and the relative painlesness of a procedure, have little bearing on the ethics of that procedure. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is wrong, unless it is specificaly to save the life of another person and it is impossible to similtaniously save the child. If the fetus is “possibly” a person then abortion is possibly wrong. If the fetus is potentially a person then abortion destroys potential, the same as drugs, and abuse, and rape, and segregated schools….and is wrong.

If anyone is interested, I am beginning my OB/GYN rotation in medical school, and plan to write a journal at least once a week bringing up ethical controversies I see on rotation, and educating readers to the medical “speak” and health considerations of issues like contraception, emergency abortion, in-vitro fertilization, and elective abortion.

How a great and noble sounding resolution can destroy sovernty, strip parents of rights, poison your family, end religion, and result in the liberal, state upbringing (brainwashing) of your kids!

Article 12

“I don’t want to do homework or change schools. I don’t want to go to Church. I don’t want to go to therapy…my behavior is just fine…just leave me alone and let me have sex with my boyfriend while smoking pot and listening to devil music. I’m13 and old enough to have a say!…By the way could you pick me up some condoms while you’re at the store?”

You have the right to say what you think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect you, and to have your opinions taken into account.

Article 14

“Hey Mom, Dad, I’m going to sacrifice a chicken on a pentagram tonight. It’s followed by a Wikken Spring Festival orgy. Then I was thinking of converting to Buddhism for a while, and then taking a Native American Spirit Journey…I hear Peyote is great! Don’t wait up!”

You have the right to think and believe what you want and to practice your religion, as long as you are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should guide (i.e. Not direct) children on these matters.

Article 15

“We’re not just a group of delinquents, we’re a social action committee. I have a right to hang out with Johnny you know. Just because you don’t understand gay people, doesn’t mean I can’t be in the Rainbow Teen Club. And sister has a right to hang out with the potheads behind the bleachers if she wants. You can’t control who our friends are!”

You have the right to meet with other children and young people and to join groups and organizations, as long as this does not stop other people from enjoying their rights.

Article 16

What you never knew…your daughter has had three abortions, syphilis, HIV, and the Clap. The friend she hangs out with has had 4 drug possession charges, aggravated assault, and arson. The boyfriend that drives her to school has had 13 moving violations, 2 drunk driving charges, a sex offence involving another minor, and isn’t licensed. By the way he also has AIDS……You’ll never know it because they all have a right to privacy and to keep their good names! No calling other parents to snitch on the bad kids now!

You have the right to privacy. The law should protect you from attacks against your way of life, your good name, your family and your home.

Article 18

“Have as many children as you want…after all it isn’t like YOU’RE taking care of them”

Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children, and should always consider what is best for each child. Governments should help parents by providing services to support them, especially if both parents work.

Article 21

Adoption is a risky proposal for parents. Often the birth mother can change her mind much later, resulting in her being awarded custody of a child even after a year or two with adopted parents! Many parents adopt internationally to avoid this. Now, this will entail some risk as well. Adopted parents are already under enough fire, expensive and ethically questionable fertility treatments are on the rise as a result. In addition, millions of children are being aborted, who could be adopted. Remember. Any vote against adoption is a vote for destruction of fetuses and contributes to the social drive for abortions.

If you are adopted, the first concern must be what is best for you. The same rules should apply whether the adoption takes place in the country where you were born or if you move to another country.

Article 22

“So if I’m 17, and me, my wife, and child make an illegal border crossing…..”

If you are a child who has come into a country as a refugee, you should have the same rights as children born in that country.

oops-formating error on previous post

So I just read the constitution and all of its amendments again. I’d forgotten some important clauses and amendment rights that were in there. Things that have been blatantly ignored by our government, both Republican and Democrat (although mostly Democrat) for my entire life. Why doesn’t anyone notice or say something?? Probably because the American public is too stupid to learn what their rights and responsibilities are unless given to them in sound bytes by a liberal media. Well, here is some very important stuff I found. I’m glad I decided to read it all again.

1) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well…If FOCA is passed the amendment rights in bold will be abridged as health care workers will no longer be able to practice their religion by not taking part in medical procedures (i.e. Abortion) they find morally abhorrent. Also, in many states Doctors can already face liability if they suggest abortion is wrong to a pregnant woman who is requesting one, and in the few states without conscience laws (38 states have them) can be required to provide the patient with a referral for an abortion.

Also if congress ever rules that gay marriage is legit, they will be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Congress also could not rule on any definition of marriage unless by amendment. Marriage controversies then, must be dealt with at the state level, according to state laws and constitutions (but not violating the US constitution…yes I’m talking to you California Judges). This would even be the case in controversies like the Texas polygamy cases last year, or in cases of minors marrying, should the marriage be religiously sanctioned. In other words, without an amendment to the constitution the US government is to back away from national laws dictating religious practices, such as marriage, exercise of conscience, etc. –leaving such rulings up to the states, a constitutional amendment, or to popular vote.

2) Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that this does not say, “infringed by congress”, but rather “infringed” period. So the whole “no guns in New York” thing doesn’t work. Also note that this says “arms” not “guns” or “sporting equipment”. According to Webster’s Arms: 1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm. Thus, the exclusion of offensive weaponry like AK47’s M16’s and RPG’s from civilian ownership is unconstitutional, as is any statute, city ordinance, or state law prohibiting any type of weaponry (or the ability to load and fire that weapon for offensive or defensive purposes-i.e. Black Rhino bullets should be legal & there should be no law on how much ammo you can buy or your gun can hold.) Arms, distinctly means weapons. To “bear arms” means being able to quickly pick up and use a weapon, not just a sportsman’s rifle, but weapons built for the purpose of ending human life, not just shooting pheasants.

By the clause “well regulated militia” the government has the ability to regulate, license, train, and perhaps even keep tabs on gun owners, but there must be a legal channel available for an individual to obtain and possess military grade arms in such a manner that they be available to him quickly in the even he need to take defensive or offensive measures to ensure a “free state” (especially if that should someday mean defending his freedom and property FROM the state)

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

So please explain this one to me. How can police search people’s cars for open containers, or get people drug and alcohol checked at a hospital, or by breathalyzer (although in most places a citizen can decline this) or even check their pockets for marijuana without first obtaining a warrant?

4) Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Two gross violations of this one… First abortion. “No person be deprived of life or liberty”. Roe V.S. Wade ruled that a fetus isn’t a person and thus has no rights and thus a mother’s “liberty” holds primacy. However when we look back into the original constitution Section 2 Article 1, we see that taxes are apportioned to people. If we look back at inheritance law, unborn children could be the recipients of a will as far back as 1851. And since the US government taxes inheritance, the unborn are, by definition and constitution “people”. Unfortunately, this argument only partially holds up, as this taxation clause was removed due to the 3/5ths slave rule with the 14^th amendment, which says that all people born in America are citizens and must not be deprived of life or liberty. However, in my opinion, the 14th amendment does not disqualify fetuses from being people any more than it disqualifies Chinese from being people, it only states that a fetus is not yet an American. As murder of a Chinese national within our borders would still be illegal, so should the killing of a fetus without due legal process. Notice Amendment 5 says “person” not “citizen”.

Violation 2 is the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Now I’m not even going to go into public domain, but rather discuss taxation in general. Taxes on income and property are, in fact, unconstitutional unless there is “compensation”. It might be argued that public works, should a private citizen benefit from them, be just compensation. This was likely the argument and impetus behind the 16^th amendment. For example, income taxes going to a police force or fire brigade, since the citizen derives compensation in the form of services and protection. However, it becomes impossible to justify any and all entitlements that are given only to select citizens and not available to all citizens. For example, as a private citizen will likely never be compensated for the money going to welfare, money gained from income taxes should not be able to be used for this purpose. Like welfare, other programs that are not universally available and utilized by all citizens should be excluded from any income tax funding. Although amendment 16 contradicts this somewhat, (16 gave the government the right to collect taxes on income of any source) amendment 5 is still in the constitution and no part of 5 was ever repealed. Thus, if there is in lack of clarity in interpretation of 5 and 16, the error should be made on the side of citizen’s rights. Funding welfare, medicare, or the “Obamasplurge” relief plan with revenue from income tax is unconstitutional.

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} span.sensebreak {mso-style-name:sense_break;} span.senselabelstart {mso-style-name:”sense_label start”;} span.sensecontent {mso-style-name:sense_content;} span.senselabel {mso-style-name:sense_label;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:635109957; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:363873610 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-text:”%1\)”; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} –>

So I just read the constitution and all of its amendments again. I’d forgotten some important clauses and amendment rights that were in there. Things that have been blatantly ignored by our government, both Republican and Democrat (although mostly Democrat) for my entire life. Why doesn’t anyone notice or say something?? Probably because the American public is too stupid to learn what their rights and responsibilities are unless given to them in sound bytes by a liberal media. Well, here is some very important stuff I found. I’m glad I decided to read it all again.

1) First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well…If FOCA is passed the amendment rights in bold will be abridged as health care workers will no longer be able to practice their religion by not taking part in medical procedures (i.e. Abortion) they find morally abhorrent. Also, in many states Doctors can already face liability if they suggest abortion is wrong to a pregnant woman who is requesting one, and in the few states without conscience laws (38 states have them) can be required to provide the patient with a referral for an abortion.

Also if congress ever rules that gay marriage is legit, they will be prohibiting free exercise of religion. Congress also could not rule on any definition of marriage unless by amendment. Marriage controversies then, must be dealt with at the state level, according to state laws and constitutions (but not violating the US constitution…yes I’m talking to you California Judges). This would even be the case in controversies like the Texas polygamy cases last year, or in cases of minors marrying, should the marriage be religiously sanctioned. In other words, without an amendment to the constitution the US government is to back away from national laws dictating religious practices, such as marriage, exercise of conscience, etc. –leaving such rulings up to the states, a constitutional amendment, or to popular vote.

2) Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that this does not say, “infringed by congress”, but rather “infringed” period. So the whole “no guns in New York” thing doesn’t work. Also note that this says “arms” not “guns” or “sporting equipment”. According to Webster’s Arms: 1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm. Thus, the exclusion of offensive weaponry like AK47’s M16’s and RPG’s from civilian ownership is unconstitutional, as is any statute, city ordinance, or state law prohibiting any type of weaponry (or the ability to load and fire that weapon for offensive or defensive purposes-i.e. Black Rhino bullets should be legal & there should be no law on how much ammo you can buy or your gun can hold.) Arms, distinctly means weapons. To “bear arms” means being able to quickly pick up and use a weapon, not just a sportsman’s rifle, but weapons built for the purpose of ending human life, not just shooting pheasants.

By the clause “well regulated militia” the government has the ability to regulate, license, train, and perhaps even keep tabs on gun owners, but there must be a legal channel available for an individual to obtain and possess military grade arms in such a manner that they be available to him quickly in the even he need to take defensive or offensive measures to ensure a “free state” (especially if that should someday mean defending his freedom and property FROM the state)

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

So please explain this one to me. How can police search people’s cars for open containers, or get people drug and alcohol checked at a hospital, or by breathalyzer (although in most places a citizen can decline this) or even check their pockets for marijuana without first obtaining a warrant?

4) Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Two gross violations of this one… First abortion. “No person be deprived of life or liberty”. Roe V.S. Wade ruled that a fetus isn’t a person and thus has no rights and thus a mother’s “liberty” holds primacy. However when we look back into the original constitution Section 2 Article 1, we see that taxes are apportioned to people. If we look back at inheritance law, unborn children could be the recipients of a will as far back as 1851. And since the US government taxes inheritance, the unborn are, by definition and constitution “people”. Unfortunately, this argument only partially holds up, as this taxation clause was removed due to the 3/5ths slave rule with the 14^th amendment, which says that all people born in America are citizens and must not be deprived of life or liberty. However, in my opinion, the 14th amendment does not disqualify fetuses from being people any more than it disqualifies Chinese from being people, it only states that a fetus is not yet an American. As murder of a Chinese national within our borders would still be illegal, so should the killing of a fetus without due legal process. Notice Amendment 5 says “person” not “citizen”.

Violation 2 is the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Now I’m not even going to go into public domain, but rather discuss taxation in general. Taxes on income and property are, in fact, unconstitutional unless there is “compensation”. It might be argued that public works, should a private citizen benefit from them, be just compensation. This was likely the argument and impetus behind the 16^th amendment. For example, income taxes going to a police force or fire brigade, since the citizen derives compensation in the form of services and protection. However, it becomes impossible to justify any and all entitlements that are given only to select citizens and not available to all citizens. For example, as a private citizen will likely never be compensated for the money going to welfare, money gained from income taxes should not be able to be used for this purpose. Like welfare, other programs that are not universally available and utilized by all citizens should be excluded from any income tax funding. Although amendment 16 contradicts this somewhat, (16 gave the government the right to collect taxes on income of any source) amendment 5 is still in the constitution and no part of 5 was ever repealed. Thus, if there is in lack of clarity in interpretation of 5 and 16, the error should be made on the side of citizen’s rights. Funding welfare, medicare, or the “Obamasplurge” relief plan with revenue from income tax is unconstitutional.