King of America

[roamer_1]

So who actually handles the "regulate the value thereof"  Can they do that themselves are must they turn that over to the Department of the Treasury as well?  Who says if we have a gold standard or not?  Is that the president or is that a prerogative of the Congress alone?

Well Congress, of course. If they don't approve of what the executive is doing, they write a new law that redefines the parameters of a department's powers... It would still be handed off to the Executive for execution. The department still resides in the executive branch.

In case you haven't already figured it out, this stuff has been percolating with me for a LONG time now! Not picking on you @roamer_1

NP @Bigun ... Like I said, I am with you in spirit - I would love to see most of the departments removed or greatly reduced, with the balance returned to the states.

All I am saying is that i think your reductions are a bit too tight in the actual doing of things... There are legitimate powers that should reside in the federal government, many of which we just take for granted. Common coin, common weights and measures, the ability to move freely about the country for people and commerce... Would you remove air traffic control from the federal level? What about barge traffic and rail traffic? What about port control? There is just a lot of things to consider.

[Bigun]

Well Congress, of course. If they don't approve of what the executive is doing, they write a new law that redefines the parameters of a department's powers... It would still be handed off to the Executive for execution. The department still resides in the executive branch.

NP @Bigun ... Like I said, I am with you in spirit - I would love to see most of the departments removed or greatly reduced, with the balance returned to the states.

All I am saying is that i think your reductions are a bit too tight in the actual doing of things... There are legitimate powers that should reside in the federal government, many of which we just take for granted. Common coin, common weights and measures, the ability to move freely about the country for people and commerce... Would you remove air traffic control from the federal level? What about barge traffic and rail traffic? What about port control? There is just a lot of things to consider.

Ok!  You can add one cabinet-level department back in. Should it be the Department of Commerce? 

[roamer_1]

Ok!  You can add one cabinet-level department back in. Should it be the Department of Commerce? 

LOL! Beats me.
 

[Cyber Liberty]

LOL! Beats me.
 

Education?

 

[roamer_1]

Education?

Harder than you think... Who defines minimum education standards in a uniform way across the states? How do you present your bona fides to higher education if those bona fides are undefined?

FDA: Who decides what food is, and protects labeling, and inspects to be sure what you're buying is what you want, uniformly, regardless of state?

[Cyber Liberty]

Harder than you think... Who defines minimum education standards in a uniform way across the states? How do you present your bona fides to higher education if those bona fides are undefined?

FDA: Who decides what food is, and protects labeling, and inspects to be sure what you're buying is what you want, uniformly, regardless of state?

"Minimum Standards" really means minimum.  There are approximately 50 states, one "colony" and one District racing to the minimum, and at great cost to the Treasury.  FDA makes more sense than HUD.  I'd add Bureau of Weights and Measures, but it's not Cabinet level.

[roamer_1]

"Minimum Standards" really means minimum.  There are approximately 50 states, one "colony" and one District racing to the minimum, and at great cost to the Treasury.  FDA makes more sense than HUD.  I'd add Bureau of Weights and Measures, but it's not Cabinet level.

That's right - What's broke is broke, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, is all I am saying... And that is a whole lot harder to do than folks think. Damn right it needs fixed, one way or the other.'

It is all part and parcel with the states going unrepresented - I think that putting the senator back at the beck and call of his governor is about the most needed repair - hopefully the rest would follow.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's right - What's broke is broke, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, is all I am saying... And that is a whole lot harder to do than folks think. Damn right it needs fixed, one way or the other.'

It is all part and parcel with the states going unrepresented - I think that putting the senator back at the beck and call of his governor is about the most needed repair - hopefully the rest would follow.

Then I think we can agree on two Amendments that need to be gone.  16 and 17.  I don't think repealing the 16th would put the stake I'd like to see in the heart of the IRS, though.

The last income tax before the 16th was passed in the late 19th Century, and was eventually found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (which is why we have the 16th in the first place).  If we repeal it, and a future Congress and President decide they want it back, who's to say a future SCOTUS would have the same sense as the one over 100 years ago?  The SCOTUS has been off the rails for some time now, finding emanations and penumbras under every rock.  They can't even agree on what "Shall not be infringed" means.  Predicate Clause, dontchaknow. 

Every right assured by the Bill of Rights is subject to Judicial Review, all containing their own emanations and the occasional penumbras.  Reasonable regulations and all that.  Speaking of BATF, maybe we should have a hard look at what Treasury does?

[roamer_1]

Then I think we can agree on two Amendments that need to be gone.  16 and 17.  I don't think repealing the 16th would put the stake I'd like to see in the heart of the IRS, though.

The last income tax before the 16th was passed in the late 19th Century, and was eventually found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (which is why we have the 16th in the first place).  If we repeal it, and a future Congress and President decide they want it back, who's to say a future SCOTUS would have the same sense as the one over 100 years ago?  The SCOTUS has been off the rails for some time now, finding emanations and penumbras under every rock.  They can't even agree on what "Shall not be infringed" means.  Predicate Clause, dontchaknow. 

Every right assured by the Bill of Rights is subject to Judicial Review, all containing their own emanations and the occasional penumbras.  Reasonable regulations and all that.  Speaking of BATF, maybe we should have a hard look at what Treasury does?

YES, I am against any form of income or property tax - It is directly against thrift, and asks nothing of those who refuse to work... A retail tax on non-essential goods would be my favored form...


As to the rest, I would be highly favorable to every department getting a major axe laid to their roots, both in powers and in money. And many can go away.

[Cyber Liberty]

Just don't nobody say "Root and Branch."   

[Absalom]

Monarchy has been Man's form of governance for 90% of the time
since the earliest cultures/societies and was Aristotle's preference.
Many cannot give up their infantile infatuation w/the republicrat party,
the creator of centralized governance and the destroyer of States Rights.

[Cyber Liberty]

Monarchy has been Man's form of governance for 90% of the time
since the earliest cultures/societies and was Aristotle's preference.
Many cannot give up their infantile infatuation w/the republicrat party,
the creator of centralized governance and the destroyer of States Rights.

It's been a part of this Republic too...two Presidents saw their sons follow them into the Presidency.

[Sanguine]

It's been a part of this Republic too...two Presidents saw their sons follow them into the Presidency.

But, only late in our history, and under what has become a corruption of the Republic.

[Cyber Liberty]

But, only late in our history, and under what has become a corruption of the Republic.

John Adams was the second President.  Not late in our history.  I think the two examples (John Quincy Adams and Bush 43) are a good illustration of why that's a dead-end.

[Sanguine]

John Adams was the second President.  Not late in our history.  I think the two examples (John Quincy Adams and Bush 43) are a good illustration of why that's a dead-end.

True.  I immediately thought (wrongly) of the Clintons.

[Cyber Liberty]

True.  I immediately thought (wrongly) of the Clintons.

The Clintons are trying, and failing so far.  The Clinton media will be pushing for Chelsea as soon as Hillary has officially given up, so stay vigilant.

[jmyrlefuller]

OK, I will play.

1. The states shall be required, if a bicameral legislature is used, to apportion one of their legislative houses according to fixed districts, regardless of population changes, that follow municipal boundaries (i.e. counties); this shall be a fulfillment of the requirement of a republican form of government.

2. The federal government shall not use bribery with federal funds to coerce states to impose policy they would not otherwise implement. All subsidies will be in accordance with the specific project being funded, without regard to unrelated policies. Likewise, such bribery or, in reverse, threats of taxation shall not be used against the people.

3. The courts shall not have the authority to overturn federal or state law without citing a specific Constitutional clause that it violates. Precedent shall not be considered a valid rationale for any ruling.

4. Persons under legal voting age shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives.

5. Persons who enter the United States unlawfully shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives, nor shall they be subject to equal protection. They shall be considered trespassers, and subject to expulsion accordingly.

That's about it.

[Cyber Liberty]

OK, I will play.

1. The states shall be required, if a bicameral legislature is used, to apportion one of their legislative houses according to fixed districts, regardless of population changes, that follow municipal boundaries (i.e. counties); this shall be a fulfillment of the requirement of a republican form of government.

2. The federal government shall not use bribery with federal funds to coerce states to impose policy they would not otherwise implement. All subsidies will be in accordance with the specific project being funded, without regard to unrelated policies. Likewise, such bribery or, in reverse, threats of taxation shall not be used against the people.

3. The courts shall not have the authority to overturn federal or state law without citing a specific Constitutional clause that it violates. Precedent shall not be considered a valid rationale for any ruling.

4. Persons under legal voting age shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives.

5. Persons who enter the United States unlawfully shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives, nor shall they be subject to equal protection. They shall be considered trespassers, and subject to expulsion accordingly.

That's about it.

Excellent points for discussion on @Bigun's thread here.

[Sanguine]

Excellent points for discussion on @Bigun's thread here.

Yes, they are.

[Bigun]

OK, I will play.

1. The states shall be required, if a bicameral legislature is used, to apportion one of their legislative houses according to fixed districts, regardless of population changes, that follow municipal boundaries (i.e. counties); this shall be a fulfillment of the requirement of a republican form of government.

2. The federal government shall not use bribery with federal funds to coerce states to impose policy they would not otherwise implement. All subsidies will be in accordance with the specific project being funded, without regard to unrelated policies. Likewise, such bribery or, in reverse, threats of taxation shall not be used against the people.

3. The courts shall not have the authority to overturn federal or state law without citing a specific Constitutional clause that it violates. Precedent shall not be considered a valid rationale for any ruling.

4. Persons under legal voting age shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives.

5. Persons who enter the United States unlawfully shall not be counted toward a state's apportionment of Representatives, nor shall they be subject to equal protection. They shall be considered trespassers, and subject to expulsion accordingly.

That's about it.

Very good @jmyrlefuller !  Thanks!

Several VERY good points raised here!  I particularly like #s 3 and 5.  The others aren't bad either with perhaps a few tweaks in wording.

Your list triggered an addition to mine to whit: "The Constitution is amended to require all legislation introduced in the federal legislature to cite the specific wording in the Constitution which would allow the action proposed". 

[jmyrlefuller]

Very good @jmyrlefuller !  Thanks!

Several VERY good points raised here!  I particularly like #s 3 and 5.  The others aren't bad either with perhaps a few tweaks in wording.

Your list triggered an addition to mine to whit: "The Constitution is amended to require all legislation introduced in the federal legislature to cite the specific wording in the Constitution which would allow the action proposed".

1 and 4 are designed specifically to avoid some things that are happening in our blue states, where the cities are running roughshod over the rest of the state. It is a way to shut down, or at least slow down, tyranny of majority.

1 addresses gerrymandering. It follows the same basic premise as our U.S. Senate and is similar to the Dirksen Amendment from the late 1960s.

4 addresses population engineering. Say there's a baby boom in one particular state. The population goes up in the census, but the same amount of voters are present until those children turn 18. So, vote-for-vote, the adult population gets disproportionate voting rights compared to a similarly sized state where there are the same amount of voters, but they're not having as many children. (If you want to talk a "one-man one-vote" principle, that's a huge flaw. When you can create "men" that don't vote to pad your vote, it's not one-man, one-vote anymore.) This will also shut down policies that selectively reward certain areas for having more children to pad their voting power and discourage other areas from doing the same.

2 is in direct response to Obamacare and a lot of the highway bills you see where they threaten to withhold federal highway funds if a state won't impose this policy or that.

[Bigun]

1 and 4 are designed specifically to avoid some things that are happening in our blue states, where the cities are running roughshod over the rest of the state. It is a way to shut down, or at least slow down, tyranny of majority.

1 addresses gerrymandering. It follows the same basic premise as our U.S. Senate and is similar to the Dirksen Amendment from the late 1960s.

4 addresses population engineering. Say there's a baby boom in one particular state. The population goes up in the census, but the same amount of voters are present until those children turn 18. So, vote-for-vote, the adult population gets disproportionate voting rights compared to a similarly sized state where there are the same amount of voters, but they're not having as many children. (If you want to talk a "one-man one-vote" principle, that's a huge flaw. When you can create "men" that don't vote to pad your vote, it's not one-man, one-vote anymore.) This will also shut down policies that selectively reward certain areas for having more children to pad their voting power and discourage other areas from doing the same.

2 is in direct response to Obamacare and a lot of the highway bills you see where they threaten to withhold federal highway funds if a state won't impose this policy or that.

I understand perfectly.