Article V proposed amendments/COS needed

[M]

Source; Oren Long

Everyone,

 

Below is an email I sent to Mr. David Schneider, a leader in the Convention of States Movement.  It is self-explanatory.  

 

Your thoughts,

 

Oren

 

 

 

 

Mr. Schneider,

 

Sadly, the Article V Convention of States movement appears stalled short of the necessary 34 State requirement, begging the question, "How do we restart it and push it over the finish line"?  

 

Given the current sad state of affairs, now might be the perfect time for such an effort.    I believe (perhaps "hope" is a better word) there is a way and would appreciate your thoughts.  

 

For several years I have worked on a series of amendments I hope to have introduced into Convention in the event we achieve a COS, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.  They are in the link below.  

 

Are they perfect?  Probably not.  I'm sure you and others have your own ideas on what any amendments should look like.  I'm fine with that.  I just want to get us to the finish line.    

 

It occurs to me that we are essentially asking States to buy into a concept without fleshing out said concept.  We are essentially asking States to "buy a pig in a poke".  And we are surprised when they are reluctant to do so?  

 

Again, given the current sad state of affairs, now just might be the perfect time to restart the COS movement and push it over the finish line.  People and States are starving for a solution.  A COS can be that solution.  As has been said, "Never let a crisis go to waste".  It is one thing to glom onto the rage simmering just below the surface, but quite another to feed that rage and focus it on a constructive solution.         

 

What if we actually told State Legislators what we hope to accomplish -- with specifics?  It is of paramount importance that legislators be made to understand that we are NOT trying to rewrite the Constitution but are trying to armor and reinforce the Original Intent of the Founders.  My proposed amendments clearly serve that end.    

 

State politicians are no different than their federal counterparts.  Their primary concern is for their own political survival.  Make them understand that their political survival depends on their support for a Convention of States AND that we only want to armor and reinforce the Original Intent of the Founders.  I am confident (again, perhaps "hope" is a better word) that State Legislators could support that.      

 

To that end, we must give both people at large AND State Legislators something they can actually support.  For example, it is one thing to say we want a Balanced Budget Amendment.  But what would it look like, exactly?  A Balanced Budget Amendment is included in my proposed amendments.  Perfect?  Probably not, but it's a start.    

 

It is important that we not rush into Convention with only a vague, nebulous set of ideas and concepts.  We must offer up a SPECIFIC set of goals and product that we hope to accomplish.  Then and only then can we hope to succeed and garner public and legislative support.      

 

This is why I suggest you and others spread my proposed amendments far and wide.  Start a debate and stimulate a groundswell of support for a COS.    

 

I am not so arrogant or naive as to think my proposed amendments are perfect, BUT I also believe they are far better than anything else I have seen to date.  Nor do I believe they would be adopted carte blanche as written.  Even if introduced into Convention, they would be modified as delegates saw fit.        

 

Spreading my proposed amendments far and wide would hopefully start a vigorous debate that just might get us to the 34 State finish line.  To make my idea work, EVERYONE would have to REPEATEDLY hammer their State Legislators to support a COS Resolution and get us over the 34 State finish line.  Commensurately, that is why I suggest that my proposed amendments be spread far and wide.  They give people something to support and urge their State Legislators to support.  Give people and legislators something to fight FOR!  

 

Perhaps they could go viral and restart the COS movement.  

 

Again, people and States are starving for something to fight FOR rather than something to fight AGAINST!  Let's give them what they are looking for.     

 

What say you?  

 

Oren Long        

 

P.S.  When you reread my proposed amendments, please do not speed-read them.  Nuance and subtlety are there if you look for them.  

 

Thank you.  

 

I present for your consideration something I have been working on for ten years, continually revising and refining it to its current form and format.   It is my hope that you will read it carefully and consider it seriously.   If you do, I ask that you reply with your thoughts.

We all know that no one, single amendment can even hope to resolve the many problems that have built up for well over 200 years.   That said, I hope that when you read my series of proposed amendments you consider them as a ‘package’ with each supporting and reinforcing the others.   I would ask that you search for the nuance and subtly, it’s all there if you look for it. 

I fully understand that proposing specific amendments at this early stage is inappropriate and it is not my intent that the COS Project throw them out for State Legislative consideration at this time.  

I am a firm believer in being prepared.   I firmly believe that it would behoove us to have something in the hopper for that day when a COS is actually convened.   Walking into a COS Convention with only a vague and nebulous set of ideas would almost certainly end in disaster and a set of ill-conceived amendments.

The above said, I present to you a series of proposed amendments that I hope could be introduced into Convention for discussion, debate, and consideration.   I believe each proposed amendment falls within the COS Project’s stated goal of limiting the size, scope, power, reach, and authority of the Federal Government and bringing it back within its Constitutional limitations.  

My proposed amendments are NOT something I just threw together ‘over a beer and a pool game’.   I have been working on them for over ten years, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.  

Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, it is long; so be it.   We have waited well over 200 years for this august opportunity.   I say, “Carpe Diem”.   Seize the Day!  

My proposed amendments and accompanying explanations are as follows:  

 

 

Oren Long                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER ONE:

Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed unless done so under the amendment process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution.    No part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.   

Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

 

EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, political parties, and politicians. 

Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.

“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.

 

NUMBER TWO:

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

EXPLANATION:

The Founders envisioned the House of Representatives as the House of the People and the Senate as the House of the States, and for good reason.

While the Founders wanted the People to be well represented in the new Federal Government, they had serious concerns over what Madison called the “Temporary and transient whims of the People”.  They also wanted to maintain State supremacy over the Federal Government.  Remember, the States got together and created the Federal Government, not the other way around.  Hence, the Senate was created as the House of the States, the adult in the room, if you will, with each State having an equal voice.

This proposed Amendment would restore the Original Intent of the Founders, a system that worked well until political parties undermined the Founders’ Original Intent.

 

NUMBER THREE:

Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or confirmed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders and expressed in subsequent amendments.

Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated therein.

Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Reconfirmation or de-confirmation shall occur within sixty calendar days of said due date.

Section Four:   Congress shall have, by three fourths vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President must concur with Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.

 

EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  

The Founders did not bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone learned, in good standing, or a member of the Bar.   The Village Idiot could be nominated and confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offense(s) while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even required that a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.

Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed (and we all know the definition of “assume”).   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight (starting with Marbury v Madison) to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!

Finally, there is no "Check" on Federal Judicial Power or the courts themselves.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The only "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   Even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of check on the courts and their rulings.  

It all comes down to the Latin, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (who guards the guardians?).   My proposed amendment establishes a ‘guard’ over the Judiciary.    

Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary; establishing qualifications for the Bench, restricting the courts to enumerated powers, and imposing a check on the Judiciary.        

I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.

 

NUMBER FOUR:

Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.

Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  

Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.

Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.

Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.

Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   

Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, or any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees, and all Citizens of the United States.

Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.

Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.

Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.

 

EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths, complete with retirement and other special benefits.  

WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17^th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  

Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years, with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17^th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      

Sections Four and Six (Recall) would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17^th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?

 

NUMBER FIVE:

Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last constitutionally passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.

Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 

Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.

Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     

Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  

Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.

 

EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  

The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17^th Amendment.   Hence, my NUMBERS TWO and FOUR.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  

This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, “expenditures”, and “emergency”.

 

NUMBER SIX:

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:

Section One:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Section Two:  Income shall be defined as “Gross Income”, not “Net Income”.

Section Three:  Income as defined in Section One shall not be taxed at a rate to exceed five per cent (5%) and said five per cent (5%) tax rate shall apply uniformly to all taxpayers, regardless of income level, except as defined in Section Four of this Amendment.

Section Four:  Income below the Federally defined poverty line shall not be taxed.

Section Five:  No income, however derived, shall be taxed more than once.

 

 

EXPLANATION:

I consider this proposed Amendment self-explanatory.  That said, I understand that certain “deductions” may need to be written into the amendment.  Again, not being an attorney or economist, I will leave that to better minds than mine to hash out in Convention. 

The fact remains that there is NO reason for the IRS code to be 60,000+ pages, so long and convoluted that not even the IRS itself can decipher it.  This proposed amendment could go a long way towards making taxation fair and equitable for everyone.

Further, debate rages over how best to control an overarching, overreaching Federal Government and keep it from becoming completely authoritarian.  Underpinning my other proposed amendments is the core concept, “Take away the money; take away the power”.  As the saying goes, “Money is the root of all Evil”. 

I have allowed for the Federal Government to be adequately funded, but only adequately and not excessively, at the expense of those it supposedly “serves”.

 

NUMBER SEVEN:  

Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.

Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  

Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 

 

EXPLANATION:

Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense. 

 

NUMBER EIGHT:

Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.

Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.

Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.

Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

 

EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Citizenship”, “Citizenship Rights”, and “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.

This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it.   Almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  

In the past immigrants were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept.

Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal niceties.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine.

 

NUMBER NINE:     

Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; on their persons; and in or on public property regardless of Federal, State, or Local Laws to the contrary.

Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation, or Order.

Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.

 

EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If the Federal Government, a State, or City can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can they not also neuter?

 

NUMBER TEN:

Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  

Section Two:   Neither Section One of this Amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, religious belief, or cultural practice based upon religion.     

 

EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.

 

 

I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.

 

Oren Long 

 

 

 PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, AND ASK THEM TO DO THE SAME.

 

[Richard Michael]

While your suggestions are a good effort, as soon as you introduce specifics, you'll get the people on your side arguing about the specifics and give the people on the other side the opportunity to attack. That's basic Rules for Radicals.

For example, you're number Six, which appears to be a flat tax, actually gives Congress a power to tax that it never had before.

I suggest reviewing these decisions.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 14 U.S. 316 (1819), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The exchange of labor for money is a fundamental right of personal liberty. An exchange of labor for money is not a "gain" (income).

Before making something like this public, you'd do well to at least have a committee on style go over it. Ah, but that's what a convention is for.

This is all moot, however, because the only amendments that are likely to be adopted at a Convention of States convention are those that Michael Farris wants to be introduced.

Mr. Farris will also turn red with rage when questioned about what he will do if Congress simply ignores the States resolutions to call the convention.