The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 20

This is part twenty of an ongoing series of articles containing my proposals for amendments to the Constitution.  For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution?  Well, there are several reasons.  For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable.  Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems.  But this should be done extremely cautiously.  My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

After a long hiatus in this series, I have most recently come up with this:

Section 1.  An amendment to this Constitution may only be presented by Congress to the States for their consideration if two-thirds of the whole number of the members in their respective houses shall concur with the amendment.

Section 2.  Congress shall make no law penalizing or rewarding a State for ratifying, rejecting, or failing to ratify an amendment to this Constitution.  If Congress passes a law in violation of this section and if the affected amendment has not yet adopted into this Constitution, the presentment of the amendment shall be null and void.  Congress may withdraw an amendment which it has proposed at any time before it becomes a valid part of this Constitution.

Section 3.  Whenever an amendment is pending before the States and is not yet adopted into the Constitution, any State may change its position on ratification.

Section 4.  Ratification by a State of a pending amendment shall not be valid unless the State approves of the amendment exactly as proposed by Congress including all punctuation, capitalization, wording and spelling.

Section 5.  Any amendment purportedly adopted into this Constitution which would not have been valid if this amendment had been adopted prior to any purported action taken to adopt the purported amendment by either the Congress or the States, shall henceforth be inoperative until the conditions for adoption of amendments of the previous sections of this amendment and of Article V of this Constitution have been met.

Section 6.  This article of amendment shall be inoperative if not ratified under the conditions for adoption of amendments of the previous sections of this amendment and of Article V and shall not take effect until seven years following its ratification.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

One purpose of this amendment would be to repeal the 14^th, 16^th, and possibly the 17^th amendments.  The 15^th amendment would also be lost through this amendment, but this amendment could probably easily be passed again and perhaps in an even better form (one which would, for example, not permit states from disqualifying people from running for office based on race and prohibit literacy tests).  I don’t know if there would be any other amendments removed from the Constitution, but the Corwin Amendment (a pro-slavery amendment) would be no longer be pending before the states because its passage in Congress did not meet the qualifications of Section 1.  Another purpose of the amendment would be to prevent any future amendments from being enacted which do not truly reflect the will of the people.  It corrects wrong interpretations of the Constitution concerning the amendment process like the two-thirds requirement being only of those present, the ability of the Congress to force the states to ratify an amendment, and the validity of inexact ratifications.  These misinterpretations have lead to the (alleged) adoption of these bad amendments without the proper super-majorities and great care which the Framers of the original Constitution intended.  This amendment would not be such a broad brush as an amendment which I had formulated earlier.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 19

This is part nineteen of an ongoing series of articles containing my proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

In this post I am writing about a modification I have made to a previous proposed amendment and a withdrawal of another.

Section 6: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to the number of born persons in each state excluding Indians not taxed.

I added the above new section to my pro-life constitutional amendment proposal. The original wording contained language requiring that all laws containing the word “person” would be interpreted as inclusive of the unborn. But it is not reasonable that unborn babies should be included in census enumerations. Historically, they were not included and it wouldn't be right to include some while others are not included because the mother is not yet aware of the pregnancy. Forcing women to take a pregnancy test would be excessively intrusive and not necessarily reliable.

I am also being kind of sneaky with this because this would also nullify the 16^th amendment (if had ever been properly ratified in the first place). No more direct, unapportioned taxes.

Secondly, I am withdrawing my proposal to amend the constitution to remove Barack Obama from office as this would be a Bill of Attainder. I still agree that he should be removed, but the method I had proposed is unacceptable. Article I section 9 forbids Bills of Attainder which I can now see should even include constitutional amendments. This must be done through the courts. But future crises such as this could be avoided with a clarifying amendment.

Articles of Freedom, part 9

This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 7 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about juries and the seventh amendment. Now I will continue with Article 8, the text of which follows my comments.

This is a difficult issue. It’s something that you really need to sit down and study in order make a good decision about it. I whole-heartedly agree that income tax is oppressive, tyrannical and unnecessary, but as much as I want it to be abolished, I don’t want to spread misinformation about it. And then there is the issue of how to take on the IRS and if this is really a good idea. If you don’t have a winning strategy, you had better not try it. (Good luck trying to get an anti-income tax sheriff elected--even if you do, he might not win a showdown with the IRS.)

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Luke 14:28, 31 (KJV)

I realize that federal income tax is not supposed to exist and God gave us a wonderful document which did not allow such tyranny. But consider that the nation of Israel was supposed go into Canaan (Numbers 13:1-2). They refused (Numbers 14:1-4), and God said that they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years (Numbers 14:34). They decided then to go ahead and go into Canaan anyway as they were originally supposed to, but it was too late since they had rejected God’s original commandment (Numbers 14:40) and so they failed miserably (Numbers 14:45). God may be using the income tax to punish us for rejecting our covenant with him, and we may fail miserably if we try to take on the IRS, especially if try to do it on our own strength without real repentance. (Do you really think God would allow us to get rid of this tax while we are willing to allow the senseless killing of millions of unborn babies?) But if we do repent, I mean really repent and acknowledge our wicked ways and stop this arrogant attitude that we seem to have developed in this country, God may deliver us from this tyranny.

They failed to mention some other reasonable constitutional objections to the income tax and the collection thereof. I think that these things should have gone into the actual document and not just referenced. For example, the 5^th amendment protects us from having to testify against ourselves. The tax code is so huge that no one can reasonably say that they know that the numbers that they are entering into the form are really correct. If they are not correct, you can be prosecuted. If you leave it blank, you can be prosecuted. The 5^th amendment was designed not to give guilty people a way to get off, but so that honest people who are trying to follow the law are not harassed and prosecuted unjustly. Even the IRS doesn’t know how those forms are supposed to be filled out. Thus, the income tax collection methods are unconstitutional even if the 16th had been properly ratified.

Additional information can be found through links at the end of Article 8.

ARTICLE 8.

INCOME TAX AND THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

A. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WHEREAS, from November 11^th to the 22^nd of 2009, the Continental Congress convened pursuant to the People’s formal “Petition for Redress of Grievances Relating to the Federal Income Tax”, and the long train of abuses and usurpations relating to the federal income tax. After a comprehensive, exhaustive, and lengthy deliberation of the current and historical facts and law, the Delegates find:

1. That our servant federal government has failed to directly respond to the People’s Petition, and in fact, has indirectly responded with threats, intimidation, and repeated harm;

2. That the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution definitively and conclusively failed to be properly and legally ratified, thus, rendering it void, ab initio;

3. That the income tax as currently applied is definitively and conclusively an unconstitutional, direct un-apportioned tax on labor, “the most sacred and inviolable” property of the citizens of the United States (see Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757);

4. That the institutionalized withholding from the paychecks and earnings of the citizens is definitively and conclusively unconstitutional.

B. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CONGRESS

NOW THEREFORE, without delay, the Congress of the United States is hereby instructed to:

1. Immediately conduct a review of the facts surrounding its ratification, and recognize that the Sixteenth Amendment is void;

2. Immediately cease the enforcement and collection of the direct un-apportioned income tax on the labor of the citizens of the United States;

3. Immediately cease the imposition, enforcement, and collection of withholding of earnings from the paychecks of the citizens of the United States;

4. Immediately release and fully restore all citizens wrongfully imprisoned as a result of the unconstitutional application of the income tax.

C. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION TO EACH OF THE SEVERAL STATES

THEREFORE, each of the several States shall:

1. Repeal any and all State income tax laws to the extent that they are rooted in or based upon the unconstitutional operation and enforcement of the federal revenue laws;

2. Preserve, protect, and defend the liberty and property of its citizens against unconstitutional seizures by the federal government, pertaining to the unlawful collection of income taxes;

3. Cease the unconstitutional imposition and collection of the State income tax upon the unalienable right of its citizen’s labor. To wit:

“It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” (See Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757).

“Compensation for labor can not be regarded as profit, within the meaning of the law. The word “profit”, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment - a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor.” (See Commercial League Association of America v. The People, ex rel., 90 Ill. 166, 173).

D. RECOMMENDED CIVIC ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE

WHEREAS, from 11 November until 22 November 2009, the Continental Congress convened pursuant to the people’s formal “Petition for Redress of Grievances relating to the Federal Income Tax”, and the long train of abuses and usurpations relating to the aforementioned tax;

WHEREAS, tyranny, by means of taxation is one of the most oppressive aspects of government and must be guarded against to protect man’s unalienable rights;

WHEREAS, all government activity that provides funding for un-constitutional programs is to be considered tyrannical in nature and should be condemned by the people as a whole;

WHEREAS, after a comprehensive, exhaustive and lengthy deliberation of historical facts and law, Continental Congress 2009 finds:

a. That our servant federal government has failed to directly respond to the People’s Petition, and in fact, has indirectly responded with threats, intimidation, and repeated harm;

b. That the 16^th Amendment to the United States Constitution definitively and conclusively failed to be properly and legally ratified, thus rendering it void;

c. That the income tax as currently applied is definitively and conclusively an unconstitutional, direct un-apportioned tax on labor, the “most sacred and inviolable” property of the Citizens of the United States;

d. That the institutionalized withholding from the paychecks and earnings of the citizens is definitively and conclusively unconstitutional.

THEREFORE, We the Delegates of Continental Congress recommend the People:

1. Study and understand the research done by Bill Benson in his book, “The Law that Never Was,” and once they have a firm understanding of the argument, they are encouraged to educate their family, friends and fellow Americans about the truth behind the 16th Amendment;

2. Contact their local county government, (including the sheriff) and demand cooperation in enforcement of State and federal laws, prohibiting the illegal filing of notices of federal tax liens and the filing of a federal tax lien or levy without proper federal court orders attached; it is the duty of the sheriff to protect the citizens of the county from rogue federal agents acting under a color of law;

3. Put their banks and employers on notice that federal income tax levies should not be honored without a federal court order attached and without an affidavit from the sheriff that the levy is legal and proper;

4. Prepare to replace any sheriff or county or State government officials at the next election or sooner, through impeachment or recall, who refuse to cooperate and honor their Oath of Office to protect and defend the federal and State Constitutions and the People;

5. Be prepared to withhold their income tax from the government once the above steps of self-defense are in place.

6. Furthermore, without delay, the public is advised to contact their county sheriff, State and federal representatives and Senators demanding the unconstitutional taxation and withholding of earnings be stopped immediately.

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

This series continues here.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 2

This is part two of an ongoing series of articles containing proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. These amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Here is my second proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

This is the only one of this series of amendments which has actually been proposed (exactly as written) and it is in this 111th Congress and its H.J. Res 48. Who would want to continue having the IRS bullying people? You have got to be either nuts or corrupt not to support this legislation.

Click here to read next week's proposed amendment.