Do we need a “Repeal Amendment?”

The growth of the federal government, and the consolidation of power that goes with it, has gained the attention of most people in our country.  Rapid increases in spending levels and additional layers of rules, regulations, an mandates has most of us concerned for our future, and our individual liberty.  Unpopular laws, like Obamacare, have sharpened the differences between the ruling class and the rest of us.

What’s the solution?  Ryan Young & David Deerson writing for RealClearPolicy, propose a new Constitutional amendment that would allow a vote by 2/3 of the states to repeal any law they determine to be unlawful.  In the article, they describe a federalist system, that not only separates powers among the three branches, but also between the states and the central government.

They give a brief history of the balance of power between the feds and the states, noting that the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments all shifted the balance toward the feds.  True enough. They seem to lament the shifting balance of power from the states, to Washington, DC, over the past century, or so, and suggest that a new “Repeal Amendment” might solve the problem.  In the same paragraph, however, they admit that getting 2/3 of any group to agree on anything would be difficult, but that we have to do something. They tout the support of several Congressmen, and point to efforts by a few states to make similar state laws.

Details

The Anti-Federalists were right

The Founders of our country established a republic, and many warned of the natural tendency of a central government to grow in size, scope, and power, at the expense of individual liberty. Well, it’s been 236 years, but here we are.

Readers at the middle-age, or well-done stages of life, will remember a time when you didn’t have to think about the federal government, and its laws that concern the activities your mom used to nag you about as a kid. In fact, you probably trip over several felonies simply by going about your daily routine as a responsible adult.

The Anti-Federalists lost the argument about whether or not to establish a central government in the 1780s , but the 236 years since proved them right.  Here’s what they had to say:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html

The Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, has nothing to do with health, or medical care.  It’s about power–power over every aspect of your life: your diet, your activities, where you live, and yes, if you live, when you’re unfortunate enough to get sick.

Details

Honest money, the dollar, and South Carolina

The South Carolina Legislature, with S.862, and H.4128, may turn back the clock on central government economic power.  The bills’ stated goal:

To amend the code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding article 18 to chapter 1, title 1 so as to provide that gold or silver coin, or both, shall be legal tender in this state for payment of certain debts; and by adding article 26 to chapter 1, title 1 so as to establish a join committee for the adoption of a alternate form of currency.

Reintroducing gold and silver as money can kill the engine of central government growth.

Once upon a time, the dollar was simply defined as 1/20-ounce of gold.  “Dollar” was simply a  familiar name for a convenient quantity of a universally valued commodity.

Likewise, the British Pound was 1/4-ounce of gold, as well as a pound of silver.  The different names were nationalistic, patriotic, or just cultural names for a given amount of gold.  Gold and silver are hard (read honest, unmanipulable) money.

The beauty of this naturally evolved situation was that the value of money was stable, because the quantity of gold (money) couldn’t be changed rapidly.  Gold mining is hard work, after all.  The stable quantity made for a very good accounting tool, with which to price everything we buy and sell.  This allowed us to make wise economic decisions that made everyone wealthier.

Details

So it Begins

Nullification is here. Tentative and inconsistent, but it’s here. Missouri Over 2/3 of voters elect to reject Federally mandated health care insurance. The White House official response was that this is irrelevant. California 7,000,000 votes negated by 1 politician, masquerading as a judge. The law had nothing to do with the ruling. Arizona Self defense…

Details

Courage

To act, despite danger or disapproval.  Works for me.

Taking action in the public arena and stand by it during the onslaught also displays character and leadership.

The chance that a politician will show courage is remote.  Voter disapproval is death to them.  Put that together with a society that has gradually come to accept a big government that attempts to provide basic needs,  and you get politicians that go along to get along.  See my earlier post, “How did we get here?”

Politicians would never speak out against the dependencies that big government creates.  In fact, most of them prefer it.  The dependencies give them control over the lives of those whose dignity has been taken, and control over the money that has been taken to fund it.

This is our status quo, brought on by the unchecked ambition for power of the central authority.  It’s time to check the power.  This will take courage.

Details

DC is Busy

But not on anything you would expect from a government adhering to the Constitution. Healthcare, financial markets, petroleum exploration and extraction, economic activity, immigration, national ID cards, cap and trade, smoking, transfats & salt, CAFE; gun control, taxes, price controls on labor, electricity, and banking. The list goes on. No matter how well intentioned, there…

Details

Can we make it stop?

Late last year, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) was asked about the constitutionality of the pending Obamacare legislation. He answered that “most of the stuff we do is not authorized by the Constitution.” Not a surprise to anyone paying attention, and a bit of a lowball estimate, IMHO. The extraordinary thing about this was that it…

Details