Proposed Constitutional Amendments

[Galileo Galilei]

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

1) Federal income tax liability for each person shall be capped at a level equal to their state income tax liability. Congress shall have the power to phase this in over a 10 year period.

2) The complete text of the Federalist Papers, Gideon edition of 1818, shall be part of the U.S. Constitution.

This is the edition prepared in consultation with James Madison.

The Federalist (Gideon ed.) [1818]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=788

http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/0865972893

[Galileo Galilei]

great, people here don't want income taxes lowered.

And the Federalist Papers oppose all the major abuses of federal power:

1) oppose "executive agreements", supports treaties

2) proper use of the commerce clause

3) proper use of the necessary and proper clause

4) proper use of the general welfare clause

5) no support for "law by administrative agency"

6) no support for invented "executive powers"

7) supports state's rights

8) proper use of the basic idea of enumerated powers

Best of all, the Federalist Papers were written before the Bill-of-Rights, so they do not appeal to that to limit government.

Frankly, after seeing the polling results here, I can see why big government statists, neocons, liberals, and RINOs have taken over our government. A lot of people are just plain nuts in this forum.

[cindy25]

abolish taxes based on income, both on a federal and state level

prohibit conscription/mandatory service by the federal government, and any state/local govt

[Galileo Galilei]

abolish taxes based on income, both on a federal and state level



do you think that would have a snowballs chance in passing?

[Galileo Galilei]

prohibit conscription/mandatory service by the federal government, and any state/local govt

This is already banned in the Constitution, in the 13th amendment.

[GunnyFreedom]

great, people here don't want income taxes lowered.

Do you really believe that, or is this just sour grapes?


And the Federalist Papers oppose all the major abuses of federal power:

1) oppose "executive agreements", supports treaties

2) proper use of the commerce clause

3) proper use of the necessary and proper clause

4) proper use of the general welfare clause

5) no support for "law by administrative agency"

6) no support for invented "executive powers"

7) supports state's rights

8) proper use of the basic idea of enumerated powers

Best of all, the Federalist Papers were written before the Bill-of-Rights, so they do not appeal to that to limit government.

Frankly, after seeing the polling results here, I can see why big government statists, neocons, liberals, and RINOs have taken over our government. A lot of people are just plain nuts in this forum.

The Federalist Papers are commentary, not law. Adding them to Constitution will only confuse things and make the problem worse. Because they are commentary (and at times opposing commentary) and not law, incorporating them into the Constitution will open the Constitution up to ALL KINDS more abuse even than we have now.

Creating a Constitutional Amendment pegging Federal taxes to State taxes will cause the Fed.gov to create all kinds of incentives making the States raise taxes. We would end up in short order with FOUR TIMES our current taxation or worse.

Am I just plain nuts because I don't want to be held at gunpoint for 400% of current tax levels? No, but you may be plain nuts for being willing to stick this on us. Am I just plain nuts because I don't want to give the corrupt politicians more ammunition with which they can abrogate the already ignored Constitution? No, but you may be plain nuts for wanting to make it easier for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution.

LMAO -- no, I don't really believe that you WANT to increase our taxes by 400%, and no, I don't really believe that you WANT to make it easier for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution and establish a tyrannical totalitarian government, but I do find your assumptions here rather amusing.

Maybe we oppose your #1 amendment because we recognize that it will make the problem worse and not because we want higher taxes. :rolleyes:

Maybe we oppose your #2 amendment because we recognize that it will make the problem worse and not because we are all-or-nothing zealots. :rolleyes:

So maybe think this through a little before you put forth the sour grapes argument and then assume that the only reason we would oppose the idea is because we prefer the intellectually pure backwater of pure libertarianism.

I checked "no on both" and I am a hard-core Constitutionalist.

[Galileo Galilei]

Do you really believe that, or is this just sour grapes?



The Federalist Papers are commentary, not law. Adding them to Constitution will only confuse things and make the problem worse. Because they are commentary (and at times opposing commentary) and not law, incorporating them into the Constitution will open the Constitution up to ALL KINDS more abuse even than we have now.

Creating a Constitutional Amendment pegging Federal taxes to State taxes will cause the Fed.gov to create all kinds of incentives making the States raise taxes. We would end up in short order with FOUR TIMES our current taxation or worse.

Am I just plain nuts because I don't want to be held at gunpoint for 400% of current tax levels? No, but you may be plain nuts for being willing to stick this on us. Am I just plain nuts because I don't want to give the corrupt politicians more ammunition with which they can abrogate the already ignored Constitution? No, but you may be plain nuts for wanting to make it easier for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution.

LMAO -- no, I don't really believe that you WANT to increase our taxes by 400%, and no, I don't really believe that you WANT to make it easier for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution and establish a tyrannical totalitarian government, but I do find your assumptions here rather amusing.

Maybe we oppose your #1 amendment because we recognize that it will make the problem worse and not because we want higher taxes. :rolleyes:

Maybe we oppose your #2 amendment because we recognize that it will make the problem worse and not because we are all-or-nothing zealots. :rolleyes:

So maybe think this through a little before you put forth the sour grapes argument and then assume that the only reason we would oppose the idea is because we prefer the intellectually pure backwater of pure libertarianism.

I checked "no on both" and I am a hard-core Constitutionalist.

Prove it. Your assertions are baseless. The Bible has lots of commentary in it, why not the Constitution have it as well? A better explanation is that you are an extremist.

[aGameOfThrones]

Note: The federalist papers are quoted in supreme court decisions.

[chudrockz]

I humbly propose abolishing the United States Constitution and returning to the Articles of Confederation.

[RedStripe]

tax the 1% richest americans for 90% of their income and scale it down among the top 30% of income earners, with the 70th percentile taxed at 25%

everyone below that pays no federal income tax

[lx43]

How about an admendment that

1. Requires that combined total of federal, state, and local govt spending to never exceed 1% of GNP or GDP.

That would starve the monsters.

2. A balance budget admendment that says anytime federal budget deficit is run (ie expenditures exceed revenue) Congress/President are required to cut spending across the board to bring budget back in balance and that there can be no tax increases. Furthermore, anytime the legislature and executive branches allow a budget deficit no member of Congress or President can run for re-election during the next election cyclce, hold any appointed federal position, or lobby the govt in any manner; nor will any member of Congress receive any salary of any kind.

[RedStripe]

How about an admendment that

1. Requires that combined total of federal, state, and local govt spending to never exceed 1% of GNP or GDP.

That would starve the monsters.

At this point the monsters will always be well-fed. It is their victims who will starve.

I mean, the richest 1% of the country owns over 1/3 of the wealth. These are a bunch of corporate parasites who have been leveraging their control of the state to line their pockets and protect their neo-feudal economic system for centuries. They'll be fine if you turn off the tap, it's everyone at the bottom of the totem-pole that will suffer immensely.

This is why the first things that need to go are the corporate welfare in terms of subsidy, barriers of entry, IP - not handouts to people who can't even afford to live a life that isn't much better than that of a caveman.

[GunnyFreedom]

Prove it. Your assertions are baseless. The Bible has lots of commentary in it, why not the Constitution have it as well? A better explanation is that you are an extremist.

Why would I want to respond to boorish bombast? Go ahead and imagine that I am just "an extremist" if that makes you feel better, but don't expect a respectful answers when you make disrespectful inquests like this one. :)

[lx43]

At this point the monsters will always be well-fed. It is their victims who will starve.

I mean, the richest 1% of the country owns over 1/3 of the wealth. These are a bunch of corporate parasites who have been leveraging their control of the state to line their pockets and protect their neo-feudal economic system for centuries. They'll be fine if you turn off the tap, it's everyone at the bottom of the totem-pole that will suffer immensely.

This is why the first things that need to go are the corporate welfare in terms of subsidy, barriers of entry, IP - not handouts to people who can't even afford to live a life that isn't much better than that of a caveman.

I agree completely there should be no corporate welfare of any kind provided by the govt, or any regulation that benefits their companies, etc but I'm not sure where your going with your second paragraph. The richest 1% I know have for the most part earned their money by working 15 to 20 hours a day of hard work sacrificing a lot to be where they are. Not to mention employing tons of people. You make it sound like the richest 1% are nothing but crooks that inslave the rest of the people.

[RedStripe]

I agree completely there should be no corporate welfare of any kind provided by the govt, or any regulation that benefits their companies, etc but I'm not sure where your going with your second paragraph. The richest 1% I know have for the most part earned their money by working 15 to 20 hours a day of hard work sacrificing a lot to be where they are. Not to mention employing a lot of people. You make it sound like the richest 1% are nothing but crooks that inslave the rest of the people.

Corporate welfare isn't some sporadic or recent thing - it's fundamental to the entire system. Our country was built on corporate welfare, special privileges, outright theft, intimidation, etc. The business-government alliance is not a partnership of convenience - the symbiotic relationship is what really makes those institutions what they are.

Wealth was maldistributed in feudal society much as it is today, and for essentially the same reason. Resources are accumulated into the hands of the few first by outright force and violence, and then by law - both being conducted by the state which dutifully serves those who control it.

[t0rnado]

tax the 1% richest americans for 90% of their income and scale it down among the top 30% of income earners, with the 70th percentile taxed at 25%

everyone below that pays no federal income tax

The "rich" don't need a large federal government that gives them things to function. I hope their accountants encourage them to spend 90% of their income on weapons and landmines, which they could use to defend themselves against the government with, rather than allowing the government to steal and redistribute their money to parasites.

[BuddyRey]

The Constitution needs another Amendment like I need a hole in the head. If anything, the American people should start demanding that several existing Amendments be repealed.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I live in TX so the first one would be fine for me! :D

[RedStripe]

The "rich" don't need a large federal government that gives them things to function. I hope their accountants encourage them to spend 90% of their income on weapons and landmines, which they could use to defend themselves against the government with, rather than allowing the government to steal and redistribute their money to parasites.

I LOLed at the thought that rich and the government are enemies. That's really funny.

[Galileo Galilei]

I humbly propose abolishing the United States Constitution and returning to the Articles of Confederation.

That's nuts. We'd end up like in South America where there has been nothing but chaos for 200 years. The industrial revolution passed them by. Freedom brings prosperity, that's why the North enjoyed an industrial revolution after they freed their slaves, but the South stayed a backwater for 100 years until they ended Jim Crow laws.

[Stary Hickory]

tax the 1% richest americans for 90% of their income and scale it down among the top 30% of income earners, with the 70th percentile taxed at 25%

everyone below that pays no federal income tax

Are you serious? WTF

[Galileo Galilei]

How about an admendment that

1. Requires that combined total of federal, state, and local govt spending to never exceed 1% of GNP or GDP.

That would starve the monsters.



So what about all the old people on social security? Do we just yank 'em? Do they get their money back they paid in at least?

Your idea is idiotic. Even under the Articles of Confederation, federal spending was well above 1% and the states were much more. The lowest budget ever was done by James Madison in 1811, and it came in at 1.23%.

[Galileo Galilei]

Note: The federalist papers are quoted in supreme court decisions.

That's true. But they are not an official part of the Constitution. If they were, it would give ammunition to people like Rand Paul in the Senate during confirmation hearings.

[t0rnado]

Are you serious? WTF

He's a communist who can't support himself and needs the government's help in order to exist.

[DamianTV]

How about a smaller federal government period that doesnt think it can do whatever it wants regardless of its constitutionality.

*cough* INCOME TAX

As in no fucking income tax, period. It is the Broken Window Fallacy all over again. If people were not having as much money taken out of their paychecks as they do, they would spend more, and the economy would get better. But that isnt the way it works. Every year, people hope to get raises at their jobs. They need raises because the price of everything else has gone up by a certain amount, and people hope like hell that if they do get a raise, that it is at least equal to the increased price. And the price of everything keeps going up and up and up because the value of our money keeps going down and down and down.

Instead of these things, or even trying to acknowledge that the Income Tax amendment is constitutional (which even Supreme Court Judges have said it is not consititutional to apply income tax to individual wages) that #1 we get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank (central bank) and eliminate fractional reserve banking systems, and instead start off by returning to an Honest Money System.

What is an Honest Money System? As easily as I can put it, it frees the ORDINARY man from the clutches of the Money Manipulators. I'd say that is a good first step.

[jmdrake]

This is why constitutional conventions are a bad idea. Even Ron Paul supporters can come up with stupid amendments. Incorporate legislative history into a legal document? Confound and confuse the document even more? And why just the federalist papers? Why not the anti federalist papers also? Why not all of the commentary and debate that surrounded each amendment? Eventually you would end up with a compendium that would be hopeless for your average citizen to read let alone understand. As for your income tax idea, that would mean states with higher state income taxes would have higher federal income taxes. How is that fair? You're not "lowering" income taxes. You shifting burdens in the worst possible way. If you're going to monkey with the income tax the simply abolish the whole thing and move on.

[Jordan]

tax the 1% richest americans for 90% of their income and scale it down among the top 30% of income earners, with the 70th percentile taxed at 25%

everyone below that pays no federal income tax

The top 1% of income earners have $410,096 in Adjusted Gross Income.

All things considered, that really isn't that much money. I mean, sure, it's more than 99% of people, but that's the income of someone who owns one serious restaurant franchise or someone who owns 4 Subway sandwich shops.

With that kind of tax policy, small business owners should instead waste their abilities working in middle management or some other shitty job where they're likely to make just as much as they would owning a business. They'd get to work 9-5, leave work without a headache, and assume zero risk.

Worst. Tax. Policy. Ever.

[Koz]

I propose repealing the 16th and 17th amendments.

I also propose a balanced budget amendment.

If we did these three things I think our country would be a lot different. We wouldn't be able to afford a warfare state like we do now. The federal government would be really small as the founders intended.

[Fredom101]

End the income tax. Period.

[johngr]

Note: The federalist papers are quoted in supreme court decisions.

They're not binding.

[RedStripe]

He's a communist who can't support himself and needs the government's help in order to exist.

nah i'm not a business executive, sorry

[Galileo Galilei]

End the income tax. Period.

You think that can be done instantly? You think it is politically possible? If isn't now, but if federal income taxes were lowered to what the states charge, then down the road it could happen.

[aGameOfThrones]

Amendment 28: The Constitution is null and void. LOL :D :D:D:D

[Galileo Galilei]

Amendment 28: The Constitution is null and void. LOL :D :D:D:D

Great, you want to abolish the Bill-of-Rights and merge the executive, legislative, and judiciary into one entity. That's the same BS we almost got stuck with back in the 1780s.

[Jordan]

nah i'm not a business executive, sorry

lul

[jmdrake]

You think that can be done instantly? You think it is politically possible? If isn't now, but if federal income taxes were lowered to what the states charge, then down the road it could happen.

Except not all states have a state income tax. So you are unfairly punishing the states who's citizens do have an income tax by putting the entire federal tax burden on them. Horrid idea.

[Galileo Galilei]

Except not all states have a state income tax. So you are unfairly punishing the states who's citizens do have an income tax by putting the entire federal tax burden on them. Horrid idea.

now you sound like a whining liberal. Few states have an income tax over 5%.

[Slutter McGee]

How about some amendments that are a little more simple and more realistic than adding the entire damn Federalist papers. And lets face it, any amendment to the constitution is improbable.

1. Define the Interstate Commerce clause as the authority to keep regular (stop state tarrifs, rather than regulate, as it was in its original meaning.)

2. Define the General Welfare clause as specifically involving powers enumerated to the Federal government and no more.

Both of these are extremely unlikely but they would be more possible than the ideas offered. Besides I disagreed with both of them.

Slutter McGee

[jmdrake]

now you sound like a whining liberal. Few states have an income tax over 5%.

Now you sound like a complete idiot that doesn't understand states rights. :rolleyes: Your ad hominem doesn't add any validity to your argument. It's wrong to for the federal government to punish a state for it's income tax rates. Further 32 of the states that have income taxes have rates HIGHER than 5 percent. Look it up. Yes state income tax rates are generally lower than the fed rate, but you got your facts wrong and your argument is morally bankrupt.

[Galileo Galilei]

Now you sound like a complete idiot that doesn't understand states rights. :rolleyes: Your ad hominem doesn't add any validity to your argument. It's wrong to for the federal government to punish a state for it's income tax rates. Further 32 of the states that have income taxes have rates HIGHER than 5 percent. Look it up. Yes state income tax rates are generally lower than the fed rate, but you got your facts wrong and your argument is morally bankrupt.

you can vote with your feet with state taxes. Now you sound like an apologist for centralized authority.

And you are talking about the top rate. Most people the US pay less than 5% state income tax. My proposal caps each individual's federal taxes to what they pay at the state level. That means you're also opposing a giant tax cut.

[Galileo Galilei]

How about some amendments that are a little more simple and more realistic than adding the entire damn Federalist papers. And lets face it, any amendment to the constitution is improbable.

1. Define the Interstate Commerce clause as the authority to keep regular (stop state tarrifs, rather than regulate, as it was in its original meaning.)

2. Define the General Welfare clause as specifically involving powers enumerated to the Federal government and no more.

Both of these are extremely unlikely but they would be more possible than the ideas offered. Besides I disagreed with both of them.

Slutter McGee

Those are good ones, too. Whether it would ever pass is improbable.

[jmdrake]

you can vote with your feet with state taxes. Now you sound like an apologist for centralized authority.

And you are talking about the top rate. Most people the US pay less than 5% state income tax. My proposal caps each individual's federal taxes to what they pay at the state level. That means you're also opposing a giant tax cut.

Of course I was talking about the top rate. Many people pay less than 5% FEDERAL income tax! And whether someone "votes with his feet" should NOT be determined by the federal government! Let's say a state decides to have an ad valorem tax instead of an income tax. They could have a tax much higher than a neighboring state and their citizens would still be better off simply because they would now have a federal income tax of zero. As much as I dislike an income tax I can think of things that are worse such as a "per mile" travel tax that requires everyone to have a transponder that tells the state exactly where they are at all times in order to properly calculate the tax. So really you are the one pushing for centralized authority by letting the federal government determine what is the best internal tax system for each state. And I bet you don't even realize this.

[Galileo Galilei]

Of course I was talking about the top rate. Many people pay less than 5% FEDERAL income tax! And whether someone "votes with his feet" should NOT be determined by the federal government! Let's say a state decides to have an ad valorem tax instead of an income tax. They could have a tax much higher than a neighboring state and their citizens would still be better off simply because they would now have a federal income tax of zero. As much as I dislike an income tax I can think of things that are worse such as a "per mile" travel tax that requires everyone to have a transponder that tells the state exactly where they are at all times in order to properly calculate the tax. So really you are the one pushing for centralized authority by letting the federal government determine what is the best internal tax system for each state. And I bet you don't even realize this.

The states set their own tax rates under our system. You are arguing against stuff that I never proposed. If you want to propose language to close potential loopholes, then we could look that over.

[jmdrake]

The states set their own tax rates under our system. You are arguing against stuff that I never proposed. If you want to propose language to close potential loopholes, then we could look that over.

I don't think you realize what you've actually proposed. You have proposed a federal incentive for the states to choose one tax system over another. Under current law citizens can deduct either state sales tax or state income tax. Under your rule states that only have sales tax end up with no federal tax while other states are unfairly punished merely for having a different tax system. Hey, it would work out great for me because my state doesn't have a state income tax. But it would treat other states unfairly.

Anyhow, I don't have to worry about it. Over 70% of the people hear are against both of your amendments. I don't think you'd get that much traction anywhere else either.

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't think you realize what you've actually proposed. You have proposed a federal incentive for the states to choose one tax system over another. Under current law citizens can deduct either state sales tax or state income tax. Under your rule states that only have sales tax end up with no federal tax while other states are unfairly punished merely for having a different tax system. Hey, it would work out great for me because my state doesn't have a state income tax. But it would treat other states unfairly.

Anyhow, I don't have to worry about it. Over 70% of the people hear are against both of your amendments. I don't think you'd get that much traction anywhere else either.

Actually, if states knew their citizens federal taxes would go down if the state lowered their own taxes, that would create pressure for states to lower their income taxes.

I am just looking for a politically possible way to significantly lower taxes with a simple and easy to understand amendment. If you have a better idea, please let us know. Just calling for the elimination of the 16th amendment isn't going to fly politically.

[jmdrake]

Actually, if states knew their citizens federal taxes would go down if the state lowered their own taxes, that would create pressure for states to lower their income taxes.


And you don't think some state is going say "Hey! We can get rid of our income taxes, raise our sales - property - ad valorem taxes through the roof, and our citizens have no federal income tax!" :confused: Really, if you end up paying more in taxes are you "freed" just because you don't have an income tax?



I am just looking for a politically possible way to significantly lower taxes with a simple and easy to understand amendment. If you have a better idea, please let us know. Just calling for the elimination of the 16th amendment isn't going to fly politically.

The massive groundwork needed to pass and then ratify any constitutional amendment could instead by channeled into electing people who actually believed in following the current constitution and who were dedicated to cutting the size of government. So that's my idea. Elect liberty candidates across the country and the size of government will shrink automatically. Simple huh?

[Galileo Galilei]

And you don't think some state is going say "Hey! We can get rid of our income taxes, raise our sales - property - ad valorem taxes through the roof, and our citizens have no federal income tax!" :confused: Really, if you end up paying more in taxes are you "freed" just because you don't have an income tax?



The massive groundwork needed to pass and then ratify any constitutional amendment could instead by channeled into electing people who actually believed in following the current constitution and who were dedicated to cutting the size of government. So that's my idea. Elect liberty candidates across the country and the size of government will shrink automatically. Simple huh?

The real problems in this country are at the federal level. I pay way more federal than state taxes, yet almost all the government services I receive comes from my local state.

More people will pay attention to the Constitution, if constitutional amendments are on the table.

[jmdrake]

The real problems in this country are at the federal level. I pay way more federal than state taxes, yet almost all the government services I receive comes from my local state.

Well why not "amend" your amendment to say that federal taxes can't be higher than state taxes as opposed to state income taxes? Or say that federal taxes can't be higher than the highest state tax rate or higher than the average state tax rate? There are a lot of ways to reach the same result without penalizing certain states for choosing one way to take your money over another.



More people will pay attention to the Constitution, if constitutional amendments are on the table.

Again. For this to have any chance of passage at all you'd need to do the kind of ground work that needs to be done anyway and would IMO pay off bigger dividends.