I knew that Amendments to the constitution were dangerous, because they were passed following the social winds that prevail. The issue did not weigh as heavily on the authors as the Bill of Rights did before authoring them and making them part of the contract. The Constitution took God fearing, learn-ed men years to craft and debate. Even the 1st 10 Amendments were already self evident in the Constitution, to rational men - but some were so worried about the power they were giving away to a central government that they wanted these first 10 amendments to be BETTER enumerated. These men had just fought a costly war for independence from the Monarchy and the burden of taxation that they were not willing to freely give ANY authority to ANY one for ANY purpose.
At
inception the federal government was NOT allowed to TAX the people to
pay for federal bills, salaries or whatever other mischief they could
get into. Congressman were paid a per diem STIPEND for meetings they
attended.
I'm so proud of the young tea party congressmen who
understood that in 2010 and helped to HOLD the line these last few
years. Can you imagine what could have happened? They need our support
to GROW more tea party and libertarian members and PURGE the house of
all the liars, thieves and cheats. Then maybe we can have rational and
adult behavior representative of the people of America.
You must study these next 4 WORST PROGRESSIVE amendments and start dialogue to move towards REPEALING them.
The 16th Amendment made the income tax constitutional. Without an income tax, there would be no unlimited "revenue"
to fund anything resembling the current outrageously bloated federal
government. The concept of 'indexing' made the tax palatable, but it may have been the first introduction to socialism that touched the country. Never before had "according to ability and according to need" been considered just.
The 17th Amendment disenfranchised the states by
taking away their right to choose senators. Instead, the senators are
now directly elected. This eliminated checks and balances that were
designed to protect the rights of the states. It assumed that states
wanted to stay sovereign and this would help keep the federal government
within its constitutional constraints.
Prior to the 17th
Amendment, senators had to preserve the rights of their state or they
would not be able to get re-elected. After the 17th Amendment, senators
must raise money from the special interest groups so that they can
afford to run a re-election campaign. Any senator who doesn't endorse
expanding federal power on behalf of politically connected interest
groups risks being defeated in his bid for re-election.
The
18th Amendment banned the use of alcohol. Prohibition of alcohol was a
disastrous failure that was repealed by the 21st Amendment in the 1930s
and should stand as a REMINDER that prohibition of anything... has
disastrous consequences, far worse than the self regulation of the
substance being prohibited.
During Prohibition, gangs of
criminals took over the (now illegal) alcohol business and sold low
quality (and often dangerous) alcohol. Many Americans broke the law in
order to get their alcohol. Alcohol prohibition was basically the
current War on Drugs, but targeted against a product that the majority
of people used. Because our current prohibition of substances that may
be harmful to the user affects smaller groups of people, they don't by
'number' have the power to fight the prohibition efforts, but the SAME
consequences occurred and still exist because of it.
I expect
BLOWBACK on this, so know that I am a strong willed woman who's
perfectly capable of making informed decisions. I also know that there
is a 'natural' DIFFERENCE between men and women. In many ways,
intellectually and physiologically we are probably superior to men, but
in other ways like complexity, emotionally and physically we are not.
The 19th Amendment allowed women to vote. Although in theory there is
nothing objectionable about that (as men and women should both be
equally free), in practice however, women have tended to vote for more
government and less freedom. Women are empirically more likely than men
to favor almost all kinds of government interventions. I blame church
ladies for prohibitions and meddling in the lives of others for the sake
of safety and morality; I blame MADD women for taking a tragedy and
imposing outrageous safety laws and standards.
Women are more
likely than men to support government intervention in the economy; are
more likely than men to support restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights and
are more likely than men to support the War on Vices.
Prior to
the 19th Amendment, whether or not women could vote was a state issue
and those states that allowed women to vote tended to have more
government than states that didn't allow women to vote. For some reason,
it seems like women are less likely than men to understand that if you
give up liberty for promises of security, you will end up with neither
liberty nor security. Democracy is not freedom, but is only a means that
can be used to obtain freedom, but can also be used to enslave oneself
and everybody else. I call them Bully tactics, or in the case of
women.... Nagging tactics.
I also have to defend that position
by saying that as a Christian woman who saw first hand the changes in
the role of women over the last 60+ years, and believe that it has
affected generations of children and families for the worse. Women in
more traditional roles are really the most powerful people on earth
because they can be the proverbs 31 wife and mother to some very
powerful and God fearing men.
How does that affect your
relationship with God, if it's you who want to be elected or you who
want to fight for your country instead of your sons or husbands. How
does that affect your relationship with your sons and your husbands?
God Blessed America, because we were in line with his truths; we sought his Kingship. Who reigns over you now?
