Eminent Domain - without Google

This morning, I had the privilege of being the first person I have ever heard on Breitbart's morning XM show to be told they were ignorant and dismissed.  Guess I hit a nerve when I tried to say that the Keystone Pipeline, which I support, is not absolutely tied to Eminent Domain (I refer to the specific Eminent Domain right of government with capitals differently from the not-capitalized conceptual right of eminent domain).  The host totally shut me down and would not stop cutting me off or allow me to discuss the possibility that they were not inseparable.  He continued to quote Donald Trump, as if Trump is the final word on anything governmental or constitutional, to say that the pipeline can't be done without eminent domain and that I could not support the pipeline and not the use of eminent domain to build the pipeline.  He told me that I needed to learn what Eminent Domain was and to call back when I learned something.  I took pride in the fact that I won.  When a person quits discussing and begins attacking then you know you've won; they have nothing left but to attack.

So, without looking up a thing, because I do know what Eminent Domain is and don't need to look it up, let me explain Eminent Domain for Donald Trump and his sycophants.

Eminent Domain is the right or authority of the government over land or property (generally land) and their right or authority to take it for providing necessary government services. 

For instance, suppose a group of people get together and form a city.  The city needs a place to hold the city government and the people grant the city the authority to create such a place of government.  Well, the city needs a plot of land to build a city hall.  Since there's not such a thing as un-owned land, the city must get land from somewhere or someone.  If no suitable place can be purchased - any owners refuse to sell, the city can exercise their eminent domain in order to take that thing that they must have. 

If the city must take the land, there's nothing that says you, as an individual citizen, are more or less likely to hold the land to be taken; the city must therefore, fairly, just take the land that is the most suitable, regardless of who owns it.  Luckily, in the United States of America, our Constitution requires that they must pay the person whose land they take for City Hall.  That's well and good, but by the very act of taking a person's land, they harm the liberty of that person and every person more than the cash value of the land, therefore, eminent domain must be used cautiously and judiciously.

We have, as a society, generally accepted that roads, schools, electricity and water, are all necessary services of government because we, the individual governed, cannot provide those types of services on our own.  Note that I said the individual governed.

As an individual, we are all guaranteed equal protection under the law.  That means that the public utility cannot take the high-voltage lines across your property, alter the route to go around the property of the mayor, and back onto the original route.  They must take the most expedient route - whether it is based on direct route, cheapest to install, easiest to maintain, or whatever they can morally, ethically, and legally justify as the most expedient route.  That means that if the most expedient route goes across your property, you're getting high-voltage lines or perhaps being bought out, depending on technical and locally legal requirements.  You can't decline or say no.  You do get "compensation" for your loss.

Where Eminent Domain gets misused, possibly misunderstood, and abused, is when eminent domain is used to take private property and give that property to another for the profit of that other.  We've seen this when governments have used eminent domain to justify taking private land and given that land to private enterprises to build malls, hospitals, or other private enterprises.  The Supreme Court of the United States has even upheld the right of local governments to take your property and give it to another individual who might use your property to generate greater revenue for the city (the original point of my call to Breitbart was that government should not be run like a business).

But the Supreme Court's ruling, in fact any Supreme Court ruling, does not make a thing constitutional or unconstitutional (the Supreme Court upheld slavery and many other ideas that today's courts, sometimes write and sometimes wrong, would not uphold).  A Supreme Court ruling doesn't make a thing right or wrong and it doesn't make it the law of the land.  It simply makes it legal precedence that lower courts will cite when making their own rulings. 

No court or person is bound by the ruling of the Supreme Court other than in the specific case in front of the Court.  It is only in the willingness of the lower courts and judiciary to accept the ruling in one case as precedent in another case that gives the Court their power.  Judges follow the ruling of the Supreme Court because, in their minds - and they may or may not be correct - the cases before them, if presented to the Supreme Court, would have outcomes similar to the cited cases.  Judges don't want to be overturned so they go along.  And I'm not saying that judges should not follow the rulings of the Court.  There's a certain fiduciary responsibility that they have to not waste the time and resources of government litigating cases that have a known (or believed) ultimate outcome.

Just because the Supreme Court has ruled in one or more cases that a city can take private land, even if you're "compensated", and give that land to a different private and profit-seeking enterprise does not make that thing right, moral, ethical, constitutional or even legal.  It simply means you have no recourse to stop the taking short of voting in politicians that will put ethical justices on the Supreme Court.

So, if XYZ Corp, Inc., wants to build a shopping mall in your town and you have a great 10 acre lot right next to major thoroughfare and very close to a freeway on-ramp, and XYZ Corp wants your land.  Ignoring the fact that there are probably 10 acres 2 miles down the road at the next onramp, XYZ Corp has decided that they want your land.  The city may not legally take your land, compensation or not, and give it to XYZ Corp (what they might do illegally and with the force of an armed police force to back them up is something altogether different). 

If XYZ Corp wants your land and you don't want to sell, then XYZ Corp has two (legal, ethical, and moral) choices - neither of which involve the government taking your private property and giving it to XYZ Corp.  XYZ Corp can either move their project down the road - even to another town if that's what it means - or they can pay you the price it takes to get you to sell.  Who gets to set that price?  You do!  If your price doesn't fit in XYZ Corp's financial goals then they can take the other option but, in most cases, when someone won't sell at any price there really is a price.  If you have property which might sell for a hundred thousand dollars if you wanted to sell it, and if the value might be two-hundred thousand dollars in XYZ Corp's business model, you're well within your rights to not sell or name any price you want.  So if XYZ Corp wants it, they can pay you ten million dollars for your hundred-thousand dollar property.  If they can't make a profit at that then don't do the deal.  There's almost always a price; business just don't always want to pay that price and will convince government to use force to make you sell not at the price for which you're willing to sell but, instead, at the price the business is willing to pay.

Some may disagree with me (obviously some do or such cases would never have happened) and that's a different topic.  This article is targeted at those who do believe in individual liberty and sovereignty, accepting that they have voluntarily, or their forefathers before them have, to surrender some sovereignty for the benefits of a limited government.  If you believe that there are those who have some inalienable or God-given rights or authority over you then that's a topic for a different article.  If you believe in inalienable rights and in the God-given liberty of Man then you must also believe that a government created by the people, for the people, cannot simply take your property and give it to another for the benefit of that other - even if such benefit yields a greater tax revenue to the government.

When I called Breitbart this morning, I had only wanted to point out that government is not a business and, acknowledging that Donald Trump has great business skill, business skills aren't what I believed was needed.  When the host prodded for more details of what I meant, I mentioned Trump's views on Eminent Domain and was quickly cut off with the argument that it is not possible to support the Keystone Pipeline without supporting Eminent Domain.  First off, I do support Eminent Domain - when used for necessary government services.  I've recently had my land cut up for a water pumping station and for fiber optic cable.  I don't like the scars and the above-ground pieces of both left right in view out my front window but I accept that it had to be done and I had no legal objection to make.

So back to the Keystone Pipeline.  On Breitbart, this morning, they had some economic advisor to Trump as a guest - I can't remember his name but he came from Senator Jeff Session's staff.  I can't look him up since I'm writing this article without looking up a thing to demonstrate that I understand Eminent Domain quite well.  This economic advisor piled on (agreeing with me on some points but not on this key point) by saying that Eminent Domain was necessary for public utilities - a point on which we agree - and that pipelines are public utilities - a point on which I generally agree but do not agree in regards the Keystone Pipeline.  He also said hospitals are a necessary service of government.  He must be an Obama supporter since he thinks that the government is responsible for our healthcare.  For me, personally, I’ve paid enough medical bills to understand that hospitals are big business and very much a for-profit business.

The Keystone Pipeline is intended to move Canadian oil from Canada to shipping facilities in Houston, Texas.  For those facilities in Houston, this is a great thing.  For Canada, this is a great thing.  For the owners/operators of the pipeline, this is a great thing.  What does it do for Nebraska?  At best, it can only be compared to taking private property for a shopping mall.  The best outcome of the Keystone Pipeline, to most Americans, is a temporary increase in spending in their location as construction crews come through and a longer-term increase in Houston oil shipping terminals revenues and, subsequently, taxes paid by those operating the terminals - assuming they weren't given huge tax breaks that would eliminate the tax revenue. 

The pipeline is certainly not a necessary service of government.  It is, plain and simple, a business enterprise.  I believe that government needs to get out of the way of business and allow a free-market economy to decide the winners and losers.  In the same breath that so many so-called libertarians are saying that ethanol subsidies need to be stopped, they want the government to guarantee the success and profitability of the Keystone Pipeline.  That is not the role of government.

I do support the Keystone Pipeline.  I think that the government needs to immediately approve the project.  But the project needs to succeed or fail on its own.  If Trump is right that it cannot succeed without eminent domain - or, in other words, cannot succeed without taking from some citizens and giving their property to this commercial enterprise - then it should just fail.  If it doesn't make good business sense without taking from others then it just doesn't make good business sense.  I'm ok with that.

If the owners of the Keystone Pipeline want to go across my land but I don't want to sell, they can either raise the offer so high that I agree to sell or they can go around me.  I'm sorry if that costs them a few million more dollars.  If they can't be profitable paying me millions of dollars for my few acres then they don't build their pipeline.  Same thing goes for that hypothetical hospital that the ex-Sessions-staffer-turned-Trump-advisor said justifies taking private property and giving it to another for the profit of the other.  If you want to build a hospital on my land, you need to pay my price – no matter what my price is – or build your hospital somewhere else.  Healthcare is not yet a necessary government service in this country.

If I want to build a downtown deli but I can only be profitable if that prime downtown location, offered for a million dollars, can be had for a thousand dollars, then I just can't be profitable and I won't get to open my downtown deli.  I can't expect the city to simply take the million dollar property and give it to me.

There was a time in this country (or at least portrayals on old western movies of a time) when someone might get word the railroad was coming through an area.  They might go in early and buy up land all over the area at pre-railroad prices and sell it to the railroad at higher prices, making a great profit.  Today, those big corporations have found a way to make sure they never have to pay those elevated prices.  They simply get government to force the sale at values decided upon by the government and the corporation.  It's a hell of a deal - if you're the benefactor of such Eminent Abuse.

So, yes, I do support the Keystone Pipeline and I am against using eminent domain to deliver it or to try to guarantee its success.  Now, if you want me to look it up, I can, but then the burn will be even worse for you because I will, I firmly believe, find plenty of writings from the Founders to backup everything I said here.

Liberty Amendments V - Limit Federal Taxing

STOP! This Amendment Does Not Give the Relief Required!

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons. 

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office. 

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form. 

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 75). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.  product. 

This is a rather disturbing proposal.  We definitely require a tax amendment to limit the Government's ability to tax but I have to question whether this is the right approach.  I am not an economist - but Mark correctly points out that this country was built without economists; economists only came to us along with progressiveness in the late 19th century and through the 20th century.

But there's another interesting change in the US that came with economists and progressivism: income tax.  Prior to the 16th Amendment, the primary revenue generation of the Federal Government was through tariffs on consumable goods - not on raw materials. Alexander Hamilton, the 1st Secretary of the Treasury, saw the value of tariffs in revenue generation and in protecting American manufacturing:

1. Protecting duties -- or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics; since, by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the, national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon, as it is not only a clear result from tile numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States, in a variety of instances; it is the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue. Indeed, all tile duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect, in contemplation, and, except where they fill on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the country.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791

Many argue against import tariffs, stating that they are limits on free trade and free enterprise and that, as a result of those limits, business does not create wealth or jobs.  The history of using tariffs as the primary means of revenue generation from 1789 until 1913 proves that business can grow just fine with import tariffs.  It is also important to remember that the United States is not a capitalist nation first and foremost, it is a Constitutional Republic.  Protection of the individual is the job of Government, and not protection of corporations.  If higher taxes on corporations increase prices, untaxed citizens will have increased financial capacity to pay the prices.

With the passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913, US citizens became subjects of the now-National government and now had to pay direct taxes to the National Government.  No longer was the Government a Federal Government, being the federation of the various states but is now a National Government, with direct subjects.  There is another piece of the nationalization of government: the 17th Amendment that took all voice in the actions of the government away from the States.  These two amendments ended the Republic that we once were.

Mr. Levin proposes a tax limiting amendment that leaves us subjects of the National Government.  I understand that repealing the 16th Amendment is not a popular subject and I hate to think that Mr. Levin is showing progressivist tendencies here.  I am big fan of Mr. Levin but this is troublesome.

The tax reform amendment that we need is to repeal the 16th Amendment and add a clause that prevents any direct tax, apportioned or not except possibly a sales or value added tax - but not both.

If we are to progress Mr. Levin's proposal, though, there are other changes that must be made.

Section 2 is great.  If we're going to pay income tax, the bill should be due the day before voting.

Section 3 will end up debated in the courts for a long time.  What happens if taxes are already owed by the decedent?  Surely those should be collected.  This section might require that no separate  tax be imposed on the estate.

Section 4 is a bothersome section in that we should not have an income tax at all and if we don't have an income tax and want a tax other than tariffs, or in addition to tariffs, the sales tax or value added tax are excellent options, especially if combined with an amendment clause that forbids tax credits other than cash payments to the IRS.

Section 5 is vague and does not make it clear when the amendment would take affect.

Here's my recommendation on how to limit Congress' taxing authority:

SECTION 1: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.  Congress shall make no direct tax upon persons in the United States, apportioned or otherwise, except as provided for in SECTION 2 of this Amendment.

SECTION 2: Congress may implement a sales or value-added tax at a maximum rate of 10 per cent of the actual sales price or of the value added - but not both taxes on any one transaction.  Sales tax shall be imposed at the time of the transaction and reported annually by the person receiving the payment without personally identifiable information on the buyer. 

SECTION 3: No tax credit shall be given to any person or legal entity except for payments made on account by that person or entity for the tax year for which the  payment is made.   

SECTION 4: No exception or waiver of any Federal tax shall be granted to any person or legal entity without the majority vote of both Houses of Congress, being then signed into law by the President and also receiving the consent of the legislatures of at least three fifths of the states of the union at the time the waiver is approved.  

SECTION 5: No separate tax shall be applied to the estate of any deceased person.  Taxes owed before the death can be recovered from the estate.   

SECTION 6: The deadline for all tax returns for persons or legal entities shall be the day before the election for Congress or the President in those years when congressional or presidential elections are held.  For years in which there is no congressional or presidential election, the deadline shall be on the day before the calendar anniversary of the previous year's election.  

SECTION 7: The changes in this Amendment will take affect starting with the next fiscal year starting on or after the fourth anniversary of the ratification of this amendment.

Mr. Levin is correct in that we really need a hard limit on Congress' ability to tax us. For 124 years, common sense and decency constrained the Congress but they no longer feel the constraint of decency or right. But Mr. Levin's well-intentioned proposal hardly leaves us in a better place than we are now.  It still leaves us as subjects with each one of us having to bow to the National Government at tax time each year.  But Mr. Levin's proposal does not provide the relief required and should not be passed by any Constitutional Convention.

Liberty Amendments IV - Limit Federal Spending

Warning! This Amendment has Merit but Requires Change Before Incorporation

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration. 

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted. 

SECTION 3: Total outlays of the United States Government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year. 

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year. 

SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal. 

SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product. 

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 73-74). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

Everyone in the United States would agree that the Federal Government taxes and spends too much.  Congress would agree, the Democrats would agree, and so would the Republicans.  In spite of that, no one does a thing about limiting Federal spending.  For the Republicans to limit the Democrat's spending would mean that the Democrats would retaliate by blocking the Republican's spending.

Mr. Levin's book does an excellent job of making the case for limiting Federal spending and I highly recommend reading it to understand just how much we need to force restraint upon the Congress' spending.  The only question is how to restrict it and by how much.

Mr. Levin first requires, in Section 1, that Congress submit a preliminary budget but does not define a preliminary budget.  This is a wasted exercise and there are no consequences if they do not and, even if they do, there is no requirement or expectation that those budgets have any basis in reality.  He mentions that the preliminary budget be submitted for presidential consideration - whatever that is.

Section 1 is a meaningless exercise and should be removed from this proposal.

Section 2 is an excellent idea, finally putting some teeth and consequences into the Congress' failure to do their job.

Planning and running a government agency requires time and effort.  It is irresponsible for the Congress and the President to not pass a budget in time for government to run efficiently - Mr. Levin virtually ignores the President's role and responsibility in the budget process: if he doesn't sign the bill there is no budget no matter what Congress does.  I recommend the following slight, but significant, changed Section 2:

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to pass, or the President fail to sign, a final fiscal year budget bill at least 30 calendar days prior to the start of the next fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in all expenditures, except for Constitutionally protected wage guarantees, from the prior year's fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.  The 5 percent reduction will not be altered or varied for that fiscal year, even by a later passed budget, except for in time of war declared by a majority of both houses of Congress according to Article I, Section 8.

What my version does is to bring the mention of the President closer to the problem along with Congress.  Mr. Levin's version uses a flawed logic statement that can never pass evaluation:  Shall the congress fail to pass and the President fail to sign.  If the Congress does not submit the budget then the president cannot fail to sign.  He cannot "fail" to sign something that does not exist.  Nit-picking, you say?  Don't believe for a minute that Congress and the Supreme Court will be any less intent on challenging the meaning of the words of this or any other of the Liberty Amendments.

My version also eliminates any confusion that, should Congress and the President fail to act, the 5 percent reduction stands for the year but it allows for the fact that Congressional and Supreme Court wages cannot be reduced during the term of office.  It also allows for an exception in the case of actual war - or at least a fake war that Congress is willing to actually stand up and call a war.

Section 3 is good but,when combined with Section 5, it appears to eliminate the ability of the Federal Government to borrow - something, up to now, permitted explicitly in the Constitution.  When discussing Section 5, I'll address that; otherwise, Section 3 is right on target.

I agree that the Federal Government's ability to spend should be tied to the wealth of the nation as described in Section 4 but I think 17.5 percent of the GDP is much, much, too high.  I propose the the following version of Section 4.

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 15 per cent of the Nation's gross domestic product (GDP) for the previous calendar year.   

Gross domestic product shall be calculated using the same formula used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, or other Federal agency assigned as the primary agency responsible for publishing the GDP in the last full fiscal year prior to ratification of this amendment..  Any changes to the formula used must be approved by three fifths of the legislatures of the various states.   

Every twelfth year, starting from the first full fiscal year after ratification, the maximum allowable outlay of the United States Government will be reduced by 1 percent of GDP until the maximum allowable outlay is 10 percent of GDP.

As I mentioned, the combination of Section 3 and Section 5 remove the ability of Congress to borrow money.  The Federal Government can only spend an amount up to the amount of receipts and borrowed money cannot be counted as receipts so the Federal Government can borrow money but it can't spend it - with one fatal flaw: the Government can use borrowed money to pay interest on its debt since debt payments, according to Mr. Levin's Section 5, are not part of outlay.  Mr. Levin's plan allows the Government to borrow money to pay the interest on borrowed money.  That is a recipe for disaster.  I propose the following as a substitute for Section 5:

SECTION 5: The Federal Government may not borrow money without the express consent of a majority of both houses of Congress as determined by a roll-call vote.  Congress may only provide consent to borrowing during times of war, declared by Congress according to Article 1, Section 8 of this Constitution. 

Congress shall expend from current receipts, funds to repay and reduce the National debt each year by 2 percent of the National debt owed on the day that this amendment is ratified and shall continue to expend from receipts each year to reduce the debt by 2 percent of that original debt figure until the debt is below 25 percent of GDP upon which Congress will expend each succeeding year the funds to reduce the National debt by 1 percent of the ratification day debt until the National debt is paid in full.

Any money borrowed during time of war must be paid in full within 40 years of the end of hostilities or, in any case, within 50 years of the date of borrowing, repayment to be at a minimum of 2 percent of the original debt each year from the date the debt was incurred.  Repayment of wartime debt can be made with additional borrowed funds upon approval of the majority of both Houses of Congress but this additional debt must follow the same repayment rules of any other wartime debt incurred.

Any funds expended in the repayment of the National debt shall not be counted against government spending limits defined in Section 4 of this Amendment but must come from the receipts for the previous fiscal year without borrowing.  

After the Constitution was ratified, the National debt was paid off in about 40 years.  After the Civil War, it was virtually paid off after about 50 to 60 years - though never again completely paid off.  Other than in World War II, the debt has never been as high as it is today or than it was even before the years leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  In fact, remember those Clinton years where he supposedly balanced the budget?  The debt increased to what was, then, the highest in relation to GDP ever except World War II - the same condition we're in today.  Clinton's "balanced" budget was balanced with borrowed money.

Section 6 is pretty close to what it should be except that, as is, a super-majority of Congress can completely undo the entire amendment.  In addition, the extra accountability required for over the stated 17.5 percent needs to apply to the adjusted maximum legal outlay I defined in section 4 instead of any specific number - though, over 60 years, the specific number does become a constant 10 percent:

SECTION 6: Only in times of war, declared by the majority of both Houses of Congress according to Article 1, Section 8 of this Constitution, Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over the maximum allowable outlay according to Section 4 of this Article with line item detail to within 1 tenth of 1 percent of the excess.  No more than the next fiscal year's extension may be approved by the Congress at any time.

As I've shown, the spending limits Mr. Levin proposes are too little and too flexible.  He does, though, touch on all of the right concerns.  I hope that my suggested alternative sections at least serve to bring the debate to real, hard, serious, control of Congressional spending.  Without the types of changes I recommend, this proposed amendment does not go nearly far enough to protect the wealth and earnings of Americans from being plundered by the Federal Government.

Protecting the United States of America and its legitimate allies from invasion or attack is the prime function of the Federal Government; everything else comes second to this responsibility.  My changes to Mr. Levin's proposals protect Congress' ability to spend and authorize spending in times of war but Government, just like you and me, must handle any other emergency by cutting our belts in other areas.  If a family member has serious health issues, we may have to put off buying a new car or larger house.  If there are disasters or emergencies in the United States, then other pet programs may have to be cut to fund what must be done.

The last change required to limit spending is to prevent any Congress from indebting the Nation for extended times into the future:

SECTION 7: No bill or authorization from Congress shall obligate the government beyond the next fiscal year.  No Congress shall have the authority to obligate in law any future Congress to approve any spending or to require default spending on any program.  No Congress shall fund, or require the funding, of any amount for any period of time beyond the next fiscal year.

The goal of Section 7 is to prevent unfunded obligations such as welfare programs.

We all want to reduce spending and, with the right changes, this amendment can help.  As written, though, it does not go nearly far enough and is more lipstick on a pig than it is reform.

Liberty Amendments III - Revamping the Supreme Court

STOP! This Amendment is a Threat to Liberty!

SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years. 

SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year. 

SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term. 

SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. 

SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court. 

SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. 

SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. 

SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

 This proposed amendment is the first with which I have reservations.  The first problem I see with it is that it is not a single purpose amendment.  It tackles two issues in one: term limits for the Supreme Court and overriding the Supreme Court.

First, a little background on the Supreme Court.  Even the court admits that the Constitution does not grant it the authority to judge the constitutionality of laws or to be the final arbitrator of the law.  It is simply to be the final arbitrator in civil and criminal court appeals.  On the Supreme Court's official web page is the text of a speech by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in 1932:

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

First off, the Constitution is quite clear that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and to the states.  Chief Justice Hughes obviously knew the court did not have the power it claims and the current court clearly demonstrates, by posting Chief Justice Hughes' speech, that they, also, are fully aware that they do not have that authority.  It is the people and the states who must be the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of the law.

Next, Chief Justice Hughes quotes the Federalist Papers as justification for assuming powers not in the Constitution.  This is an absurd argument.  There are many, many, points of contention that were debated in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.  Many of the points from one side or the other made it into the final version of the Constitution.  As many or more points that were debated did not make it into the Constitution.  If it did not make it into the Constitution, the fact that a point was debated does not, in any way, allow any discussion of that point to be considered today in deciding constitutionality.  If it did become part of the Constitution of the United States of America then the arguments in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers does become critical in deciding original intent.

The Founders had intended the Supreme Court to be a virtually benign department in government but it did not take long for them to assume power that was clearly not granted in the Constitution.  There was actually much debate over whether the Supreme Court would hear constitutional cases even before the Constitution was ratified but the Constitution did not give them that power.  Not everything debated prior to ratification made it into the final document and it is that final document that defines our nation.  But the idea of the Supreme Court assuming authority for judging the constitutionality of laws was not a new idea.

WIth that background, showing plainly that the Supreme Court has set itself above the Constitution and surely needs to be restrained and brought under control of the people.  Even so, setting term limits for the Supreme Court is a risky proposition.  Perhaps after I read Mr. Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America I might learn something I don't know now but I have real concerns about this point.

It is unclear to me how term limits would serve to bring them under control.  We have all heard of cases where those leaving Congress have immediately taken up jobs working for those that supported them in their campaigns,  Not only do congressmen have to pay attention to their political donors in order to keep the campaign donations flowing, they have to legislate for those same donors so that they can get those high paying jobs when they leave office.

The purpose of lifetime appointments in the Supreme Court is to relieve the justices of the temptation to rule in ways that benefit them upon the expiration of their terms.  Term limits mean that justices must spend their time as justices wondering what they will do afterwards.  Can we always be sure that the wondering will not affect their judgments?

On the other hand, as shown I believe, by Chief Justice Roberts in upholding the individual mandate of Obama Care as a tax, having a lifetime appointment allows political zealots in the court to force their will on the people of the United States without any fear of repercussion.

Between the two risks - the unaccountable power of lifetime terms and the self-serving interest of planning their post-judicial careers and fortunes - I believe that the unaccountable-power risk is the lesser of the two.  I would rather have  a justice from whom we can hold out hope that they will follow their oath to uphold the Constitution than a justice that we know for sure is thinking of his next job as he makes every ruling.  I am against term limits for the Supreme Court.

The way to control the Supreme Court is to have reasonable checks and balances on what they rule but not as Mr. Levin suggests in the second half of this dual-purpose amendment proposal.

Mr. Levin suggests, in this proposed amendment, that the standard for overriding the Supreme Court be a vote of three-fifths (60 per cent) of both houses of Congress.  This is a bar much too low and giving Congress much too much power.  three-fifths is the same number it takes to break a filibuster in the Senate - the same number it takes any controversial bill to just get a vote in the Senate.  This would allow the Senate to make laws that cannot be challenged simply by passing the law.  You can be sure that Democrats and Republicans alike will vote to protect their laws because it is the Senate to which they are loyal and not to the Constitution, the states, or the people.

In Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the numbers for Congress to override the president is two-thirds:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

The number for overriding the Supreme Court should be no less than that for overriding a presidential veto.

Mr. Levin suggests that the power to right Judicial wrongs should only exist for the first two years of the wrong.  Does wrong, once established for two years, somehow become right?  What happens if a law is passed by a single vote but it is clearly constitutional yet an activist Supreme Court overturns it based on their own idealism?  It can take two years simply to have an election that would allow the people to seat a Congress willing to stand up for what is right.  Perhaps it takes longer than two years. How can there be a limit on the time to make write that which is wrong?

A very interesting point in Mr. Levin's proposals, though, is the idea that, once overturned, there can be no other review by the Congress or the President.  The Supreme Court enjoys that unchallenged power today so why would not the Congress if the intent of the Founders was to have three co-equal branches of government?  If Mr. Levin's recommendation is passed then how can we provide a similar and equal power to President?

One suggestion that might work would to be for the President to have veto privileges over the Congressional override but that would mean that any case that the administration argued in the court and one could never be overridden.  Another possibility might be to leave the three-fifths majority that Mr. Levin suggests in order to override the Supreme Court with the President having veto authority but the Congress could come back and override the President with a two-thirds vote, just as they can do in overriding any veto.

One of the reasons that we are even discussion changing the Constitution is that the courts have found ways to see a spade and call it a heart.  They twist the words and meaning with such impunity that everyone, they and we, know they are twisting the words and one knows that the other knows.  So, in amending the Constitution, we are looking for words and ways to prevent even the most brazen twisters of words, truth, and logic from twisting what the Constitution says in order to get away with disregarding it.  Even so, and as qualified and talented an orator and wordsmith as Mr. Levin is, he has a huge flaw in how he words Section 4 and Section 6 of this proposed amendment.

SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override... 

SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override... 

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

By Mr. Levin's words, the three-fifths votes only give the opportunity for the Congress or States to then consider overriding the Supreme Court.  Does Section 6 require a three-fifths vote of each and every state legislature, both houses, or does it require a simple majority in both houses of three-fifths of the state legislatures?  Or does it require something else like a three-fifths vote of both houses in three-fifths of the state legislatures?

If you laugh or challenge my interpretation then you must surely see the opening that the order of the phrases leaves.  A huge risk in any constitutional amendment or convention is that words are used that either deceive us into thinking that they are for our benefit when they restrict our liberty even more or words that are easily rendered meaningless because they can be easily twisted into unintended meanings.

Instead, the two sections, if they are to be considered at all, should read:

SECTION 4: The Congress may override a majority opinion of the Supreme Court by a three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

SECTION 6: The States may override a majority opinion of the Supreme Court by a majority vote in three-fifths state legislatures of the various States.

Mr. Levin does not define in the amendment what it means to override the rendered opinion.  Does it simply undo the opinion and we have differing laws in different parts of the country, depending on the opinions of the various circuit courts?  Different federal laws in different regions is a completely unacceptable condition, even though we often have that today.

Whether the override of a decision originated in Congress or with the state legislatures, it would apply only to the four corners of the majority opinion of the specific Supreme Court decision. It could not be used to parse the meaning of a decision or entangle precedent. The override would simply expunge the holding of the Court. If there are conflicting rulings by lower courts within or among the different judicial circuits, these would stand as the ruling precedents on the legal and/ or constitutional issues relating to the litigation in those forums.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 69). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

Any solution that allows the Congress to override the Supreme Court simply gives the Congress the power to modify the Constitution without any oversight or review.  If I didn't know Mr. Levin's passion, hard work, and dedication to individual liberty and the Constitution, I would think that this override clause was just the type of thing I have said we need to fear from amendments or a constitutional convention: proposals that are inherently dangerous to liberty, by intention or otherwise, but presented as increasing liberty.

Allowing the States to override the Supreme Court is an interesting proposition since they have that ability already: they have the power to amend the Constitution and, in fact, that is the entire premise of Mr. Levin's book.  All that is missing in Sections 6 and 7 of Mr. Levin's amendment proposal is the convention of the states.  But if the states are going to override the Supreme Court, how will they know and agree on what it is that they will vote if not by convention?  Though Mr. Levin's proposal lowers the bar for amendments that overturn the Supreme Court, it limits them to two years, in effect, reducing their existing capacity to override the Supreme Court.  Granted, the proposal does not remove the existing amendment authority but it will be argued any time they want to amend the Constitution to undo the damage of a Supreme Court decision that the two-year rule will apply, even though it would not apply.

Considering my own argument that any override of the Supreme Court should have the same bar as overriding a presidential veto - passing by the vote of two-thirds of the state legislatures - then there is no difference between what Mr. Levin proposes in Sections 6 and 7 of this proposed amendment and in the existing power granted by the Constitution today.

I started my review of this proposed amendment, having read Mr. Levin's book cover-to-cover, thinking this would get a yellow banner as a caution, meaning that the amendment had merit but needed to be considered with caution and changed to eliminate the risks as worded.  As I wrote, read, re-read, researched, and considered this amendment, it became clear that, as good intentioned as Mr. Levin is, in this case he is wrong.  This is an amendment that should never be incorporated into the Constitution.  That said, the Supreme Court is out of control and I hope that there can be amendments designed that do bring them back to Constitutional standards - including stopping them from being the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of laws - a power that they even admit they usurped without authority.

Liberty Amendments II - Restoring the Senate by reversing the 17th Amendment

This amendment gets a GO from me!

SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I. 

SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. 

SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. 

SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature. 

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 33). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

I've heard many people talk about the end of the Constitution and say that our country, the United States of America, is over or near over, since the presidency of Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or name your president.  The truth is, the coup occurred when the Seventeenth Amendment was sold to the American public as a way for them to get more freedom and have more influence over Washington politicians.  In fact, when the Seventeenth was passed, the last hope of influence by the masses was lost.

Only a small portion of the population has ever paid any attention to the workings of government.  With the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment, incumbents now owned the debate and became beholden to their campaign sponsors instead of the states that had previously appointed them.  Those few who understood what was happening could be disregarded with impunity as COngress used pork, government handouts, empty promises, and speeches to buy the votes of the politically ignorant.

One point I missed from Mark Levin's book was that he didn't point out, or didn't clearly point out, was that the Union is a union of independent states.

In the union of the states, the Senate represented the individual states.  One of the many brilliant plans in the Constitution was that, along with that state representation, the House of Representatives represented the people.  There were more house members to keep that representation local so the people who were represented were known by he that represented them.  The members of the Senate, by virtue of having two per state, were more remote from and unknown by the people in a state.  The deliberate intention of the Founders was that the Senate represented the States and the House of Representatives represented the people.

It is because the States lost their representation that the Federal Government was able to usurp the power of the States and make itself supreme over them.  In the days when the Senate represented the States, no Congress would pass a law usurping the authority of the States.  Interestingly, it wasn't until after the turn of the century, starting around 1901, that being a congressman or senator began to be viewed as a career and became even more so after the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.  I could not find the original document by Mark Petracca but Mr. Levin quotes Mr. Petracca as follows:

As Petracca explains, “throughout most of the nineteenth century, not very many members of Congress sought reelection. Not until 1901 . . . did the average number of terms served by House members prior to the present session rise above two terms. There were few occasions in which the average length of service approached two terms, but no more than a handful out of some 56 sessions. . . . During the 25 elections between 1850 and 1898 . . . turnover averaged 50.2 percent . On average, more than half the House during any given session in the second half of the nineteenth century was made up of first term members.”  

Petracca, “Restoring‘The University in Rotation,’ ” 69– 70.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 27). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

More than anything else, I believe, it was the Seventeenth Amendment that led us to a non-representative government that could even consider passing laws such as McCain-Feingold, otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act.

There is one risk to undoing the Seventeenth Amendment today: state governments are not used to standing on their own two feet.  They love to feed at the federal trough.  States will likely use their newly restored power to massively increase spending and waste but, regardless, restoring the Senate and giving the States back their authority is necessary to restore the Union.

I fully support Mark Levin's proposal for repealing the Seventeenth Amendment exactly as proposed by Mr. Levin.  Of all the Liberty Amendments, I believe this is the most important.

Liberty Amendments I - Congressional Term Limits

This amendment gets a GO from me!

SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.

SECTION 2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 19). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

For almost as long as I remember discussions of them, I have been against congressional term limits.  I have always believed that no one has the right to tell another that they cannot elect the representative that they want to elect.  My views on this changed as I gained a better understanding of what it means to be a Constitutional Republic.

Of course, I assume that most readers of this work will know that we are not a democracy but are, instead, a constitutional republic.  The difference is that, in a democracy, the majority wins and the minority loses every time.  In a constitutional republic, government is by representatives and bound by a constitution such that, in the case of our own original Constitution, the people are represented by the House of Representatives and the states are represented by the Senate.  In a constitutional republic, the minority is protected by the Constitution and, at least hopefully, by the greater wisdom of the representatives in government.

Given that we are a constitutional republic, and given that the large majority of people, against all conceivable logic, continue to reelect the same representatives over and over again, then it is the duty of the republic to protect the minority from the ignorance (at best) or ill will (at worst) of the majority.  When the blind masses continue to elect professional politicians who only moved into a district in order to get into Congress, or who have been shown to be criminals, or who clearly do not represent the districts that elected them, then it is necessary to rethink how Congress is elected in order to protect the original intent of the Founders.

Had the Founders been able to even conceive of radio or television, of 30 and 40 year congressmen, of quarter-billion dollar congressional races, they would certainly, I believe, have included term limits.  Mr. Levin quotes many sources to demonstrate how narrowly term limits missed being in the Constitution.  Knowing what we know today would have been the straw that pushed the idea through.

Even if one were to argue that we have no way of knowing what the Founders would have done had they known of the technologies used to fool fools into voting for politicians, we still have original intent that was built into the Constitution in Article V.  The Founders understood that they could not say for certain that their plan was perfect at that time or that it would remain perfect over time.  They included the means by which we could modify the Constitution based on newer knowledge or understanding.  The power of the incumbency, using technology and massive government taxation, to fool the fools just was not understood - the Founders understood the concept but could never have imagined just how far the influence would go in 225 years - and it is knowledge that we now know we need to include in the Constitution in order to retain the original intent of the Union.

In the book, Mr. Levin discusses the historical debate over term limits including communication between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Jefferson and John Adams as well as state constitutions that, from the the beginning of the Union, included term limits for state office.  The concept of term limits is certainly not new.

I agree with Mark Levin whole-heartedly on the need for term limits just exactly as he has listed them in his proposed amendment.

Review and Commentary on The Liberty Amendments, by Mark Levin

I recently finished reading The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.  I have to say it's a great book and I highly recommend it.  It's interesting, full of historical quotes to back up Mr. Levin's views, and not at all dry.  It is something I could not put down until I had read it cover-to-cover.

Mr. Levin is an excellent orator and his command of language and vocabulary translate well from the spoken word to the written word.  Of all the political radio hosts that I listen to, Mark Levin is my favorite.  He is the host with whom I most agree and, unlike so many to whom I listen or read that make me feel dumber for having listened to them, listening to or reading Mr. Levin's words expands my vocabulary and I become smarter philosophically, politically, and linguistically.

Before the reader assumes that this review is simply this author singing praises to Mr. Levin, let me cut to the chase and the reasons I felt compelled to write this review and commentary.

Mr. Levin's purpose for writing the book is to push for a constitutional convention with the goal of adding ten additional amendments to the Constitution designed to restore the constitutional limits to government.  In his own words, he wrote the book because of:

the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 1). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

From the time of my earliest childhood political memories, I have learned to fear the idea of a constitutional convention.  I still fear it.  State governments are not independent and do not necessarily represent the needs or interests of their citizens.  Expecting state legislatures to use the same kind of wisdom and restraint today that was used in 1789 is foolhardy.

There is a secret, or at least less-publicly-known, congress in this country that drives legislation at the state levels.  If you look up almost any law passed in almost any set of states, you'll find that the laws are practically verbatim from state to state because the state laws are written in this secret national congress.  That, will have to be a topic for another blog article where it can be discussed in-depth but the concept shows the risk of having a constitutional convention in today's political environment.  A constitutional convention today would not go well for individual or even states rights but corporations, advertisers, and special interest groups would fare very well.

Before we can ever consider a constitutional convention, we need to take back our legislatures in the way that three plumbers in Pueblo Colorado took back their state legislative district in 2013.  Only when this happens in the majority of, or all, legislative districts across the US could we dare to allow a constitutional convention.

Mr. Levin is absolutely correct in that we do need to take back the Constitution by modifying it to eliminate the twists applied by the courts over the past 120 years.  Of course any changes made to restore the Constitution will also be subject to intentional and unintentional distortion by the courts but, hopefully, they will stand for a time before it becomes time again to repeat the process.  Remember the recent Obamacare decision in which Chief Justice Roberts totally disregarded original intent, intent that was current and easily read in the daily papers or even by asking the Congress that passed the law, in order to claim penalties for failing to comply with the individual mandate were a tax and not a penalty (read the full decision - see page 33).  As Mr. Levin states, the Founders were infinitely wise in planning for, and building into it, the means by which the Constitution can changed to fix unforeseen shortcomings.

In the interest of brevity, or at least reader convenience and my own work management, I'll address each of the ten amendments Mr. Levin proposes in separate blog posts.  I'll highlight them with a banner at the top colored green (go) if I mostly agree with Mr. Levin's proposal, as written in the book.  I'll color the banner yellow (warning) if I have weak support or weak disagreement and red (stop) if I strongly disagree with Mr. Levin's recommendations or his justifications.

I am not a lawyer or copyright expert but it is my belief that I am well within the bounds of fair use to quote from his book here to review, disagree, and debate the issues he raises in his book.  In fact, I am simply accepting Mr. Levin's own invitation to bring his amendments into the debate:

What follows are proposed amendments to the Constitution— The Liberty Amendments. It is my hope and aspiration for our country that these amendments can spur interest in and, ultimately, support for the state convention process. In any event, should there come a time, sooner or later, when the states convene a convention, these amendments or amendments of the same nature— as I make no claim of unassailable knowledge— may prove useful and find their way into the debate. But a plan is what is needed, as is a first step. This is mine.

Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (p. 18). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition. 

Introduction to My Version of Libertarianism

Welcome to yet another libertarian blog.  Why another one?  Besides my ENTJ personality type, which drives me to press my viewpoints, I believe that my viewpoints represent what our nation, as intended by its Founders, should truly be.

There are a lot of so-called libertarians on television, the radio, or on Internet Blogs (I don't read print papers any more but would love to start one - perhaps I will) but almost without exception, they compromise their stated libertarian or constitutionalist views in some particular fashion or another.  Each seems to have some favorite intrusion of government, intrusions not ever intended by the Founders, that they support - but that's why we have the government we have; so many are willing to sacrifice your liberty or mine in order to get their own favored regulation passed.  This is why I feel the need to create this blog: to represent true libertarianism without compromise.

For an interesting introduction to Libertarianism, in general, I recommend the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism - as it was viewed on September 20, 2014.  This post is not intended to compete with the detailed knowledge to be gained from that article.  The purpose of this post is to simply provide a high-level overview of my political views which are best described, in my opinion, as libertarian.  Others may have different views on what libertarianism means today.  Maybe some will think my views fit somewhere else and are not libertarian at all.  I'd love to hear friendly comments on the topic but am not really interested in arguing it.  I do love friendly and intelligent, thoughtful, debate so let's talk about it if you disagree.

I base my political views very much on the Declaration of Independence, in particularly paragraph 2:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Key to my philosophy is that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, ad the pursuit of Happiness.  Just as important is the idea that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  This was a key limit on government built into the Constitution of the United States of America.

I believe in individual sovereignty and personal responsibility.  Government, from Local, to State, to Federal, exists only provide those services to the whole that are shared among individuals, including things like roads, water, and national defense.  I'm not an anarchist.  I believe government is necessary but must be limited, as was done when our government was formed by the ratification of the Constitution.

I do not want to turn this opening post of this blog into a hundred page dissertation on what the government should or should not do across all the ways in which state and national government injects itself into our lives so let me just say that unless the Constitution permits it, the government has no authority to be involved.  The best way to know what the Constitution permits and does not permit is to look at government as it existed in the United States for the first 50 years of the nation's existence.  During that first generation of the United States, its people and government knew what was the original intent of the Founders but beyond that, those in power have spent the next 175 years trying to twist the Constitution in order to protect and expand their own power - for instance, we all know that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution was never intended to give the Federal Government the broad, sweeping, powers that they claim today that it grants.

So, the summation of my political philosophy is the principles of individual liberty and sovereignty, individual responsibility and accountability, and government exactly as defined in the Constitution.  Individual liberty, or unalienable Rights, cannot be taken by government, or by popular vote or the masses.  Looking deeper into that philosophy, and how it relates to government today, is the purpose of this blog.

I hope readers will find enlightenment from what I write and that I can influence those who disagree with me to at least give thoughtful consideration to what I say.  Thoughtful consideration of the things I believe about government should almost always lead a person closer to my beliefs than they were otherwise.