A Constitutional Amendment Guaranteed To Rein In The Federal Loviathan

[fhl]

By Walter E. Williams in The American Spectator

In Federalist Paper 45, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explains, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.” Other founders gave similar assurances about the limitations that the constitution set on the federal government. If our founders could see today’s federal government, it would be unrecognizable to their vision. In fact, their vision has been turned upon its head, so that the powers of the state governments are “few and defined” and those of the federal government “are numerous and indefinite........

.....What can be done? To recover our liberty requires at the minimum putting Washington back to where it was from 1787 to 1920, when it spent only 3 percent of the GDP, except during times of war, as opposed to today’s more than 30 percent of GDP. A constitutional amendment limiting federal spending to, say, 10 percent of the GDP would be a good start.”

 

[jficquette]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's simple. Every ten years we have a state by state referendum on whether that state wishes to remain part of the union. Perhaps there would be a supermajority requirement. Nothing would be better designed to restrain impulses toward activist or extreme policies by either party. Go too far and suddenly you only have 45 states or whatever.

In fairness, there would have to be a mechanism to account for accrued but unpaid entitlements, eg social security, and outstanding federal debt. Maybe just zero them all out and call it even. In the event of secession under this Amendment, real property owned by the federal government would revert to state ownership.

How would you vote, if the referendum were being held today?

Actually that problem of how you divvy up the assets was the reason that the North found the Civil War.

No way were the northern bankers and industrialists who had invested millions in southern infrastructure, railroads, ports, mining operations were going to just let that go.

Plus the Government needed the money. Cotton exports from the south generated a lot of money for the Feds.

"I can't let them [the South] go. Who would pay for the government?" - Abraham Lincoln, 1861

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Ricter:

Those were all nice sentiments on their part, and worked pretty well, comparatively. Unfortunately, we've not yet arrived at an era of "philosopher kings". The wealthy and powerful occupy both the highest seats of business and of government, so they've effectively neutralized the advantages of a bicameral congress.

The legislative protections for private property are all fine and good when the chief appropriator is government, but the current economic crisis in part indicates that we do not have noble entrepreneurs at the helm ala Ayn Rand's conception, but mere human beings with all their weaknesses, amongst them. greed.

I think we need a better separation of business and state.

+1

 

[Index piker]

Quote from jficquette:

Actually that problem of how you divvy up the assets was the reason that the North found the Civil War.

No way were the northern bankers and industrialists who had invested millions in southern infrastructure, railroads, ports, mining operations were going to just let that go.

Plus the Government needed the money. Cotton exports from the south generated a lot of money for the Feds.

"I can't let them [the South] go. Who would pay for the government?" - Abraham Lincoln, 1861

WE simply must bring back nullification: in cases where the imperial federal govt violates the Constitution.

It's the only way to get our country back.