The Repeal Amendment

Virginia may be the first of many states to propose an Amendment to the Constitution that empowers the States to repeal any Federal Statute or Law, commonly called "The Repeal Amendment". A rough draft of the possible Amendment reads as follows.

• “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Simply put, Two-Thirds of the States [Presumably through Legislative Acts] can vote to repeal ANY Federal Law or Regulation. This would be an important step back toward a Federal System, by limiting Federal Power directly through State Actions.

 

General Welfare (Part 5) Final thoughts on the Constitution Convention

I think it is something of note that very little was debated in the Convention on the term General Welfare throughout the entire Convention of 1787 (that was discussed in Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4). This point I believe is amplified when one looks at how much other aspects of power debated feverishly. When one looks at how it may be contended to how much power General Welfare carries to how little debate revolved around it, when related to other comparatively smaller powers dealing with power at the Federal Level this must speak to what the true intention of what it was felt it meant.

But maybe the most telling non-debate of “General Welfare” was the total lack of it in the Slavery issue. As contended by some, general welfare was meant to give the Congress the power to make laws for the overall general welfare of the people or the Union. By using this clause by this meaning, would this not then give the power to Congress to outlaw Slavery or Indentured Service outright for the general welfare of those bound by it? But this possibility was never addressed once in the Convention by the accounts of the notes we have available to us today.

Capital Punishment

When you hear Capital Punishment, you a probably thinking about the death penalty. Well I am going to talk about the other certainty of life, taxes. The tax burden in the US is not the heftiest in the world, but that does not mean it is small. It is most of it you just don’t see, but you pay it none the less. A good chunk of your taxes are paid before you have the chance to feel the money, in payroll deductions. So how much are you really paying? The average tax burden in 2008 was 28.2%¹³. What does this mean? In short nearly 1/3 of what you earn goes to taxes, lets see how.

Say you want to buy a new TV. You find a nice flat screen at a local retailer, just what you where looking for. It cost $999.99 dollars for the TV, but you know you have to account for sales tax, thinking it will only minimize the overall increase of your purchase you get it. But how much did it really cost you? How much Tax did you just pay to get this new TV? Well it was not just sales tax, it was not just taxes at all. Lets look at what it REALLY cost, and how much tax you really just paid to get this treat!

Gerrymander against the Democratic System.

If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.

While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.

Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.

House of Representatives Reapportionment

With the 2010 Election winding down, and still several races still undecided. 2010 also marks the the once a decade census. How does one have to to deal with the other? Reapportionment of US Representatives to States happens in 2011 with redistricting in states happening and being finished in time for the 2012 election cycle.

If you have watched the new, perhaps you have heard about the consequences of state legislature and governorships importance in the past election, because they will deal with how districts are drawn. Typically the party in power gets to draw the districts, and it is almost a given, they will draw them to their parties advantage, that is they will choose who gets to vote for the ones they like, otherwise called a Gerrymander.

The Gerrymander [who James Madison was almost casualty of in Virginia for the 1st Congress, when his district was drawn to PREVENT him from being elected, which he still was] is an absurd idea. Politicians should not be able to select who gets to vote for them, the voters should choose who they get to vote for. Their should be no such thing as a "safe" district, the more competitive the district, the better it is for the district and the people as a whole.

The results of this election should not matter in redistricting. Districts should simply be drawn to ensure equal numbers of voters in all districts of the state, and then let the people of the district choose who they want. They should not be drawn to ensure the higher probability of a particular party being elected, by choosing who gets to vote for them. Let the Republic live up to its name, and be representative of the people, not a politicians desire.