Dedication: This article is dedicated to The Great One, Mark Levin: Thank you, Mark, for your patriotism and your ceaseless efforts to educate your fellows upon the topic of the US Constitution and the blessings of living in a free republic. Zei gesunt!
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” —Article V of the US Constitution
An Article V Convention
None of the amendments proposed are meant to construe any new power of the federal government, but only to constrain that power. These amendments are to ensure the rights of the people remain strong and cannot be infringed as easily by manipulative leaders. (The attempt by the Obama Administration to repeal the Second Amendment by passing such repeal as a treaty with the United Nations—the Small Arms Treaty—is one example, and its attempt to repeal the First Amendment by passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—thereby allowing Islamic Law into the Constitution—is another.) The Founders of the American republic could not think of all the unprincipled manipulations that a bad president or corrupt Congress might instigate. While there are certainly other good ideas out there, among the people, the ideas expressed here are meant to act as a spur to get more people thinking and talking about what is needed to ensure individual liberty and constrain government power.
No person shall hold any level of security clearance under the United States while not serving as an elected or appointed official under the United States.
No person who holds a security clearance under the United States shall benefit by disclosure of top secret, secret, confidential, or otherwise classified categories of information during his term in office or during any special appointment under the United States after having left office, nor shall any benefit accrue to such person within five years of leaving his post.
Security clearances are to be given only to individuals who work for the benefit of the United States. Individuals may not retain security clearances while they are not working for the United States. Additionally, such persons may not benefit from any secrets they know until at least five years have passed after concluding any work relationship with the United States government. (Of course, the five years may be extended in some cases by the signing of non-disclosure agreements not mentioned in the wording of this amendment.)
The right of the people to negotiate prices among themselves in a free market shall not be infringed. No government official under the United States shall pass, enact, or issue any policy or law to control the price of any material or virtual good, service, or labor.
The people are allowed to negotiate among themselves what is deemed fair in the way of prices and wages on the free market. The government has no right to fix the prices of goods and services or to give unearned pay raises to workers. The government shall not infringe the Natural Right of the people to enter into freely made agreements negotiated between parties.
The right of citizens of the United States to have their votes count shall not be denied or abridged by any State, District or other jurisdiction or precinct of these United States by having their Electoral Votes awarded to the winner of the popular vote of the nation as a whole or to the winner of the popular vote of any other State, District, jurisdiction or precinct. Nor shall the Electoral Votes of a sovereign state be awarded by any method that may act to deprive a legitimate plurality or majority of its electoral preference or preferences.
The right of the citizens of the United States to choose their own elected officials shall not be denied or abridged by any State, District, or other jurisdiction or precinct by permitting non-citizens of the United States to participate in any election, caucus, primary, or other electoral process in which federal or state officials are on the ballot.
Citizens have the right to protect their elections from being fraudulently hijacked by corrupt officials who wish to award a national candidate who did not win in their state the Electoral Votes thereof, or who make promises to non-citizens that, in exchange for their votes, they will entitle them to special privileges not customarily available to non-citizens. Citizens of the United States are guaranteed under their Constitution that they will enjoy a republican form of government and that their states, upon entering the union, will guarantee the same.
The Congress shall have power to make only the laws which shall be necessary and proper expressly for carrying into execution its Enumerated Powers, per Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution and shall continue to retain all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Executive, with Congressional oversight and approval, shall have power to establish executive departments to aid in the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, so long as these departments align expressly with the Enumerated Powers of the Congress, per Article I, Section 8 only. All other executive departments shall be disestablished upon the conclusion of the Congressional term in which this amendment has been duly ratified, and their enforcement roles shall devolve upon the sovereign states.
The Congress has gone far beyond its Enumerated Powers in making law, and this requires that restraints be imposed by the people by means of new language, the necessity of which has come about due to the Supreme Court’s reading of “necessary and proper,” in its 1819 hearing of McCulloch v. Maryland, which redefined these words to remove their meaning as a restriction on the Congress. The Court remade the legal meaning of “necessary and proper” to mean, instead, that the Congress was actually endowed with an enlargement of power that it had perhaps been too shy to exercise. Chief Justice John Marshall opined about the Necessary and Proper Clause that “it purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.” By writing these words, Justice Marshall reinterpreted the restrictive nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause in a lawyerly way that twisted its application into a considerably more permissive realm of government action, and, as a result of Marshall’s rewrite, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been used in conjunction with the Commerce Clause to provide a Constitutional basis for the passage and enforcement of many coercive federal laws. For example, during the days of FDR’s New Deal reforms, many of the measures being passed were justified as “necessary and proper” with respect to the state’s ability to regulate interstate commerce.
The right of the people to exercise freedom to decide their own purchases shall not be denied, abridged, or otherwise infringed.
No mandate by the government requiring any individual to make a purchase of an unwanted good or service shall be allowed. The individual mandate that every person buy health insurance was such a rule. Although invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling, the only permanent guarantee of this freedom is by means of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.
The right of the people to be taxed only for such services as promote the general welfare, and not to support programs or purposes that do not offer each and every taxpayer alike the same benefits, is hereby affirmed.
Laws taking money from one individual to provide goods and services to others, while not providing them to the individual being taxed, do not offer equal protection and should, therefore, be un-Constitutional.
No subsidies from the funds of the public treasury shall be given to individuals or institutions, including all public or private institutions or companies, for-profit, non-profit, and not-for-profit entities notwithstanding. Government may not fund or invest in any publishing or broadcasting enterprise or any social or communications platform.
Equal protection under the Constitution shall be enforced for every individual or group of individuals. No person or group shall be given the privilege of being awarded money collected by the government from others.
No corporation or any other public or private entity may benefit by use of the public Internet, for business, communications, or other purposes, unless such entity follow the First Amendment and honor the entire Bill of Rights and all federal civil rights laws in every respect. And no social media platform, or any other corporation, enterprise, or entity, shall be empowered to use any algorithm to determine what speech is allowed and what speech is disallowed on the Internet.
The Internet was developed and built by taxpayer money. All taxpayers having paid for it, no taxpayer may be deprived of freely expressing himself while using it. Companies whose business models use the Internet to their profit may not un-Constitutionally deny citizens of the United States their rights under the Constitution.
The rights of citizens to attempt to solve problems at the governmental level wherein the problem was created, before going to any higher level of government for adjudication, is hereby affirmed.
People have the right to solve problems as close to their sources as possible. Therefore, a problem at the township level must not be appealed to the county or state, before seeking a solution locally.
The plain textual language of the Constitution is hereby affirmed as the sole legal basis for ruling any law Constitutional or un-Constitutional. If an ruling be issued by the judiciary branch that cannot find its meaning in the plain language of Constitution, even if such a ruling be made by the Supreme Court, the executive and legislative branches may expressly ignore such a ruling, by citing the actual text of the Constitution as support or by pointing out the lack of any text to support the ruling in question.
This rule is an affirmation of Constitutional Supremacy above Judicial Supremacy. The Constitution never says anywhere within its text that only the Supreme Court may interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The separation of powers means that not only may the executive branch not dictate to the judiciary how to behave, but the judiciary likewise may not tell the executive how it shall act. If members of the other branches do not decide Constitutional matters fairly in the eyes of the people, they may be fired at the ballot box. Ultimately, it is the people’s Constitution and the people, therefore, who shall have the final say.
Amendment XVI of this Constitution, which gives Congress power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, is hereby repealed, to be replaced with a law that allows a federal income tax not to exceed ten percent, with all citizens, corporations, or other taxable enterprises to be taxed at the same percentage rate without prejudice with regard to income level.
The income tax as a graduated tax is repealed and a new permission to tax individuals and corporations only up to ten percent is hereby instituted. All people, corporations, and other taxable entities must be taxed at the same rate. This will force taxes to be collected locally for local projects or by the state for state expenditures, bringing down costs and the chances for corruption. Also, no one shall be punished for being successful by having to pay a higher rate of taxes at the federal level.
Amendment XVII of this Constitution, which stipulates that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and that each Senator shall have one vote, is hereby repealed and the original language, per Article I, Section 3, reinstituted, so that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The Constitution says that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” But, with the passage of Amendment XVII of the Constitution, that is exactly what happened. The sovereign states, having lost their representation when Amendment XVII was ratified, would get back their representation. Currently, US Senators are merely super-representatives of the people, elected statewide. The people’s interests, however, are already represented in the House of Representatives. The state legislatures operate differently in terms of trying to safeguard the state as a whole and used to vote to appoint senators to the Congress with more of a unified statewide agenda. The disparate agendas of so many different regions within the state are already being represented in the House.
Congress shall make no law for the people by which the members of Congress are not equally bound. Nor shall the Congress be differently affected than the people are by any government policy.
Judges must issue all legal opinions in accordance with the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution or of the state or federal statute entered upon. Jurists varying from this standard are considered as having ruled in bad behavior. Application of existing law any new cultural context may not be used as justification to change the meaning of the original law.
The Congress is not allowed to be exempt from the laws they make for others—such as Congressmen’s exempting themselves from Obamacare. Legislating from the bench is officially considered as bad behavior, and judges doing so may be impeached for as much.
An impeachable offense, constituting treason, bribes, high crimes, or misdemeanors, shall be for the misapplication of an officeholder’s power during the officeholder’s term in office.
Is it really fair that a president, judge, or any other government official be held responsible for actions he did not commit as a part of his official duties while in office? Having been elected duly to office by voters who already have vetted the candidate to their satisfaction, no issue prior to the election can be legitimately viewed as valid for the purposes of impeachment.
The right of the people to direct representation during the consideration, debate, and passage of the laws shall mean that all laws written, described, or issued by any other means than what is prescribed in this Constitution shall not enjoy the weight of law under the United States and shall be null and void by the end of the Congressional term in which this amendment is ratified.
All administratively written rules that carry the force of law will be considered inoperable upon expiration of the Congressional term in which the passage of this amendment shall have taken place. If the Congress did not write the law, then it is not a rule any citizen of the United States is compelled to follow. Citizens are not represented when the bureaucracy writes rules in the place of their duly elected representatives; this violates their right to representation. In fact, so many laws now exist that no one can know when they might be breaking a law that is unknown to most people. This is a state of affairs that is beyond unfair and desperately in need of repair. Judges like to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but with tens of thousands of pages of federal law now on the books, how can anyone be expected to know all the rules. Not even a lawyer can know them all.
The rights of the people under this Constitution shall not be infringed, abridged, or repealed by any language, stipulation, or interpretation of any treaty, deal, or agreement made by the United States with any other nation, group of nations, or treaty-making entity.
The rights of the people under this Constitution shall not be repealed, abridged, or infringed by any provision or provisions of any treaty, deal, or agreement duly ratified by the United States.
Secret provisions or codicils to treaties that are unavailable for inspection by the American people and by their representatives in the Senate are illegal and not binding on the United States.
This amendment would bar the United States from changing the Constitution by the signing or ratifying of a treaty, such as the Small Arms Treaty with the United Nations, that would then become a part of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, as all treaties must, according to Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Ratification of the Small Arms Treaty would endanger the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just as the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, by admitting Sharia-compliant finance law into the Constitution, per provisions brought by the Muslim country of Brunei, might endanger the First Amendment freedom of speech (since the Sharia bans criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and many other ideas supportive of freedom). Also, secret provisions of treaties, as existed as a part of the Iran Deal, are not allowed.
is an American patriot whose mission in life is to educate and enlighten his fellow citizens about the correct principles for facilitating a life of freedom and a culture based upon the Golden Rule, as well as to do whatever is in his power to help protect his countrymen from their government. Paul believes that individual freedom is more important than majority rule and, therefore, values the fact that America was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic. (In fact, the word “democracy” is nowhere to be found within the text of the US Constitution.) Paul has written a book on the Constitution, explaining the republican values on which it is based and how they protect individuals and minorities from the dangers of a naïve majoritarian system of governance that can easily lead to oppression, and even persecution, of unpopular individual and minority voices. The book is called Keeping a Free Republic: Learning the Blueprint for Liberty in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights
. It is on sale right now at Amazon, for $6.25 in paperback and $0.99 as a Kindle download, the lowest prices allowed by the publisher for this 130-page book. (Click here to find Keeping a Free Republic
at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution/dp/1724679082/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1536890421&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com