We need to recognize that while technological advancements can make our lives easier, increased convenience often brings new challenges.  Back when I used to ride my dinosaur to vote, there were paper ballots that we marked with a pencil and fed them into a counting machine. That machine automatically read the shaded areas and tallied the votes of each and every ballot. When the polls closed, machines were all taken to the Registrar’s office, and the totals from each machine were all added together. Even with some delays, counting normally finished and results were announcement by midnight, even in a presidential election.

We have now added computerized lists, automated transmittal of results, online voting, and extended election seasons rather than just one day. All this is supposed to make it easier to participate in one of the most basic duties of American citizens. Added convenience by forces bent on destruction of our American Republic result in fraud and abuse. The gordian knot of regulations, procedures, and outcomes is draining the life out of political debate.

This is how California has become ground zero in the effort to destroy capitalism and install socialism in America

The Los Angeles Mayor race is a prime example of what happens in a system cut loose from truth and integrity. The so-called “jungle primary” systems puts all candidates for a position on one ballot in a primary. This often guarantees failure of any candidate to garner more than 50% of the vote, and the general election will be between the top two vote getters. When candidates in a primary include multiple Democrats, a few independents, and one Republican, the general election is likely to be between two Democrats.

Governor Gavin Newsom has also altered reality to allow every voter to receive a mail in ballot. There are still people voting in person for weeks leading up to the primary, and on election day, so every ballot mailed in must be double and triple checked to verify it is from a registered voter who did not also vote in person. The weeks added to vote counting leave open opportunities to ensure enough votes are “found” to shut out any candidate other than the one establishment power mongers want to win.

I am a careful Constitutional conservative, so if California wants to maintain their ride on the Crazy Train, I don’t wish to interfere with their liberty. Just do not ask other states to pay for it and certainly do not export the insanity across our borders.

Subscribe to my website to receive new posts and updates automatically.

The post Time to Get Off of the Crazy Train appeared first on Language of Liberty.

Learn more about my book

The post New Book Endorsement Released Today appeared first on Language of Liberty.

The effectiveness of Article V to safely and peacefully amend our Constitution is a well-established reality. We have successfully amended the Constitution twenty-seven times. Those amendments enshrine personal liberty in our Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10), Outline federal limits judicially (Amendment 11), Reform Presidential election process (Amendment 12), and correct state attempts to curtail rights for some citizens (Amendments 13-15).

It was not until Amendments 16 and 17 (passed in 1913), that Congress began to claw away at individual liberty with a direct tax on income (forbidden by the original Constitution) and moving the U.S. Senate from a representative of states to a powerful superseding democracy body controlled by high population centers that could override state authority.

With Congress having direct authority to levy taxes on individuals, the control of wealth was transferred from those earning it to those spending it. I am still amazed that so few people grasp the reality of this enormous power shift.

Amendment 17 took a further step to centralize federal power by having Senators elected by statewide voting rather than State Legislature appointment. This idea started around 1908 but did not gain the required two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress until 1912. The proponents of this change sold it to the public on the idea that powerful special interests within state governments were taking power from the people by not allowing them to vote for who would represent them in the US Senate.

On the basis of increasing citizen input on government the amendment was ratified by the required three-fourths of state legislatures. What it became was something entirely different than how it was presented. Large population centers with well organized political parties were able to have much more influence of selection of Senators than they had under the previous system. In other words, the reality has become the exact opposite of what it was claimed to be.

Amendment 18 installed prohibition and launched the largest criminal syndicates in history to their greatest power supplying bootleg whiskey. This amendment was a colossal failure from the beginning, but was not repealed for fourteen years, in 1933 by Amendment 21.

Between the birth and death of prohibition, Amendment 20 changed the time for beginning presidential terms from March to January. This shortened the time between November elections and Inaugurations.

Amendments 22-26 were added between 1951 and 1971 and covered needed changes.

• Amendment 22 limits Presidents to two terms. This resulted to FDR having been elected four times.
• Amendment 23 granted presidential electors to the District of Columbia.
• Amendment 24 outlawed poll taxes which had been used in some states to exclude minorities from voting.
• Amendment 25 deals with the process of temporary suspension and restoration of a President for incapacity.
• Amendment 26 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

Amendment 27 holds the record for the longest running ratification journey of all. The limitation of Congressional pay raised was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789. By 1792 only six states had ratified the amendment, but since it had no expiration date, the measure was still alive and sat dormant for 190 years. In 1982, Gregory Watson, a sophomore at the University of Texas submitted a paper proposing to seek additional ratification votes in states. Despite receiving a C grade on the paper, Watson launched a self-financed effort and began writing to state officials to ask them to ratify the amendment. Finally, in May of 1992, Maine became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the amendment, and it sits as the last Amendment to our Constitution.

This detailed listing of amendments is intended to show that throughout our history, the Constitution has been amended many times, and whether we personally agree with some amendments, the fact remains that Article V of the Constitution has been used to allow peaceful adjustments to our government. There is no reason to doubt the safety or efficacy of Article V process in securing needed changes to the Constitution.

Why then have we only used one of two methods for proposing amendments that Article V contains? Congress is clearly authorized to “propose” amendments that must then be ratified by the people of the states either through their legislatures, or state conducted conventions. Twenty-six of the twenty-seven amendments have been ratified by state legislatures. Only Amendment 21- repealing prohibition was put out for ratification by state conventions rather than legislatures. That move was so state lawmakers could avoid taking responsibility for opening up the bars and saloons.

The Article V provision for states to call for a convention of states to propose amendments has been often attempted. In fact, thousands of resolutions by state legislatures to have an amendment convention have been issued, but the required two-thirds of states has never been reached for a given subject or proposed amendment. Many of the Amendments proposed by Congress began as state resolution efforts, but we adopted by Congress before the required states acted. Primary examples of these are prohibition and its repeal, presidential term limits and lowering the voting age.

Here is the exact text of Article V

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 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 thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The final sentences of Article V prohibit amendments regarding slavery until 1808, and bar any amendment denying equal state representation in the Senate.

The seventy-eight words of Article V dealing with amendment process are complete instructions for making changes to the Constitution. There is no reasonable person who believes the amendment process is flawed in any way.

The catch is however that objection is raised continually to the following 20 words:

…”or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

 Why is opposition so strenuous against states proposing amendments? The simple truth is that given the entrenched power structure of the federal government, Congress is never going to propose amendments to limit the power and wealth of the federal bureaucracy.

We will never see an amendment to limit congressional or judicial terms, balance the federal budget, reduce regulatory strangulation, or curtail the burgeoning debt. There is simply too much power, money, and influence at stake to allow that to happen. That is why the framers included the state convention option to propose amendments. That option needs to be used as soon as possible. For more information and details about this powerful tool that remains within our grasp, there is a wealth of resources available at www.conventionofstates.com.

The post A More Perfect Union – Part Three appeared first on Language of Liberty.

We have been taught to see what is presented and believe it is real because of how we feel at that moment. As long as we accept that reality and act on our feelings, we will keep getting what we are trying to avoid.

Feeling produces Trump Derangement Syndrome on the left, and Democrat Derangement Syndrome on the right. If today’s political arena were a football game, the turf would be worn out between the two 45-yard lines and players would be worn out, ragged and bloodied on both teams; but the scoreboard would read Home-0, Guest-0.

It is time for the broad majority of people from all sides of the political mess to decide that changes need to be made immediately or this will never get any better for either side. America does not need to replace people to fix this, we need to repair the system. Our Constitution still works if it is applied. That document is not a stick to hammer our opponents; it is a tool to effectively stop a runaway government and return it to its clear boundaries. There are individuals and groups who are calling out for this kind of peaceful, legal, Constitutional effort, and each of us must decide if we will continue to battle each other with our feelings or win the game with reason, respect, and shared values.

The post Stop Feeling and Start Thinking appeared first on Language of Liberty.

Article Four still guarantees equal recognition of all states by the others, and especially in Section Four, mandates that each state have a Republican form of government. That means that citizens shall be represented equally and proportionally in their state legislatures. That requirement mimics the Federal system of having equal citizen power and proportional regional representation. This is significant because here we see the Federal system demonstrating that the Federal government is a Republic, and that each state shall be governed by those same principles. Each state as well as the Federal government is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Article Six is where the Federal government assumes responsibility for the debts of states taken on before the Constitution was ratified. Those debts were incurred as part of state participation in fighting Britain for our independence. Article six also contains the supremacy clause intended to protect citizens from state efforts to limit their liberties and curtail their prosperity. In other words, states cannot pass laws that counteract federal laws.

Article Seven deals only with the method of ratification of the Constitution and has no further effect on citizens or government departments.

You probably noticed that I skipped over Article V. That was deliberate because that Article is the control valve for states and citizens to use when the federal systems runs off the rails.

The text of Article Five has not changed even one word since being ratified in 1789. Amending the Constitution is provided to ensure continued adherence to the limited government outlined. The founders were wise enough to know new laws would be needed, and future growth would require additional government systems and activities.

The process of amending the Constitution is intended to allow for needed changes without making a new Constitution. This is still not a perfect system, but just as our forebears did, we continue to strive for a “more perfect union.

The post A More Perfect Union – Part Two appeared first on Language of Liberty.

When the Constitution was finally adopted by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, ratification was far less than certain. The Federal system proposed did offer security for the states in case of attack by foreign adversaries, and against rebellious encroachment by neighboring states; but it was still more government than many states were willing to accept. Objections to the Constitution were swift and strong. Virginia was a leader of the anti-federalist movement that insisted on individual liberties being listed in the document to ensure the federal government would not seek to limit the idea of self-governance that had become the foundation of society, particularly in Virginia.

Patrick Henry strongly opposed the ratification and led the antifederalist movement until an agreement was reached that after ratification, the first Congress would respond to insistence by the states and propose a list of individual rights that could not be infringed by the federal government.

An extended debate in legislatures and public media by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Virginia’s own James Madison attempted to reassure states that the federal government had specific enumerated powers and states were authorized to address any variances from the plan through their Congressional Representatives and Senators. Those assurances failed to convince many state leaders and compelling arguments against ratification were widely circulated.

The scales tipped in favor of ratification after agreement was reached that states would propose amendments spelling out individual rights and the first Congress would submit a Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. Virginia was the 10^th state to ratify four days after New Hampshire, which finalized adoption of the Constitution for these United States of America. North Carolina and Rhode Island held out for more than an additional year before joining the union of states.

Throughout the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Delegates continually raised concerns about the power of a federal government over sovereign states. In their mind, states were not subdivisions of a national government, but fully independent governments that sought to join their efforts for common defense and combined resources. When it came to the matter of proposing amendments to the Constitution, James Monroe insisted that in addition to Congress having power to propose amendments, the states be authorized to assemble to propose amendments.

In the final analysis, the final authority of government was not to rest in a national capital, but with the one power seen as the final authority of government, the people through their state legislatures.

With a new Constitution ratified, and a Bill of Rights included, this new Republic was set on a course that achieved more power and wealth in its first century than had ever seen in other governments established hundreds of years or even centuries longer. The inevitable corruption George Washington warned about began very quickly. This freshly minted Republic controlled by its sovereign states devolved into political parties in less than a decade. Political Parties were established by the election of 1796, and 1800 saw an election controlled completely by well-placed power influences and the light of liberty dimmed a little with each succeeding party driven election.

The post A More Perfect Union- Part 1 appeared first on Language of Liberty.

Detailed proposals have been available for a number of years to change our tax system from its current Progressive individual income tax structure to a flat tax structure. Many of these plans involve a change from taxing income to taxing spending. If this system is applied nationally then the price of goods and services would be taxed, which would raise the price of those goods and services by an average of 15 to 17%. But there would also be the elimination of all taxation from our incomes which would raise the take-home pay by an average of 21 to 25%. Although there are differences in some of these plans and there are issues that need to be debated to make sure we have sufficient revenue to conduct the business of the United States and to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, these fair tax or flat tax proposals are certainly worth serious consideration.

Implementing a system where tax revenues are controlled by what people spend rather than what they earn will allow people to lower their taxes by saving their money. Increased savings and decreased spending helps to generate revenue for investment and fuels positive influences on the national economy. The increased production and business growth will create new jobs which are filled by new tax payers who spend new money and pay the resulting taxes when they spend that money.

While Congress would retain its constitutional power to allocate resources and Revenue by budgeting, they would lose the power to determine what those revenues will be. Under the current system Congress decides what they want to do and then alters the tax code to ensure raising enough Revenue to pay it.

Under a flat tax plan, Congress could reasonably predict what will be received and then decide how they want to spend it. This is the same system that every family in America uses every day. We know what we expect to receive and we plan our spending according to that income. Congress has been allowed for more than a century to budget according to their wishes and desires and then generate income to pay for those wishes and desires. That power of the purse has fueled political influence in the form of campaign donations that buy the power to receive programs and favors in the form of budgetary allotments. When federal spending and budgeting is looked at objectively, a true face of corruption is revealed. The system in place today is not designed to fund the government, it is designed to fuel political power.

When the flow of money is directed by the people paying it rather than the people spending it, budgetary constraints and spending are much more easily achieved. Also, when federal spending no longer renders political favors, donations to buy those favors will no longer be made. Federal budgeting will adhere to sound financial principles once again and political campaigns will have to be run on a lot less money. Lower-cost campaigns for political office will open doors for more good people to seek those offices. Increased competition for congressional seats will have the same effect that increased competition has in business. The more competitive the field, the better the products produced.

If you want higher caliber and better character in members of Congress, that process starts by having the courage to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and return to taxation apportioned by population rather than individual financial success.

The post Give America to the Doers, Not to Donors appeared first on Language of Liberty.