Amend to That
Neal Boortz is suggesting new amendments to the Constitution.
The popular libertarian response to the"what amendments would you add" question is that we really only need to add one more, which would say,"and we mean it."
I agree with Boortz on repealing the 17th Amendment. I'd also repeal the 16th. I'd probably add something in the language of the repeal of the 16th that would forbid government on any level from income withholding. There's really no reason for government to know how much money we make. And it's outright theft that government should be able to earn interest on our income by collecting our taxes early.
I like the Bricker Amendment, and the eminent domain and forfeiture amendments, too.
I have two others:
1) An amendment forbidding the delegation doctrine. That is, Congress can't delegate its lawmaking power to federal agencies. Make Congress vote on every federal regulation which carries the force of law. Maybe then we can begin to cut down on those 10,000+ pages in the Federal Register.
2) An amendment that would sunset every law on the books five years after it's passed, unless Congress voluntarily sunsets the law in a shorter period of time. Make every federal agency, program, handout, regulation and law come up for review -- if not, it expires. There's no way Congress could keep up the laws already on the books and still pass more laws at the same time. Thus, only the most important laws would get reviewed and repassed. The others go away. Fewer laws. More freedom.
Jonathan Dresner - 2/26/2004
The sunset provision would just escalate the scale and influence of lobbying.
And, about a year before the first sunset deadline they would pass the first annual "omnibus extension act" (or, as they'd likely call it, the "Government Continuity Act") like they now handle the ongoing budget logjam.