Proposed – A New Amendment to the Constitution

.
“No branch of Government may compel any Citizen to participate in Commerce, nor may any Citizen be penalized or taxed for choosing not to participate in Commerce.”

That’s my humble submission for a new Constitutional Amendment.

It’s not much; then again, a wise Government teacher once said that when it comes to the Constitution, the less wordy an amendment is, the better.

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if something this simple would pass Constitutional muster, but it seems to me that something along these lines could sail through Congress – and then every State Legistlature - without much fuss at all.

It doesn’t appear to be objectionable in any way, shape, or form, and it would seem to protect every person in this country from governmental overreach.
.

.
In reading over the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare, one statement in one of the rulings*** stood out among all of the rest:

…..it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity.

Read those words again.
WHY did the Constitution not guarantee that right to individuals?
Why shouldn’t it?

Perhaps it was assumed by our Founding Fathers that such a thing would never enter anyone’s mind, but it appears as if we have reached the point where We The People need to rein in our Public Servants so that they are never able to exercise that much power over us.

.
After all, the Constitution IS a “Charter of Negative Liberties” – it spells out what the government is not at liberty to do to the people.

The Government is first and foremost OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.  The Constitution was written to PROTECT the people from their Government.

Perhaps this is what Chief Justice Roberts was trying to tell all of us in his Obamacare ruling – that the government currently has this kind of power, and that it is up to us to take that power away from them.

Can something like this get through the amendment process?
I don’t know.
But I’m willing to find out.

..
***Pp. 41–42, slip op., National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. Sup. Ct. (June 28, 2012)
.
[Cross-posted at RedState]
.

About Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

A short, fat, middle-aged, happily-married, mother of 4 daughters. A former high school valedictorian (way back in the Stone Age), a Civil Engineering major in college, a middle-of-the-road Conservative, and a moderate Methodist. I know just enough to get myself in trouble....
This entry was posted in Elections, I Am Breitbart, I Love America, Just Because, Lying Lawyers, Think about it and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Proposed – A New Amendment to the Constitution

  1. picturerock says:

    I’ll vote for that. That’s two of us, a beginning for sure.

  2. Pingback: Proposed – A New Amendment to the Constitution | RedState

  3. Pingback: SCOTUS Pwns Obama with a “Schrodinger’s Cat” Solution | Koch's Tour

  4. Pingback: SCOTUS Pwns Obama with a “Schrodinger’s Cat” Solution | RedState

  5. Joe Allen says:

    The problem with that is that it leaves a lot of things open to a constitutional challenge, such as vehicle licensing, safety inspections, insurance, professional licensing and certification to name but a few.

    And, by “problem”, I of course mean “totally awesome feature”.

    • Let the lawyers worry about that – the Constitution is there to tell the government what they CAN’T do; at this point, I’m not inclined to make their job any easier…. :P

      And, by “problem”, I of course mean “totally awesome feature”.

      You’re welcome!

  6. MattInTexas says:

    Rewritten to sound more “Constitution-y”, plus a second clause or my own.

    Sec. 1 – “Congress shall make no law that compels any Citizen of the United States to engage in Commerce, nor may any fine, levy, or tax be imposed on a Citizen for choosing not to engage in Commerce.”
    Sec. 2 – “The Executive shall have no power, through order, proclamation, writ, or any other means, to enact and enforce any thing prohibited to Congress by this Constitution, as amended.”

  7. Marla Hughes says:

    If I may suggest my own Amendment:
    Whereas The General Welfare Clause in Article 1 Section 8 was intended to empower Congress to collect such monies as necessary to maintain the general welfare of the nation and The General Welfare Clause shall only mean Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those powers specified in the Constitution as federal powers, this Amendment shall limit Congress’s power of taxation to only those that raise revenues in furtherance of those limited powers specified in the Constitution. All other powers of taxation are reserved to the states and their municipalities.
    In furtherance of this new Amendment, any collection of taxes outside these limits shall immediately be reorganized toward reducing and ultimately eliminating any organizations and regulations that are contrary to the goals cited therein.

    (That last paragraph needs work and I’m open to any suggestions on clarity and further limitations.)

    • I would suggest that a Constitutional Amendment be kept short – something that you can write out 50 times with a quill and ink (which is probably why our Declaration and Constitution are so “short”).

      But I agree with your ideas -

Leave a Reply (Please be nice - my mom reads my blog!)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s