Term limits, absolutely, but for the most part I would clarify the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Example: Fourth Amendment: In other words, no exceptions, no warrant no search or seizure.If we were to have another American Revolution, what would you change about the Constitutions Why and How?
Wasn't the war over Tyrant king/systems and over taxes? So why are we back to square 1 again?Well FreedomVA, i know the UK's British Ambassador is stuck on stupid and the British Parliament thinks it is Trump's fault, but in reality who publicly demeans/derides the reigning leadership of the country they are a guest in and then looks shocked when they get soundly chastised ? [think of the ramifications if our Ambassador to Britain demeaned/derides the royal family ~ that individual would be put in the tower forever!]
France is not a great allied for us to grasp assistance from in our fight.
This coupled with the fact our own government imposed our tax laws on their citizens sooo...
You recommending sedition against the unconstitutional federal entity ~ IRS ?
As for the rejection of the 'aristocracy', eh when 10% of the world's population hold an estimate of 84% of the world's wealth...might be tough to get these 10% to shed their monetarily generated aristocracy environment.
But to your question...
1. I would set the presidency into a triad of individuals each holding a specific specialty, e.g., one - military; one - financial; one - politician if you will. [yes a book was written about the subject years ago.]
2. i would set max two 3 year term limits for Congressional members and their staff.
3. I would set max two 4 year term limits for all the Justices of this nation ~ period!
Agreed, i think the Bill of Rights are very clear in plain English, but somehow over the years, it has been watered down and now it's no longer it's original flavor.Term limits, absolutely, but for the most part I would clarify the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Example: Fourth Amendment: In other words, no exceptions, no warrant no search or seizure.
The real answer is where do I begin?
Er, uh...we have a sovereignty in place in congress and executive branch.Wasn't the war over Tyrant king/systems and over taxes? So why are we back to square 1 again?
Why only 2 party system?
I don't see anything wrong with the Founding US Constitution, just need a handful of originalist to enforce the law of the land then we will be okydokey.
Virginia never ratified either the 16th or the 17th Amendments. I think that the 16th (federal income tax) should stand but the tax laws completely gutted and rewritten without all of the loopholes and rabbit holes to hide in. In my opinion, a straight % of ALL income regardless of socioeconomic status would be better as long as it is less than 10%. I don't know why the 17th is distasteful to you except that it is a large burden on taxpayers that end up footing a lot of the bills for Senate elections... errr never mind. I do think that we need an additional amendment that provides term limits on all government critters.16th Amendment stricken.
17th Amendment stricken.
I would think you might want to rethink your position.Virginia never ratified either the 16th or the 17th Amendments. I think that the 16th (federal income tax) should stand but the tax laws completely gutted and rewritten without all of the loopholes and rabbit holes to hide in. In my opinion, a straight % of ALL income regardless of socioeconomic status would be better as long as it is less than 10%. I don't know why the 17th is distasteful to you except that it is a large burden on taxpayers that end up footing a lot of the bills for Senate elections... errr never mind. I do think that we need an additional amendment that provides term limits on all government critters.
Dreams can still comes trueI would think you might want to rethink your position.
The Supreme Court has held the word "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment and the phrase "gross income" in § 61(a) of the IRC are coextensive. See Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788 (1940) (§ 61 represents the "full measure of [the Congress's] taxing power"). When it first construed those terms in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920), the Supreme Court held the taxing power extended to any "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Later, after explaining that Eisner was not "meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions," the Court added that under the IRC — and, by implication, under the Sixteenth Amendment — the Congress may "tax all gains" or "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-31, 75 S.Ct. 473, 99 L.Ed. 483 (1955).
The word "incomes" has well understood limits. The Supreme Court has broadly construed the phrase "gross income" in the IRC and, by implication, the word "incomes" in the Sixteenth Amendment, but it also has made plain that the power to tax income extends only to "gain(s)" or "accessions to wealth." Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. at 430-31, 75 S.Ct. 473. That is why, as noted above, the Supreme Court has held a "return of capital" is not income. Doyle, 247 U.S. at 187, 38 S.Ct. 467; S. Pac. Co., 247 U.S. at 335, 38 S.Ct. 540. In other words, your labor and your human capital are synonymous, both being your property. 15 USC § 17 - “The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce...” (This section of law was enacted on Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 6, 38 Stat. 731. And it goes all the way back to Jul. 2, 1890.)
However, contrary to the USSC rulings, the IRS says your human capital, your labor has zero value. And, contrary to the USSC rulings, all the lower courts support the IRS's position, a human being's labor, property or human capital is a commodity that has no value. Which means that every “dollar” paid for your labor is income, gross income, gain or profit to the human being, an accession to wealth.
With that said, every human being is paid in FRNs, Federal Reserve Notes. And according to the Treasure Department FRNs have no value.
“Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.”
So, per the IRS, your labor, your property or human capital having zero value means that, according Treasury Dept., the IRS's boss, being paid in FRNs for your labor (goods and services) would be an exchange of zero value FRNs for zero value human labor. In other words, no income, gain or profit.
So, I guess they owe nothing and I owe nothing as it relates to my human value because zero subtracted from zero equals zero.
Let’s see, LE’s, prosecutors, and jurist(s) have QI & don’t need any more judicial protection from their misdeeds, do they?Add 30th Amendment
" Any Federal, State and or local officials whom took an oath to office, shall not circumvent the Law of the land in any manner. They will be committing an act of Treasons against the country and shall be imprisoned for Life or Put to death by public humiliation."