Tax Limitations Constitutional Amendment

Introduction:
The Tax Limitations Amendment to the Constitution was a proposed amendment during the 107th Congress.

Full Text:

Article--

SECTION 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members of that House voting and present, unless that bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For the purposes of determining any increase in the internal revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of an effective rate of any tax. On any vote for which the concurrence of two-thirds is required under this article, the yeas and nays of the Members of either House shall be entered on the Journal of that House.

SECTION 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive this article when the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. Any increase in the internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be effective for not longer than two years.'.

Supporters:
200 members of the House. Including Dr. Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, etc

Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7] voted Aye.
Rep. Jim DeMint [R-SC4] voted Aye.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10] voted Nay.
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14] voted Aye.

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally support the Tax Limitations Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:

The Real First Amendment

Introduction:
When our Founders envisioned the House of Representatives, they did not assume that the number of people represented by a representative would increase. During the first Congress, one representative represented 62,000 people. This was supposed to be a constant, and as such, the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights - also known as Article the First - was proposed. It would have one representative per 60,000 people. In a modern context, that increases the current 435 to 6200+. Too much you say? Well remember your representative, yes - your representative, has only a mere 700,000+ people he "represents" at present. No wonder you've never met him!

No taxation without representation!

Full Text:

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Supporters:
Patriots, the Founders.

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally support the Article the First - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

“...the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of more than six hundred members.”
— James Wilson, November 30, 1787
Delegate to the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania,
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment

Introduction:
The title says it all.

Full Text:

Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

Section 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

Section 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Supporters:
?

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally reject the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
?

Death Penalty Abolition Amendment

Introduction:
The title says it all.

Full Text:

The death penalty shall not be imposed by the United States, or by any State, Territory, or other jurisdiction within the United States.

Supporters:
?

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally reject the Death Penalty Abolition Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
?

Child Labor Amendment

Introduction:
The Child Labor Amendment emerged from the 1920's Debate over the issue. On the opposing side were urban Catholics & Populists, in support were most Republicans but also Socialists.

The debate can be summed up as Jefferson v. Washington D.C.

Full Text:

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

Supporters:
?

Personal Comments:
I am undecided on the Child Labor Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
http://mises.org/etexts/childlabor.pdf

Bricker Amendment

Introduction:
The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950's, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat -- and they hit upon a solution: the Bricker Amendment.

Full Text:

• Section 1. No treaty of executive agreement shall be made respecting the rights of citizens of the United States protected by this Constitution or abridging or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
• Section 2. No treaty or executive agreement shall vest in any international organization or in any foreign power any of the legislative, executive, or judicial powers vested by this Constitution in the Congress, the President, and in the courts of the United States, respectively.
• Section 3. No treaty or executive agreement shall alter or abridge the laws of the United States or the Constitution of laws of the several unless, and then only to the extent that, Congress shall so provide by joint resolution.
• Section 4. Executive agreements shall not be made in lieu of treaties.
  • Executive agreements shall, if not sooner terminated, expire automatically one year after the end of the term of office for which the President making the agreement shall have been elected, but the Congress may, at the request of any President, extend for the duration of the term of such President the life of any such agreement made or extended during the next preceding Presidential term.
  • The President shall publish all executive agreements except that those which in his judgment require secrecy shall be submitted to appropriate committees of the Congress in lieu of publication.
• Section 5. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Supporters:
Most Conservatives, including Ron Paul since the 1970's.

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally support the Bricker Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
?

Titles of Nobility Amendment

Introduction:
The Titles of Nobility Amendment was proposed in 1810 to affirm American opposition to foreign rule. In a sense, the amendment is already part of the Constitution. This is unlikely to be passed anytime soon.

Full Text:

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Supporters:
Unknown

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally support the Titles of Nobility Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
?

Blaine Amendment

Introduction:
The Blaine Amendment stresses separation of church and state, including in respect to funding. Proposed by Senator & Republican Presidential Nominee, James G. Blaine.

Full Text:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

Supporters:
Unknown

Personal Comments:
I unequivocally support the Blaine Amendment - Smart aka Reuven.

Links:
http://www.blaineamendments.org/Intro/whatis.html