The Liberty Amendment has been around since 1949. Needless to say it was always a good idea:
Do we need amendment to protect our liberty?
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:01 pm
FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake Daily Inter Lake
Note: You can read the entire history of the Liberty Amendment at The Liberty Amendment
Do we need amendment to protect our liberty? - Daily Inter Lake: Frank
The welfare state has grown into a colossus devouring every liberty in sight in the more than 60 years since it was first proposed. The Liberty Amendment (LA) as written tried to address two government attacks on liberty in a pre-welfare state America; hence, the idea behind the LA is good while the wording needs to be updated.
The first government attack on liberty is funded by income taxes; so Im not certain how effective the LA will be as long as the XVI Amendment remains the law of the land. The government; i.e., the courts had a century to build a maze of XVI Amendment tunnels undermining liberty. It would take at least a century after ratification to close off every tunnel. Heres one example:
Tax dollars fund Hillarycare II. Countless companies in the healthcare industry are traded on Wall Street. A strict interpretation of the LA would stop tax dollars from going to those companies. Wall Street would then argue that healthcare companies receiving tax dollars is not the same thing as the government engaging in competition with its citizens. Case after healthcare case would drag through the courts for decades, and thats just one tunnel the government has for use against liberty.
Heres another tunnel:
The First Amendment guarantees a free press. It does not guarantee public funding with tax deductible advertising dollars. On top of Wall Streets healthcare interpretation of competition, media lawyers will add First Amendment protection. You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to know the court will rule for the media on that one. It will take a lot more than the Liberty Amendment to close off the media tunnel undermining liberty.
The second part of the amendment was necessary in 1949 because of US membership in the United Nations. I cannot prove this, but Ill wager the UNs tyrannical 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights had a lot to do with the thinking behind the Liberty Amendment. Since 1948, UN treaties have become the biggest external threat to individual liberties.
Traditional treaties between two nations is an obstacle to an updated LA must overcome. Once a treaty is ratified it becomes the law; so the wording in the LA has to distinguish between nation to nation treaties and treaties with International organizations even after the United Nations is gone. Treaties with organizations of every stripe should be unlawful forever.
Let me close with an excerpt from a most informative article by Dr. James P. Lucier, Sr. The following three sentences are the reason every candidate for federal office, and every judge nominated to the federal bench, must be required to state clearly where they stand on US membership in the United Nations. These three sentences also show why the governments media owned by billionaires works against the American people and against individual liberties:
Withdrawing from the United Nations
Withdrawing from the United Nations
Do we need amendment to protect our liberty?
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:01 pm
FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake Daily Inter Lake
Note: You can read the entire history of the Liberty Amendment at The Liberty Amendment
Do we need amendment to protect our liberty? - Daily Inter Lake: Frank
The welfare state has grown into a colossus devouring every liberty in sight in the more than 60 years since it was first proposed. The Liberty Amendment (LA) as written tried to address two government attacks on liberty in a pre-welfare state America; hence, the idea behind the LA is good while the wording needs to be updated.
The first government attack on liberty is funded by income taxes; so Im not certain how effective the LA will be as long as the XVI Amendment remains the law of the land. The government; i.e., the courts had a century to build a maze of XVI Amendment tunnels undermining liberty. It would take at least a century after ratification to close off every tunnel. Heres one example:
Tax dollars fund Hillarycare II. Countless companies in the healthcare industry are traded on Wall Street. A strict interpretation of the LA would stop tax dollars from going to those companies. Wall Street would then argue that healthcare companies receiving tax dollars is not the same thing as the government engaging in competition with its citizens. Case after healthcare case would drag through the courts for decades, and thats just one tunnel the government has for use against liberty.
Heres another tunnel:
The First Amendment guarantees a free press. It does not guarantee public funding with tax deductible advertising dollars. On top of Wall Streets healthcare interpretation of competition, media lawyers will add First Amendment protection. You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to know the court will rule for the media on that one. It will take a lot more than the Liberty Amendment to close off the media tunnel undermining liberty.
The second part of the amendment was necessary in 1949 because of US membership in the United Nations. I cannot prove this, but Ill wager the UNs tyrannical 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights had a lot to do with the thinking behind the Liberty Amendment. Since 1948, UN treaties have become the biggest external threat to individual liberties.
Traditional treaties between two nations is an obstacle to an updated LA must overcome. Once a treaty is ratified it becomes the law; so the wording in the LA has to distinguish between nation to nation treaties and treaties with International organizations even after the United Nations is gone. Treaties with organizations of every stripe should be unlawful forever.
Let me close with an excerpt from a most informative article by Dr. James P. Lucier, Sr. The following three sentences are the reason every candidate for federal office, and every judge nominated to the federal bench, must be required to state clearly where they stand on US membership in the United Nations. These three sentences also show why the governments media owned by billionaires works against the American people and against individual liberties:
Withdrawing from the United Nations
Withdrawing from the United Nations
