Constitutional reform

[flaja]

Attainder of Corruption:
The assets of any person, and the spouse and children thereof, who has held any office of public trust or profit under the U.S. or under any one of the several states, may be seized in accordance with law upon that person’s criminal conviction of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

Requirements for electors for all offices of public trust in the United States:
1. U.S. citizen
2. 21 years old or serving in the armed forces of the United States
3. 1 year a resident in the state and district wherein the election is conducted
4. Not been convicted of any felony under the United States or under any one of the several states providing that the President of the United States and the Executive authority of the state wherein the person resides have removed this disability
5. Demonstrate once in every term of 6 years the competency which Congress may require for naturalized citizens
6. Pay a poll tax not to exceed $20 dollars or a higher amount established by Congress at the time of the election
7. Register with authorities which Congress may designate to maintain elector records
8. Be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state wherein they reside

General office eligibility for all offices of public trust under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of any one of the several states:
1. Native born U.S. citizen
2. Resident of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to two times the term of the office sought at the time of election
3. Has not served as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years prior to the time of election (lawyers cannot seek public office)
4. Has not served in any other office of public trust under the U.S. or any one of the several states within a period of six years prior to the time of election (cannot leave one office to serve in another)
5. Has not served as a officer in any publicly traded corporation within a period of six years prior to the election (reduce corporate influence over government)
6. Receive a majority of the votes cast in the election for the office sought except when offices are assigned in proportion to the votes cast (I support proportional representation for all multi-seat elected government bodies)
7. Has not served more than two consecutive terms in the office sought
8. May not serve as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years after the expiration of the term of the office held (lawyers cannot profit by litigation that results from laws they supported while in office)
9. May not serve as an officer or board member of any corporation for a term of 10 years after leaving office (a politician cannot be rewarded by corporations they aided while serving in public office)

Additional requirements per office:
Eligibility to serve as President
Attained the age of 50 years

Eligibility to serve as U.S. Representative
Attained the age of 21 years

Eligibility to serve as U.S. Senator
Attained the age of 40 years


Alternative Parliamentary system:

Senate:
1. One senator from each state appointed by the executive authority therein with the advice and consent of the legislature therein.
2. Four-year term.
3. One-quarter of the senators chosen every year.
4. No power to originate legislation or amend legislation that has been approved by the House of Representatives.
5. Shall have the power to try all impeachments under such rules as the House of Representatives may devise. Conviction by 2/3 of all Senators. Impeached person is to be immediately removed from office and subject to civil and criminal penalties that may apply.

House of Representatives:
1. Each state will have 1 representative for every 200,000 votes cast therein for President in the last election.
2. Chosen by proportional representation with allowances for write-in and no party candidates.
3. Term shall be concurrent with the term of the President and may not to exceed 5 years.
4. Term shall begin on the 6th Tuesday after the last election for representatives.
5. Have the power to determine the date on which the President and Representatives are chosen by issuing a writ of election, but the election must be held on 13th Tuesday after the writ is issued and no more than 1 election may be held within any period of 6 months.
6. Shall have no power to alter legislation that is submitted by the President.
7. Shall have the power of impeachment.

President:
1. Chosen by popular vote providing that the winning candidate wins a majority of the national vote and a majority of the vote in a majority of the states.
2. Chosen by the House of Representatives with each state having 1 vote in the event that no candidate wins a majority in a majority of the states.
3. Term shall be concurrent with the term for Representatives and may not to exceed 5 years.
4. Term to begin on the 6th Tuesday after the last election.
5. Have the power to determine the date on which the President and Representatives are chosen by issuing a writ of election, but the election must be held on 13th Tuesday after the writ is issued and no more than 1 election may be held within any period of 6 months.
6. Have the power to introduce legislation in the House of Representatives.

 

[Avatar4321]

On what basis do you advocate this random and very clearly arbitrary changes?

 

[USViking]

Attainder of Corruption:
The assets of any person, and the spouse and children thereof, who has held any office of public trust or profit under the U.S. or under any one of the several states, may be seized in accordance with law upon that person’s criminal conviction of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

USV: NO. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE PROHIBITING
EXCESSIVE FINES SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE. ASSETS AS SUCH
SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE UNLESS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF
"HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS".



Requirements for electors for all offices of public trust in the United States:
1. U.S. citizen

USV: OK (isn't this a requirement now?)



2. 21 years old or serving in the armed forces of the United States

USV: NO. IN FACT PERSONS ON ACTIVE DUTY SHOULD
BE BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE (isn't this so now?-
I have never heard of anyone on active duty holding
public office) THEY HAVE ENOUGH WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY
AS IS.



3. 1 year a resident in the state and district wherein the election is conducted

USV: OK (aren't they now?)



4. Not been convicted of any felony under the United States or under any one of the several states providing that the President of the United States and the Executive authority of the state wherein the person resides have removed this disability

USV: DOES THIS MEAN A PARDONED FELON MAY
RUN FOR OFFICE? IF SO, NO.



5. Demonstrate once in every term of 6 years the competency which Congress may require for naturalized citizens

USV: NO.



6. Pay a poll tax not to exceed $20 dollars or a higher amount established by Congress at the time of the election

USV: NO! POLL TAX?!- WHY? FORGET IT.



7. Register with authorities which Congress may designate to maintain elector records

USV: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?



8. Be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state wherein they reside

USV: DON'T THEY NOW? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?



General office eligibility for all offices of public trust under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of any one of the several states:
1. Native born U.S. citizen

USV: NO. I THINK NATURALIZED CITIZENS SHOULD BE
PERMITTED TO HOLD ANY OFFICE.



2. Resident of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to two times the term of the office sought at the time of election

USV: NO. I AM NOT SURE WHAT IF ANY RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENT I WOULD PREFER, BUT TWO TIMES
THE TERM OF OFFICE SOUGHT IS WAY TOO LONG.

ALSO, THIS CONTRADICTS #3 ABOVE.



3. Has not served as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years prior to the time of election (lawyers cannot seek public office)

USV: NO. I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE DOMINANT ROLE
PLAYED BY LAWYERS, BUT I WOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST ANY PROFESSION ON ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OFFICE.



4. Has not served in any other office of public trust under the U.S. or any one of the several states within a period of six years prior to the time of election (cannot leave one office to serve in another)

USV:NO



5. Has not served as a officer in any publicly traded corporation within a period of six years prior to the election (reduce corporate influence over government)

USV: NO. WE COULD PROBABLY USE MORE BUSINESSMEN
IN OFFICE RATHER THAN LESS.



6. Receive a majority of the votes cast in the election for the office sought except when offices are assigned in proportion to the votes cast (I support proportional representation for all multi-seat elected government bodies)

USV: NO.



7. Has not served more than two consecutive terms in the office sought

USV: YES.



8. May not serve as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years after the expiration of the term of the office held (lawyers cannot profit by litigation that results from laws they supported while in office)

USV: NO. THE RETIRED OFFICIAL MIGHT BE SAID TO PROFIT
FROM SUCH LAWS WHILE WORKING IN ANY OF A NUMBER OF
JOBS, PERHAPS ALL JOBS. A RETIRED POLITICIAN SHOULD BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT HIMSELF.



9. May not serve as an officer or board member of any corporation for a term of 10 years after leaving office (a politician cannot be rewarded by corporations they aided while serving in public office)

USV: NO. SEE #8.

I MIGHT GET TO THE REST LATER.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Most of the "revision" the Constitution needs, is the same "revision" that our immigration laws need: None. We merely have to start obeying what it says. That would be a pretty radical change in and of itself.

But if you really what to change anything in the Constitution, I'd suggest:

1.) Repeal the 17th amendment (popular election of Senators)

2.) Forbid involuntary withholding of income taxes from paychecks. Make it an optional "opt-in" policy for each taxpayer. Withholding won't be done unless the taxpayer specifically asks for it. Everyone else has to send in check(s) on their own. All taxes for a calendar year, must be paid in full by a given resolution day (currently April 15 of the following year). Taxpayers can make weekly or monthly payments if they wish, or can pay a lump sum, or etc.

3.) Mandate that the date for resolution of income taxes (currently April 15) occur between one and seven days before the regular date of national elections (currently the 1st Tuesday in November). One way to accomplish this would be to make Tax Day the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. Or maybe the Friday before the first Tuesday, or etc.

4.) Amend the 14th amendment to say that all persons born within the U.S., one or both of whose parents are U.S. citizens,, are citizens of the U.S.

5.) Insert the word "explicitly" after the word "not" in the 10th amendment, as a sop to those who don't believe the 10th already means exactly that.


Suggestions 2 and 3 above, will work together to reduce government back down to the levels it should be. When people start realizing just how much cash they have to fork over to the govt for the "services" they receive, and are presented with the opportunity immediately afterward to decide just which "services" they want and who should run them, a new equilibrium will be reached, fiarly quickly, and at the direct command of the people.

Suggestion 5 merely helps the process along by pointing out that we agreed to such restrictions long ago. Suggestion 1 restores the Senate to its original primary purpose, which was to protect the sovereignity of the states against an encroaching Federal government.

 

[Hobbit]

Most of the "revision" the Constitution needs, is the same "revision" that our immigration laws need: None. We merely have to start obeying what it says. That would be a pretty radical change in and of itself.

But if you really what to change anything in the Constitution, I'd suggest:

1.) Repeal the 17th amendment (popular election of Senators)

2.) Forbid involuntary withholding of income taxes from paychecks. Make it an optional "opt-in" policy for each taxpayer. Withholding won't be done unless the taxpayer specifically asks for it. Everyone else has to send in check(s) on their own. All taxes for a calendar year, must be paid in full by a given resolution day (currently April 15 of the following year). Taxpayers can make weekly or monthly payments if they wish, or can pay a lump sum, or etc.

3.) Mandate that the date for resolution of income taxes (currently April 15) occur between one and seven days before the regular date of national elections (currently the 1st Tuesday in November). One way to accomplish this would be to make Tax Day the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. Or maybe the Friday before the first Tuesday, or etc.

4.) Amend the 14th amendment to say that all persons born within the U.S., one or both of whose parents are U.S. citizens,, are citizens of the U.S.

5.) Insert the word "explicitly" after the word "not" in the 10th amendment, as a sop to those who don't believe the 10th already means exactly that.


Suggestions 2 and 3 above, will work together to reduce government back down to the levels it should be. When people start realizing just how much cash they have to fork over to the govt for the "services" they receive, and are presented with the opportunity immediately afterward to decide just which "services" they want and who should run them, a new equilibrium will be reached, fiarly quickly, and at the direct command of the people.

Suggestion 5 merely helps the process along by pointing out that we agreed to such restrictions long ago. Suggestion 1 restores the Senate to its original primary purpose, which was to protect the sovereignity of the states against an encroaching Federal government.

I have a better idea. Replace suggestions 2 and 3 with a total repeal of the 16th ammendment. Income taxes are oppressive and anti-capitalistic at best, a mere tool of the class warfare whores most of the time. What we need is a replacement. *cough*FairTax*cough*

 

[Little-Acorn]

I have a better idea. Replace suggestions 2 and 3 with a total repeal of the 16th ammendment.

The idea has some merit. However, coming off income taxes "cold turkey" can hurt a lot. My suggestions really changed no tax structure at all... they merely put people in the position of (a) knowing how much theuy're paying, and (b) being able to do something about it immediately. I believe that the combination of these two, will result in the same thing you're trying to do... except that the people will be able to determine the rate at which we come off the government teat.

I greatly favor the idea that any radical change, must be initiated and directed by the people themselves. My suggestions accomplish that. Mostly be removing the major deceit that politicians put in place in the 1930s to insulate people from their effects.

 

[Hobbit]

The idea has some merit. However, coming off income taxes "cold turkey" can hurt a lot. My suggestions really changed no tax structure at all... they merely put people in the position of (a) knowing how much theuy're paying, and (b) being able to do something about it immediately. I believe that the combination of these two, will result in the same thing you're trying to do... except that the people will be able to determine the rate at which we come off the government teat.

I greatly favor the idea that any radical change, must be initiated and directed by the people themselves. My suggestions accomplish that. Mostly be removing the major deceit that politicians put in place in the 1930s to insulate people from their effects.

www.fairtax.org

It's in the works.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hobbitt, from what I've heard the FairTax proposal simply redistributes the tax burder. It does not lessen it.

The country's biggest financial problem, is that it spends way too much on government programs. Making Peter pay more and Paul pay less, does not change the overall problem.

Showing Peter and Paul just how much they are paying, and reminding them how onerous those payments are, wile giving them a chance to lessen the overall burder on everyone, has the best chance of success IMHO.

 

[Hobbit]

Hobbitt, from what I've heard the FairTax proposal simply redistributes the tax burder. It does not lessen it.

The country's biggest financial problem, is that it spends way too much on government programs. Making Peter pay more and Paul pay less, does not change the overall problem.

Showing Peter and Paul just how much they are paying, and reminding them how onerous those payments are, wile giving them a chance to lessen the overall burder on everyone, has the best chance of success IMHO.

The FairTax makes economic sense, shifts the tax burden, and eliminates income tax as a method of class warfare, not to mention that federal tax will be printed on every reciept you get from products you buy. It makes the tax system transparent, which, in turn gets people wondering what they're paying for. As long as income tax can be used as a cloak-and-dagger pyramid scheme, you're not going to see the cloak come off. In fact, when withdrawal was first introduced, the politicians were so eager to pass it that they a) played on people's patriotism, claiming withdrawal made fighting the war easier, b) paid Disney to make a Donald Duck cartoon praising the benefits of withdrawal, and c) forgave an entire year's worth of taxes just to get it passed. The FairTax is something people can get behind, while making withdrawal an option isn't attractive enough to the common man to create the kind of revolution needed to overturn one of congress' most useful tools.

 

[flaja]

Attainder of Corruption:
The assets of any person, and the spouse and children thereof, who has held any office of public trust or profit under the U.S. or under any one of the several states, may be seized in accordance with law upon that person’s criminal conviction of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

USV: NO. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE PROHIBITING
EXCESSIVE FINES SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE. ASSETS AS SUCH
SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE UNLESS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF
"HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS".

So you think it is OK for someone in public office to rob the government, i.e., the taxpayers, and hide what they have taken by putting it in the names of their spouse and children?

Requirements for electors for all offices of public trust in the United States:
1. U.S. citizen

USV: OK (isn't this a requirement now?)

True, but this requirement doesn’t stop illegals from going to the polls.

2. 21 years old or serving in the armed forces of the United States

USV: NO. IN FACT PERSONS ON ACTIVE DUTY SHOULD
BE BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE (isn't this so now?-
I have never heard of anyone on active duty holding
public office) THEY HAVE ENOUGH WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY
AS IS.

Huh? Do you not know what the term “elector” means? I would allow 18 year-olds to serve in the military, but if you are not in the military you should be 21 before you can vote. This provision has nothing to do with holding public office.

3. 1 year a resident in the state and district wherein the election is conducted

USV: OK (aren't they now?)

Depends on the location; this is not a nationwide reqirment.

4. Not been convicted of any felony under the United States or under any one of the several states providing that the President of the United States and the Executive authority of the state wherein the person resides have removed this disability

USV: DOES THIS MEAN A PARDONED FELON MAY
RUN FOR OFFICE? IF SO, NO.

A pardoned felon could vote. I haven’t thought about baring them from holding public office. As it stands now a pardon erases all legal trace of guilt and restores all civil rights. As far as I know a pardoned felon can hold public office now.

5. Demonstrate once in every term of 6 years the competency which Congress may require for naturalized citizens

USV: NO.

Why not? Why shouldn’t voters take a citizenship test once in a while?

6. Pay a poll tax not to exceed $20 dollars or a higher amount established by Congress at the time of the election

USV: NO! POLL TAX?!- WHY? FORGET IT.

So you want us to allow welfare recipients to vote, thereby giving us office holders that will perpetuate the welfare state?

7. Register with authorities which Congress may designate to maintain elector records

USV: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Registering to vote, which is not required in all places now, i.e., we don’t always have a way to determine ahead of time who is and is not eligible to vote.

8. Be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state wherein they reside

USV: DON'T THEY NOW? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

This is a rather simple concept.

General office eligibility for all offices of public trust under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of any one of the several states:
1. Native born U.S. citizen

USV: NO. I THINK NATURALIZED CITIZENS SHOULD BE
PERMITTED TO HOLD ANY OFFICE.

Even in light of 9-11?

2. Resident of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to two times the term of the office sought at the time of election

USV: NO. I AM NOT SURE WHAT IF ANY RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENT I WOULD PREFER, BUT TWO TIMES
THE TERM OF OFFICE SOUGHT IS WAY TOO LONG.

I want to stop the opportunists like Hillary Clinton who seek to represent a community they have never lived in before seeking public office.

ALSO, THIS CONTRADICTS #3 ABOVE.

No it does not as long as a term of office is not less than a year. By living in a place for two times the length of the term for a public office you would automatically live in the place for year and thus be eligible to vote. For example: If you live in one city for 6 months and then move to another city in the same state and stay there for another 6 months, you would be able to vote for governor, but you wouldn’t be able to vote for congressman if the two cities are in different congressional districts and you wouldn’t be able to vote for mayor in the city you moved to until you have lived there another 6 months.

3. Has not served as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years prior to the time of election (lawyers cannot seek public office)

USV: NO. I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE DOMINANT ROLE
PLAYED BY LAWYERS, BUT I WOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST ANY PROFESSION ON ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OFFICE.

So you don’t mind allowing people whom you know could personally profit by what they do in public office to hold public office?

4. Has not served in any other office of public trust under the U.S. or any one of the several states within a period of six years prior to the time of election (cannot leave one office to serve in another)

USV:NO

Why not? How well did GWB serve the people of Texas while he spent a year running for the White House in 2000? How well can Hillary represent the state of New York if she spends the next 2 years running for president?

5. Has not served as a officer in any publicly traded corporation within a period of six years prior to the election (reduce corporate influence over government)

USV: NO. WE COULD PROBABLY USE MORE BUSINESSMEN
IN OFFICE RATHER THAN LESS.

You mean MBAs like George W. Bush? You are a fool.

6. Receive a majority of the votes cast in the election for the office sought except when offices are assigned in proportion to the votes cast (I support proportional representation for all multi-seat elected government bodies)

USV: NO.

What do you have against democracy? Why are you willing to suffer an office holder who does not have the support of a majority of the electorate?

8. May not serve as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years after the expiration of the term of the office held (lawyers cannot profit by litigation that results from laws they supported while in office)

USV: NO. THE RETIRED OFFICIAL MIGHT BE SAID TO PROFIT
FROM SUCH LAWS WHILE WORKING IN ANY OF A NUMBER OF
JOBS, PERHAPS ALL JOBS. A RETIRED POLITICIAN SHOULD BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT HIMSELF.

If a lawyer writes law, there is bound to be litigation, which will give the lawyer a financial incentive to write laws that are as complicated and convoluted as possible. If you don’t have a problem with this, you are an absolute fool.

9. May not serve as an officer or board member of any corporation for a term of 10 years after leaving office (a politician cannot be rewarded by corporations they aided while serving in public office)

USV: NO. SEE #8.

So you don’t mind letting politicians take bribes?

 

[flaja]

Most of the "revision" the Constitution needs, is the same "revision" that our immigration laws need: None. We merely have to start obeying what it says.

What happens when the Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean? And don’t tell me “original intent” because there is no such thing. The Constitution was intentionally written with a degree of vagueness and not everyone who signed the document interpreted it the same way.

 

[Annie]

What happens when the Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean? And don’t tell me “original intent” because there is no such thing. The Constitution was intentionally written with a degree of vagueness and not everyone who signed the document interpreted it the same way.

There is 'original intent', there is also the 'elastic clause' and other loopholes.

The Constitution is not a 'personal' thing, rather for the 'greater good' something sadly missing from the current inhabitants of this land.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What happens when the Constitution does not mean what you want it to mean?

Words have meaning, and the Constitution is made of them. Certain parts of it mean certain things, whether you like it or not, becuase of the unambiguous meaning of the words. And those parts are NOT vague.

The states and the people retain all powers, except for those assigned to the Fed in the Constitution's text or those forbidden to the states by that same text. And all powers retained by the states and the people, are FORBIDDEN to the Fed govt.

That's the heart of the Constitution. And it's the most-violated part, by persons who try topretend that idea is "flexible" as you are doing.

And don’t tell me “original intent” because there is no such thing.

My, my, So much wishful thinking.

The Constitution was intentionally written with a degree of vagueness

Many parts were not. Nice try.

and not everyone who signed the document interpreted it the same way.

Maybe not, but that ceased to matter once it was ratified. People didn't ratify the Framers' intent. They ratified the words (remember those?) written on the paper. THOSE form the Constitution, and they mostly have definite, clear meaning. Only in the few places they are unclear, or are left deliberately for interpretation by judges ("unreasonable search" etc.), do we move to the next means of interpreting them: The Framers' original intent if it can be determined, which often it can.

Leaving interpretations to the whim of a judge to do whatever he feels is "nice", is about the last criteria that should be used. Sort of like a coin flip to determine who wins the National League West if all other criteria wind up tied. And as such, it should practically NEVER be used.

 

[flaja]

The states and the people retain all powers, except for those assigned to the Fed in the Constitution's text or those forbidden to the states by that same text. And all powers retained by the states and the people, are FORBIDDEN to the Fed govt.

For the sake of argument: What powers, in your view, has the federal government unconstitutionally usurped?

 

[Hobbit]

For the sake of argument: What powers, in your view, has the federal government unconstitutionally usurped?

The power to run its own charities.
The power to regulate education.
The power to fun non-government employees' retirement.
The power to regulate marriage.
The power to regulate abortion.
The power to regulate medicine.
The power to regulate agriculture.
The power to regulate manufactured products.
The power to regulate broadcasts.
The power to fund unpopular broadcasts.
The power to enforce racial discrimination.
The power to buy crappy art.

Shall I continue?

 

[flaja]

The power to run its own charities.

Such as? Be specific.

Things like Social Security and unemployment insurance count as regulating interstate and international commerce, one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

The power to regulate education.

If the federal government has no power to regulate education, why was the national government doing it several years before the Constitution was even written, i.e., Northwest Ordinance?

And why did the Constitutional Convention refrain from giving Congress a specific power to create a national university because it was concluded late in the Convention that Congress would already have this power based on how the Constitution was already written?

And just why did President George Washington ask Congress to either create a national university or give financial aid to state universities in one of his State of the Union messages?

The power to fun non-government employees' retirement.

Fun? Fund? The power to regulate interstate and international commerce, one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

The power to regulate marriage.

U.S. Constitution Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Apart from fulfilling its constitutional power to regulate the effect of the states’ respective public acts, records and judicial proceedings, how has the federal government regulated marriage?

The power to regulate abortion.

The power to see to it that the states provide their citizens with due process of law before denying them life or liberty. Also, the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

[quote[The power to regulate medicine.
The power to regulate agriculture.
The power to regulate manufactured products.[/quote]

The power to regulate interstate and international commerce, one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

The power to regulate broadcasts.

Broadcast airwaves are considered public property in the U.S. I don’t particularly agree, but as it stands such regulation counts as regulation of interstate and international commerce, one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

The power to fund unpopular broadcasts.

Such as? Be specific.

The power to enforce racial discrimination.

If you are talking about affirmative action I agree.

The power to buy crappy art.

Art is the eye of the beholder.

Shall I continue?

Why bother? You don’t seem to have actually read the document you wish to say we are not following.