Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.

First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.

Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.

Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.

Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.

Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.

Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.

Article I: Section 3 of the Constitution said: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

The House of Representative would represent the people, while the Senate would represent the interests of the states—the other organ of popular sovereignty. The more populous states, able to swing the House would not be able to run over the others. The House would be reelected every two years giving the people a chance to make quick changes, but the Senate would be in place for six years, representing the states and putting the breaks on an expansive federal government.

In today’s Congress, LA County and New York City have more representation in the House than the combined states of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and both Dakotas. The founders knew this would be a problem because the larger states could dictate to the smaller and since the 17th Amendment this is exactly what has happened. States with larger populations have been able to pass laws based on the interests of their own people, while the smaller states have had no way to fight these efforts—in effect being without representation.

The only hope for the continued freedom of the people of this country is to reign in the federal government. It was not meant to rule the states but to represent them and the people. The preamble to the Constitution tells us the purpose of the federal government:

• To form a more perfect Union
• To establish justice
• To insure domestic tranquility
• To provide for the common defense
• To promote the general welfare
• To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Under the articles of Confederation the United States was the laughing stock of nations. Each state looked after its own interests and saw the other states as competitors on the world stage. By forming this new Union the states would be able to work together as a body seeking the good of all. The states were not to be dissolved into the federal government, but were to be defended, promoted, equalized and empowered through it. The people would speak directly to the state legislatures and to the House of Representatives. The decisions of the House would be counter-balanced by the representatives of the states protecting the interests of smaller populations. This is exactly what the founders intended when they framed our Constitution.

Do you want to do away with unfunded mandates and ear-marks, repealing the 17th Amendment is a great step forward.

For more information check out: Repeal 17