Proposed Amendment Number 1 to be Announced 2 Weeks before the Election
In 2005, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled it was not a violation of the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment for government to use eminent domain to take private property from one individual and transfer it to another in the name of economic development. The case, Kelo v. City of New London, basically gives government the power to take your home, business, or land and sell it to a wealthy developer. In most cases, the owner never receives just compensation for the property. The developer then builds a new structure on the property. Since the structure is new, bigger, and more valuable, government can use the process as a revenue raiser because government can impose a higher tax on the property.
This decision was a gross violation the Founders intent because the purpose of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights was to restrain the powers of government so government could not abuse its powers. As a result of the Kelo decision, government has transformed part of the Fifth Amendment into a revenue raising power.
Private property is the foundation of freedom and cuts across race, gender or party lines. You cannot have freedom without the right to own private property. Thus, the Kelo decision needs to be nullified by a simple one or two sentence amendment to the Constitution.
The new amendment would not replace the Fifth Amendment; it would be an addition to the Amendment relative to eminent domain and restrain government at all levels from taking private property from one individual and transferring it to another in the name of economic development.
According to the Census Bureau, approximately 100 million Americans own their home. For the sake of argument, let's say half of that number represents married or unmarried couples who have co-ownership in the property. The proposed amendment would give, at a minimum, 100-150 million Americans a reason to support McCain and the republicans in the November election because under the Kelo decision, no property is safe from the reach of government.
At the present time, the federal government is in the midst of a massive $700 billion taxpayer bailout of financial institutions. It claims the bailout will help individuals on the verge of losing their homes to foreclosure. Why spend billions of dollars to protect homeowners with one hand if government can use the other hand to take the home away under the Kelo decision?
The proposed amendment would put Obama and the democrats on the horns on a dilemma. If they opposed the amendment, it would obliterate the myth that democrats are the party that supports Main Street and the little guy. If they supported the proposed amendment, it would be an acknowledgment that McCain and the republicans are the visionaries when it comes to devising ways to protect private property from greedy politicians and wealthy developers. In either case, McCain and the republicans would emerge as the winners.
Proposed Amendment Number 2 to be Announced 1 Week before the Election
In 2008, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court struck down a gun ban in the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. In Heller v. District of Columbia, the Court ruled the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right separate and distinct from the militia.
This ruling, unlike the Kelo decision, is more in line with the intent of the Founders but it hangs on a 5-4 decision by the Court. Since 5 of the justices on the Court are over 70 years old, the next President will undoubtedly get the opportunity to nominate [the Senate confirms] some new individuals to the Court. There is a rumor Hillary Clinton will be one of those individuals if Obama is elected. Thus, the Heller decision needs to be set in stone by a simple one-sentence amendment to the Constitution.
The model for this proposed amendment should be Article I, § 19 of the Alaska Constitution.
"Right to Keep and Bear Arms
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]"
The reader will note the amendment is basically the Second Amendment with a bonus sentence to prevent government [and liberals] from misconstruing the intent of the first sentence.
The new amendment would be a modification of the second sentence and include the federal government. It would not replace the Second Amendment; it would simply add an additional sentence to the Amendment. This second sentence would also end the controversy as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the States.
According to estimates, 45-55 million Americans own a firearm. The proposed amendment would give, at a minimum, 45 million Americans a reason to support McCain and the republicans in the November election because their right to own a firearm could disappear if the Court swings 5-4 the other direction under an Obama presidency.
This proposed amendment would also put Obama and the democrats on the horns of a dilemma. If they opposed the amendment, it would negate their newfound claim that democrats support the right of law abiding Americans to own a firearm. If democrats supported the proposed amendment, they would alienate millions of their supporters who oppose the individual right to own a firearm. These individuals might not vote in protest for democratic support of the amendment. Like the other amendment proposed above, democratic support of this amendment would be an acknowledgment that McCain and the republicans are the visionaries when it comes to devising a method to protect the individual right of law abiding Americans to own a firearm. In either case, McCain and the republicans would again emerge as the winners.
Proposed Amendments would Nationalize the Election
An added benefit of proposing these amendments would be the nationalizing of the election for republicans. When an amendment of the Constitution is proposed in Congress, it needs support of two thirds of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives to send the amendment to the States for ratification. After the amendment is submitted to the States for consideration, it requires approval of three fourths (38) of the States to ratify the amendment and make it part of the Constitution. In order for these proposed amendments to clear Congress and be ratified by the States, a President McCain would need republican majorities in both Houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures. Thus, these two proposed amendments would give voters in every State solid reasons to elect republicans at the state and federal level.
According to political pundits, close presidential elections, like this one, are decided in the last two weeks of the campaign. This is the time when many undecided voters look for reasons to support a particular candidate. McCain is behind in the polls and needs a game changing play to reach these voters and shore-up his base. These two amendments could be the play he needs because they would dominate the news cycle for the 2 weeks leading up to the election and put the focus on McCain. He would get extra media time to explain the proposals and discuss the consequences should they fail to pass.
The amendments would also awaken potential voters who were going to sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate. Since the election could be very close in several swing states, these voters could make the difference between winning and losing key electoral votes.
Irrespective of what side Obama took on each amendment, he would be viewed as the loser. If Obama is the champion of Main Street and private property, as he claims, and supports the right of individuals to own a firearm, as he now claims, then why didn't he take the lead and propose the amendments? Where is the change we can believe in?
A Washington politician who stands-up to government and takes the lead in protecting private property and the individual right to own a firearm is the type of change America needs. The question is: Will McCain be the maverick who stands-up for the people or will it be government as usual?
Note-I cannot support Obama because I believe he is a Marxist in sheep's clothes and will only vote for McCain if he takes the action outlined in this article. If McCain and the republicans want our support, then give us something of substance in return. Fat chance.
note: Without the last two words here, this article would not have been
published. There is NO political solution for civilization, now or ever.
Fat chance, indeed.]
comments and feedback are welcome!
Some other, related reading:
Now Available! See Editor's review here.
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights"
$10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax.
Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [at] yahoo.com
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob
Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.
Please see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer.