On January 30th, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX 14th) introduced H. J. RES. 15 - The Liberty Amendment to the US House.
(See Congressman Paul's introduction of the Amendment here)

I'm realistic and understand this asking a lot of people to give up a lot of power. Unless we hammer the Judiciary Committee into moving this along it will die there.

I would be interested in debating the merits nevertheless. Is this what America needs right now?

And for those of you who have already made up your minds, write your Representative.

Gawd no. This would cripple the government and force us into isolationism. It also migth strip the government of all regulatory power in business as well as undermine my plan to nationalize health care, just proposed five minutes ago!

I think it is a great idea, though it will never pass. At least Ron Paul is trying to make people aware of how far government has strayed from the constitution.
It won't pass because too many congressman are beholden to special interests and reelection.

Government should be held to the standard of the 10th Amendment to the constitution. But, alas, it shall never be...........

Shouldn't the government be held to the standard of the ENTIRE constitution, not just the single section which speaks to your political ideology?

I'm confused by this question. What do you mean by that?

Allow me to clarify.....I think the government should be held to the ENTIRE constitution, it ALL happens to speak to my political ideology. But Rep. Paul's bill speaks specifically to the 10th Amendment, IMO.

The Tenth Amendment provides that " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

I'll clarify. The thrust of the Bill in question seems to be a return to the "values" of an extremely minimalist government. Yes the 10th amendment speaks to minimize the powers of the federal government; but other parts of the constitution spell out that government CAN tax income, and it does provide certain services. This bill (as it seems to me) would essentially take the 10th amendment and use it to supercede the actions of government that are provided for in the constitution.

I like the idea that the bill will open up debate on the federal government's role for the past century and the present century as it unfolds.

If government was not involved in "business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise" over the past century, small towns and rural areas would still not have electricity. The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) resulted in a Supreme Court decision that allowed the government to compete with private electricity firms. Had the plaintiff in the case (a private electric company) won, kerosene lamps and washboards would still be staple items in country general stores.

The Interstate Highway system would never have been built.

The Internet would have never been built out for commerce. It would have stayed a national defense system closed to the public.

I suppose it can be argued that we were doing just fine without these things. I suppose it can be speculated that private enterprise would have come up with the ideas--if they were good ideas.

But just remember the TVA example. If business can't make a profit, it won't be done.

What will the 21st century bring to us? Will we depend on profit motives to meet our needs? Or are there big projects that can only be brought about by synergetic work done by both government and private enterprise?

These are tough questions worthy of the debate. Can we be convinced that rolling back the constitutional clock to the 19th century is in our best interests? What might the future look like if we do this?

I know that the Libertarians will have much to say about this bill.

I have to basically disagree with the premise that "if not for.......then we would never have......."

All of the material things that we enjoy today that were based on military or government plans or concepts would have been possible coming from the private sector. I've seen this argument used in debates on other topics, and I just don't think it stands up.

But even though it will never pass, I hope, like AuthorMusician, that this will stimulate debate on the proper role of government.

What parts - other than the 16th amendment?

I was under the impression that a major motivation behind the rebellion against British power that resulted in Independence and the Constitution was the (entirely reasonable) "No taxation without representation".

The implication behind this is, or was, clearly that taxation is acceptable so long as taxpayers' views on how the money should be spent are represented. (As an aside, and possible a new thread topic, does anyone believe that independence would not have been required had the 13 colonies had Westminster MPs?)

Is this proposed amendment going beyond this idea to the (now very fashionable, on the political right at least) idea that taxation itself is is not even a necessary evil, but just an evil?

Or even, is the contempt (or even terror) with which some Americans on the political right regard your own federal government evidence that you do not feel represented by it, and therefore do not wish to be taxed by it (in the spirit of the Boston tea party)?

Might, then, the solution not be wholesale reform not of the taxation system, but of the constitution itself?

DTOM,



So you dismiss any argument based on this premise?

Examples of private industry doing something really big and getting it out to the most people, without government help? There must be some

Julian,



I've seen some pretty good arguments against the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) coming from Libertarians. I suppose that represents the right-leaning side of this party that attracts both liberals and conservatives. I'm just not sure that when it comes down to brass tacks, the right-wing folks will really want to do away with the income tax. A lot of investment depends on the national debt (interest payments), and a lot of commerce is tied to SS numbers (even though this is supposed to be illegal).

Abolishing the income tax will shake up the economic status quo tremendously. I don't think fiscal conservatives want this to happen, at least without fully thinking out the proposals.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

The U.S. Constitution

I think this is an excellent idea, it could help top stimulate the economy. (if I pay 10,000 in income tax, that is 10,000 less I have to buy things, things like cars, tvs, computers, or I could invest it etc, etc...) eliminating income, estate and gift taxes would not hurt the government too badly (we should repeal the federal reserve act first, so we can dissolve the massive (6.4 trillion) debt we owe them, including interest{which is where your taxes really go) we could make a nation wide sales tax (at say, 3%) in edition to state and local sales taxes, with the elimination of the income tax, people could spend more, having to pay that national sales tax.

I don't know if the government should be banned from competing with private citizens and companies. who would pay for a hospital in a small mountain town (private companies will only start a business if it is profitable, and tiny mountain "hospitals" aren't extremly profitable) or who would provide electricity to these same types of places.

unabomber


Wherever did you get this idea that the national debt is owed to the Fed?

To All:
I still haven't gotten one example of private enterprise doing something really big for (or to?) this country (like interstate highway system or Internet). Might I give a few examples then? Okay.

1) Ford and the Model T, leading to exported jobs
2) Coal and our 51% dependency on it for electricity
3) Burning/poisoned rivers and lakes
4) Suburban sprawl
5) Global warming

Well, perhaps I am a bit prejudiced

But if there is no income tax, how will the gov't get the money that they need to serve the American people? [I'm up in the air about this, my question was not to make DTOM seem wrong]

CP

I think my signature kind of covers how much government spending should not exist. (See Below)

by taxing imports and exports, taxing the income of people that are employed by foreign companies (IE companies that are based outside the us)sales taxes, to name a few.

Why tax the income of people employed by foreign companies? I don't think a national sales tax is a great idea. It forces poor people to pay more than rich people. That isn't fair. I can't see how high tariffs would help our economy either. High tariffs to protect our industry will just weaken competition and quality.

What the constitution specifies is up to interpertation. I think this amendment is uneccesary. It just says you need to follow the constitution. The judial system will still be able to interpret what the constitution allows.

Yes, the Liberty Amendment would force a radical downsizing of government. That's why I'm for it.

And no, there was no federal power to tax income before the 16th Amendment, else they wouldn't have bothered passing the 16th Amendment.

Props to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for introducing it. Someone had to to keep the dream alive.