Insightful Political Policy Uniting Americans Putting America First

Unite Liberals and Conservatives With a Nationalist Plan for the American People

If you are watching what is going on in America, you probably have noticed that we Americans are divided on just about everything. Issues that divide us include income inequality and corporate greed, the meaning of the Constitution and the role it plays in government, the amount of government control in our lives, racism, tax policy, immigration, gun control and religion.

Why is America so divided? America is divided because NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY IS DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA. If you keep reading, I will prove it to you.

While some Republicans are starting to see that income inequality is a real issue, they have no idea what to do about it. Democrats try to address income inequality by raising the minimum wage, but how exactly will raising the minimum wage to $10/hr ($20,800 per year), $12/hr ($24,960/yr) or even $15/hr ($31,200/yr) end income inequality?

Why don't Democrats ever fix the problems they campaign on? Democrats win election after election on issues such as racism, income inequality and greedy big businesses then never do anything about them and often make the issues worse.

Republicans believe that a robust free-market economy will lift up the poor, even though there is no evidence to support this belief and the middle class manufacturing job losses caused by Republican free trade policies has decimated the middle class.

Why don't Democrats, who claim to be for the working class and against greedy corporations, ever pass laws forcing corporations to profit share with their working class employees? Instead, Democrats want to raise taxes on corporations because then they themselves get to control how that money is spent which makes them more powerful because others will donate to their campaigns to try to influence how they spend that money.

What if Republicans care more about multi-national corporations than they do about Americans and American workers? It was Thomas Jefferson who said "But merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." so why then don't Jeffersonian conservatives in the Republican party understand that businesses have no allegiance to America? Why do Republicans continue to believe that businesses can do no wrong?

What if racism and income inequality are worse after having a black president for eight years? What if Democrats don't fix racism and income inequality because if they did, there would be no reason to vote for a Democrat? What if the first black president supported excessive immigration to America from Mexico even though Mexican immigrants take jobs from black Americans? What if he did this because unemployed black Americans and immigrants both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats?

Republicans don't realize that doing nothing while businesses move factories to other countries will eventually destroy America because when there is no middle class left and the poor outnumber the wealthy, the poor will vote for fascism, socialism or communism. The substantial popularity of admitted socialist Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democrat primary, the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat party moving even more to the left as seen by the positions of their 2020 presidential candidates, and the facist groups that threaten violence against conservatives and prevent them from speaking are a few of the many signs that many Americans are not benefitting from capitalism. Why do Republicans continue to ignore these signs and side with Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

To regain control over our government and preserve our Republic, we must reject the status quo, put aside our differences and unite behind policies that end our disagreements with each other and benefit ALL AMERICANS. Only the policies in THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST PLAN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that follows will unite the American people and restore America to greatness.

NOTE: What follows is necessarily long in order to adequately explain and justify the new policies that are presented.





THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST PLAN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The new policies that end our disagreements with each other, ends the welfare state by raising up all American workers, ends unconstitutional government, and returns power back to the States and the American people.

1. Change the Relationship Between Business and Government

a) Eliminate All Business Taxes and Business Fees for Political Purposes

Pass legislation to eliminate all business taxes and fees SOLELY FOR POLITICAL REASONS; the economic benefits are just an added bonus. Eliminating all business taxes and fees greatly reduces the problem of money buying influence in government because if businesses don't pay taxes, they don't need to lobby Congress for tax breaks. Eliminate tax breaks as a reason for businesses to donate to political campaigns. As long as businesses pay any amount of tax, there will be businesses buying influence in Congress to get tax breaks. Eliminating all business taxes and fees ends the divisive issue of corporations not paying their fair share of taxes. If corporate taxes are only reduced to 15%, then this issue will not go away and there will always be division among liberals and conservatives and demonization of corporations for not paying their "fair share." Yes businesses use public services such as roads, police and firefighters but WE MUST PUT THAT ASIDE in order to END BUSINESS INFLUENCE OVER CONGRESS and thereby RETURN POWER OVER GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. We will allow businesses to use public services at no cost in exchange for them providing good high paying jobs and ending income inequality (more on this later). When businesses pay no taxes and taxes must be raised because government overspends, the tax rate on INDIVIDUALS will rise and this will result in politicians being held accountable by the voters on election day. When all taxes come from individuals that, whether rich, poor or middle class, pay the same income tax rate with no deductions (more on this later), all Americans will want the small limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Many people don't connect the desire for bigger government with paying higher taxes because they expect others (e.g., corporations, the wealthy) to pay the higher taxes needed for the bigger government they want. Eliminating all taxes and fees on businesses would: Spur economic growth and create jobs instead of funding inefficient government; bring jobs that moved to foreign countries back to America.

Free up time for Congress to work on other issues since no more consideration of corporate tax policy in bills. Helps Congress have the time to return to performing its constitutional duties that it has delegated away (more on this later).

Eliminate the issue regarding double taxation of multinational corporation overseas earnings. Capital can now return to the US without businesses being penalized by the tax code.

Place the corporate (tax) inversion issue on the scrapheap of history.

Allow businesses to focus on profits made from goods and services instead of profits from reducing taxes.

Reduce business costs since businesses no longer would need tax accountants or tax attorneys.

Update machinery and equipment without consideration for depreciation.

Reduce the size of the IRS by 50%.

Taxes will no longer inhibit the growth of new businesses; money previously used by new business startups to pay taxes can now be used to fuel growth and achieve profitability.

Businesses will have additional money to increase employee compensation to end income inequality (see section 2). Any reform that does not completely eliminate business taxes will mean that the money influence in politics will continue because corporate money will be used to influence politicians for tax breaks. Thomas Jefferson was right when he said merchants have no country. Let's stop pretending that businesses are patriotic pro-American companies that will pay large amounts of taxes as their duty to the United States because this has never been and will never be the case.

b) End Crony Capitalism

In this writers opinion, United States Code Title 18 Chapter 11 (Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest) is not stopping our elected officials from being influenced by businesses, likely because those that wrote it and passed it into law knew it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove that a gift received directly influenced the decision made by the elected official. Therefore as done in private industry with employees who make purchasing decisions, require all members of Congress sign a conflict of interest statement for every spending bill they vote on, that indicates they, a family member, friend or anyone they know, has no financial or personal interest (i.e. benefit) in any item being purchased or potentially being purchased. Members of Congress who do not sign the conflict of interest statement forfeit their vote and cannot vote on the bill. Members of Congress found to have violated a conflict of interest statement they signed will be expelled from Congress and receive no congressional pension benefits. Pass a law stipulating that it is unlawful for Congress to help businesses in any way. This law shall make it clear that Congress can help citizens but not businesses. AS LONG AS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO HELP BUSINESSES, THE BUSINESSES WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT FOR FAVORS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER RETAKE CONTROL OF THEIR GOVERNMENT. UNLESS THESE CHANGES ARE MADE, BUSINESSES WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE MONEY, RESOURCES AND POWER THAN THE CITIZENS AND THUS WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE INFLUENCE OVER GOVERNMENT THAN THE CITIZENS. Pass a law stipulating that when creating subsidies, congress will have to show exactly how the subsidy helps CITIZENS. For example, a farm bill that pays farmers to purposely not plant crops (to keep food prices high to help farmers) would be against the law while a farm bill paying (i.e. subsidizing) farmers to overproduce (to increase the food supply to decrease our food prices (to help citizens and farmers)) would be legal, for domestically sold food only. Subsidies will be for goods only sold domestically because money from the American treasury will go to help only American citizens. BUSINESSES WILL NO LONGER PAY ANY TAXES AND THEREFORE SHOULD NO LONGER RECEIVE ANY SUBSIDIES UNLESS THE SUBSIDY IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BENEFITTING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

c) Campaign Finance Reform

To eliminate influence over pending regulations, outlaw campaign contributions to politicians from businesses, political ads paid for by businesses, and business contributions to issue groups or any organization involved in political advocacy. Corporations are not people and do not have free speech rights despite what five out of nine SCOTUS justices thought when they overturned campaign finance reform in Citizens United v. FEC. Because the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights by definition, PEOPLE have free speech rights, not corporations. Groups of PEOPLE who band together for political purposes should have free speech rights but not corporations, which exist for the sole reason to maximize profit and return value to their shareholders. Corporations are not people, have no allegiance to the United States, are not citizens of the United States, and often act in ways that hurt the United States. The Bill of Rights therefore does not apply to corporations. SCOTUS is not authorized by the Constitution to make law, only Congress is. SCOTUS has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to overturn laws on constitutional grounds. ENACT LEGISLATION TO STOP SCOTUS FROM OVERTURNING LAWS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS (SEE SECTION 4.C) THEN PASS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION (AGAIN) TO PREVENT BUSINESSES FROM FUNDING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, POLITICAL ADVOCACY GROUPS AND POLITICAL ADS.

d) Eliminate Conflicts of Interest That Hurt the United States

Pass legislation making it unlawful for ten years after they retire for corporations to hire senior government officials and for defense contractors to hire senior military leaders. No more "retired" Admirals hired as Vice President of "Business Development" at shipbuilding companies that build Navy ships. No more hiring retired congressmen as lobbyists after they leave office, for, in this writer's opinion, return for passing favorable legislation for that business while they were in office. Pass legislation making it unlawful for any citizen of the United States to be hired as a lobbyist for a foreign government. Make the penalties for U.S. citizens who previously held public office especially harsh. How is it possible and why is it legal for our politicians to be hired as foreign government lobbyists after they leave office? How can they possibly not favor foreign countries while they are in office knowing that they can later get a job for doing so? Why don't our politicians have any virtue or patriotism and turn the foreign country down? The fact that legislation is required to stop our politicians from acting as lobbyists for foreign governments proves that they don't act in our best interest. The combination of all the items listed thus far ends the problem of corporate money influencing politicians by breaking the links between business and government. No subsidies, no taxes, no lobbying for tax breaks, no crony capitalism, no helping businesses in any way, no campaign contributions, and no conflicts of interest means that businesses will have no influence over our politicians and no control over our government. Businesses would have no relationship with our elected representatives and thus no reason to lobby them for favors. Congress would then answer to the people. AMERICAN CITIZENS WILL REGAIN POWER OVER CONGRESS, ONLY AFTER ALL LINKS BETWEEN BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENT ARE ELIMINATED. For those that don't know, the Federalist essays (known today as the Federalist papers) were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to address the criticisms against the then newly written American Constitution. The Federalist essays are thus a good basis for the meaning of what is written in the American Constitution. In Federalist No. 57, it is written:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

The reforms presented in this section that change the relationship between business and government ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES VIRTUOUS as stated in Federalist No. 57 above.

2. End Income Inequality

Thomas Jefferson was right when he said merchants have no country. Let's stop pretending that businesses owe their allegiance to the United States and start implementing Government policies that recognize that business interests are not aligned with what is in the best interest of the United States. End income inequality by eliminating the factors that cause it. What causes income inequality is explained here in more detail. In summary, income inequality occurs because: CEO salaries and compensation ARE NOT DETERMINED BY THE FREE MARKET. CEO salaries and compensation are determined by OTHER CEO'S AND CORPORATE EXECUTIVES on the board of directors compensation committee, who themselves personally benefit from rising CEO compensation. Radio talk show host Michael Savage calls this "interlocking corporate directorships." Because the board of directors compensation committee has an unlimited source of money and shares of company stock at their disposal, they give out huge compensation packages to their fellow CEO's. They keep making CEO compensation packages more and more lucrative because they themselves aren't the ones paying for the compensation packages, because they themselves benefit in the long run as CEO compensation rises, and because there is no easy way to stop them from doing it.

Business executives don't share with their employees when the company does well.

Business executives cut employee benefits and freeze salaries even while the company is doing well.

Excessive immigration increases the labor supply which reduces the cost of labor for businesses and thus the pay and benefits of the employees.

Free trade policies like NAFTA, GATT and the TPP give businesses incentive to lay off American workers and move good manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. There is no disputing that capitalism is the best economic system on the planet but it needs reform. The large number of supporters for socialist Bernie Sanders should be a wake-up call to all those who support capitalism. If we don't fix capitalism, it will eventually be replaced by the voters who are not benefitting from capitalism. Income inequality will continue to worsen because: No other proposals being discussed will fix it because they don't target what is causing it. Other proposals don't help the poor and middle class earn more and they don't change what causes CEO and executive compensation to rise.

Pensions for the working class have been eliminated while large pensions for corporate executives continue.

Overtime pay rules greatly favor businesses and promote lower employment levels. Instead of hiring more workers, businesses force their existing workers to work overtime at reduced pay. Workers get premium pay (straight time or less) instead of time and a half and many salaried workers aren't paid anything at all for extra hours worked.





To end income inequality:

a) Treat Corporate Executives and Workers Equally in America

PASS LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES EQUAL COMPANY BENEFITS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES ACROSS THE COMPANY. Executives and business leaders shall have the same employee benefits as all other employees. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, GIVE AMERICAN WORKERS EQUAL RIGHTS WITH CORPORATE EXECUTIVES. If there is a business case to cut or eliminate worker pensions, sick days and health care coverage to reduce costs, then company executives shall also participate in those cuts.

With the equality of benefits, there will be no need for organized labor negotiations. Labor unions are no longer needed and thus the divisiveness between organized labor and company management disappears.

How can anyone possibly justify the elimination of pensions from the working class while executives continue to fund their own multi-million dollar pensions? When today's young workers reach retirement age 30 to 40 years from now and realize they can't afford to retire because they have no pensions and social security is bankrupt, while the highly paid executives still have their lucrative executive pension plans, old and young voters will have common political viewpoints and we will have socialism in America.

Federalist No. 57 describes how important it is for laws to apply to both the greater society and those who passed the law in order to bond the rulers and the people together with common interests: ... the House of Representatives ...can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. Just as laws that apply to government rulers and the great mass of society is one of the strongest bonds that can connect the rulers and the people together (as stated in Federalist 57 above), so too are equal company benefits that apply to business leaders and all other employees one of the strongest bonds that can connect the company leaders and other employees together. Just as every government that makes laws that do not apply to the government rulers degenerates into tyranny (as stated in Federalist 57 above), businesses that make rules that do not apply to the business leaders, degenerate into business tyranny. THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OF WORKING CLASS EMPLOYEES SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT LAWS THAT APPLY TO THE CITIZENS SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO GOVERNMENT LEADERS. As long as business leaders LOOK AT THEIR WORKERS AS LABOR COSTS, as taught by every business school in America, and not PEOPLE WITH KIDS TO PROVIDE FOR, they will never, on their own, share the success of the business with their workers. As long as business leaders determine each others compensation (via interlocking corporate directorships on the board of directors compensation committees), and AS LONG AS THE AMOUNT OF THEIR COMPENSATION DEPENDS ON KEEPING THOSE LABOR COSTS LOW, BUSINESS LEADERS WILL NEVER SHARE THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY WITH THE WORKING CLASS EMPLOYEES. Congress must therefore force business leaders to share profits with their American workforce. Doing so CAN BE DONE FINANCIALLY WITH THE ELIMINATION OF ALL CORPORATE TAXES AND BUSINESS FEES, will preserve capitalism by raising up all workers (thereby fending off socialism), and is good for America. Because businesses will no longer pay taxes, they will not be paying for the costs of public services such as road and bridge construction, the police, and the fire departments and therefore in exchange, should pay their employees a share of the company profits. In exchange for eliminating all business taxes and fees, pass legislation requiring mandatory profit sharing of 25% of company profits with employees at all levels, equally. Salaries will depend upon the level of responsibility in the company but profit sharing will not. Businesses will not be paying any taxes and can therefore compensate employees more. Profit sharing gives employees incentive to contribute to the success of the business because the more productive they are, the greater the money they would receive in their profit share. Because of the increasing risk of automation with robot controlled processes to eliminate workers, profit sharing requirements shall not be specified per person but instead by a total amount (e.g., 25% of profits) divided equally among all employees. Mandatory profit sharing of 25% of profits equally with all employees should raise the wages of blue collar workers by 25% to 100% for those working for corporations that are profitable. INSTEAD OF TAXING BUSINESSES TO FUND INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, ELIMINATE ALL BUSINESS TAXES AND HAVE THE BUSINESSES GIVE THE MONEY DIRECTLY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES THROUGH MANDATORY PROFIT SHARING. Businesses will be better off because they share profits only when they exist, compared to now where they pay taxes whether they are profitable or not. The American people will be better off because they will share in the success of the companies they work for. America will be better off because people won't be able to expect corporations to pay for the big government they want. Pass legislation that establishes a maximum ratio of total CEO compensation (i.e. the highest paid employee) to the average worker (non-management) compensation. This ratio should be the subject of much discussion but this writer thinks it should be around 40 because the ratio of CEO to worker pay was 20:1 in 1965 and is over 300:1 now. Thus if the average worker total compensation is $50,000 then the CEO total compensation could not be more than $2 Million. To prevent the outsourcing of low paying jobs, the ratio shall include the compensation of outsourced jobs. Pass legislation that establishes a maximum ratio of total CEO compensation (i.e. the highest paid employee) to the lowest paid worker compensation. To prevent the outsourcing of low paying jobs, this ratio shall also include the compensation of outsourced jobs; business leaders would then have incentive to raise (American) worker compensation instead of hiring cheap immigrant labor. This is needed in addition to the previous ratio to prevent the company from increasing the average employee compensation by highly compensating a small number of employees. This ratio is easily determined by using a ratio of average worker pay to the expected lowest paid worker. Using the numbers above and assuming the lowest paid worker is paid $25,000, then this ratio is 40 x ($50,000/$25,000) = 80. This ratio ensures that the salary of the lowest paid employee rises when the CEO compensation rises. THESE CEO COMPENSATION RATIO LIMITS ARE WHAT IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE CONSERVATIVE BELIEF THAT A STRONG ROBUST ECONOMY LIFTS EVERYONE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, EVERYONE IS NOT BEING LIFTED BECAUSE COMPANY EXECUTIVES DON'T SHARE THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY WITH THE EMPLOYEES. Pass legislation that requires bonuses, stock options and other performance based pay incentives be applied equally to all employees. Outlaw stock grants to corporate executives unless they are also given to all other employees. WHEN THE COMPANY IS DOING WELL, REWARD ALL EMPLOYEES NOT JUST SENIOR MANAGEMENT. CEO compensation is determined by other CEO's and corporate executives (via interlocking corporate directors on the board of directors compensation committee) using an unlimited source of company money and company stock, so there must be laws that require corporate executives to apply benefits and performanced based compensation equally to employees in all levels of the company. Implementing CEO compensation limits will give business owners incentive to keep their companies privately held. Business owners keeping their companies private benefit because they keep the profits not shared with the employees (i.e. 75% of profits) instead of being limited to earning the CEO maximum. The biggest beneficiaries of keeping a business private are the employees because, for a privately held company, benefit cuts and salary freezes aren't needed to keep the company stock price climbing since they have no publicly traded stock. When businesses go public, the employees of the company become much less important than stockholders to the corporate executives partly because they are given large amounts of company stock in their compensation. This is why you see employee salary freezes and employee benefit cuts including lost sick time, lost paid holidays and pension cuts all while their company stocks are soaring. Conservatives say that business owners take all the risks and therefore deserve all the rewards. This is a generalization conservatives use to wrongly justify ridiculously high CEO compensation packages when CEOs of public companies take no risk. They get tremendous sums of money and free stock without ever risking a dime of their own money. For privately held startups that require significant capital to get started, yes the business owners take all the risk. Under the provisions of this proposed plan, these startups would never pay any taxes and would only be required to profit share when they become profitable. Startups therefore will be better off under the proposed plan than they are currently. Established privately held businesses and publicly traded companies have much less risk, will pay no taxes and will also only be required to share profits when profits exist. CEO's who feel they should earn more than the maximum they are allowed (i.e. 40 x the average worker salary) can start a new business so they can instead earn 75% of the profit. This will create more jobs and more competition which will lower prices and increase the standard of living for Americans. When CEO's actually put their own money at risk, such as when they start a new privately held company, then they can get, and deserve, the huge payday. Eliminate the minimum wage because it is no longer needed and has no meaning with mandatory profit sharing plans and fixed CEO compensation ratios. Get rid of the divisive minimum wage issue for good. The labor market should determine worker salary but BUSINESS RESULTS SHOULD DETERMINE TOTAL WORKER COMPENSATION, JUST AS IT CURRENTLY DETERMINES EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. Reform overtime pay rules. Instead of hiring additional workers when work load increases, businesses force their employees to work overtime for free or pay them premium pay (80% or less of their hourly rate) for overtime. Pass legislation requiring all non executive managment employees who work over 40 hours per week be paid time and a half for overtime. This will increase employee wages and promote hiring. Business leaders will not want to give up their power and their very lucrative executive compensation plans and will fight against the changes described in this plan THAT WE NEED TO PREVENT SOCIALISM AND PRESERVE OUR REPUBLIC. They will likely respond by claiming that you can't do these things in a free society. If so, that would be nonsense. The father of the Constitution James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 wrote that humans are more likely to oppress each other than work together for the common good:

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

And more importantly a few sentences later, Madison wrote that the regulation of the various and interfering interests (in the country) forms the principal task of modern legislation:

Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation ...

THE LEGISLATION BEING PROPOSED IN THE PLAN HEREIN DOES NOTHING MORE THAN REGULATE THE VARIOUS INTERFERING INTERESTS IN AMERICA AND IS THEREFORE, BY MADISON'S OWN WORDS, CONSTITUTIONAL. Even more support for the required legislation contained in this section of the plan is contained in Federalist No. 39, where James Madison, referring to our Republican form of government wrote:

It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it...

MADISON'S OWN WORDS SIGNIFY THE IMPORTANCE OF GOVERNMENT THAT SERVES ALL AMERICANS, NOT THE FEW AND NOT A FAVORED CLASS, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. America has gone through multiple equal rights movements in the past and it is now time for an equal rights movement for the American worker. Just as government intervention was required to give equal rights to American women and black Americans, so too is government intervention required to give equal rights to American workers. WE HAVE THE POWER to change the rules of our society that have developed over time. America is at another inflection point; will we choose workers rights or will we choose socialism? Wall Street, whether intended or not, transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, in at least five ways: When businesses go public, the interests of the middle class employees of the company become secondary to what is in the best interests of the stockholders. The stockholders include the senior management of the company who themselves will be major shareholders by increasing amounts as they accumulate (free) stock, granted to them each year as part of their executive compensation packages. To keep the stock price climbing and "return value to the shareholders," employee salaries are frozen and benefits are cut even when companies do very well financially. When businesses are publicly traded on the stock market, real people with bills to pay and kids to support become "labor costs," a term that brings a negative connotation in the business community with the desire to minimize them. Minimizing "labor costs" in business means compensating employees as little as possible and is why benefits are cut and salaries are frozen even when sales, earnings and the company stock price skyrocket. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A), driven by the need to maintain earnings growth to keep stock prices climbing, hurt middle class consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices. This hurts poor and middle class Americans more than wealthy Americans because the poor and the middle class spend a greater percentage of their income (i.e. the poor and middle class have a higher propensity to consume than the wealthy). When businesses go public to raise capital instead of borrowing from banks or issuing corporate bonds, they cheat the middle class out of higher interest on their savings and a safer investment option compared to buying stocks. If all businesses had to borrow to raise capital, and if interest rates were allowed to freely float with market demand like they should in a truly free market, then middle class citizens would actually earn interest on the money they have in savings. LOW INTEREST RATES, WHILE GOOD FOR BUSINESSES, IS BAD FOR INDIVIDUALS. Low interest rates reduces the incentive for people to save money and encourages people to spend any extra money they have or put it into the Wall Street casino, which perpetuates the pro-business anti-individual system we have further by providing more money to buy stock in companies as discussed in item 1 above. When businesses go public, middle class individuals and their pension funds (for those that have pensions) purchase IPO shares contributing to making the owners of the businesses instant millionaires or billionaires which transfers even more wealth to the wealthy and funds the system that turns them into "labor costs." Business executives allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to stock repurchase plans justified by declaring that they are "returning value to the shareholders." The repurchased shares raise the share price of the stock which benefits the executive management by making their stock options and stock grants (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of shares) worth more. This company profit could have instead been used to increase employee compensation since it was not allocated for business related expenses like purchasing new equipment. Thus in addition to being well compensated by the Board of Directors executive compensation committee that is made up of CEOs and business executives from other companies, executive leadership uses company profit, via stock repurchase plans, to increase the price of the company stock to increase the value of their stock options and stock grants.

b) Drastically Reduce Food and Energy Prices

Income inequality is really about standard of living. High food and energy costs reduce the standard of living for the middle class and poor because the middle class and the poor spend a large percentage of their incomes on food and energy. The wealthy, including millionaire politicians, are largely not affected by food and energy prices because these costs are small to them. That's why you see wealthy politicians propose additional taxes on gasoline. Government provided inflation data telling us that inflation is low is meaningless because most of the time the two most important factors to the poor and middle class (food and energy) are omitted. Fruit and meat prices have soared in the last several years all while average family income is stagnant at best. How can inflation be 1% - 2% per year as claimed by the government in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, when food prices have increased 100% or more in the previous several years? This writer's food bill per month for a family of 4 is almost as much as the mortgage payment. The CPI is not an accurate representation of inflation to the poor and the middle class because food and energy prices are not weighted as much as they should be when compared to how the poor and middle class spend their money (the poor and middle class spend a relatively large portion of their incomes on food and energy). Food and energy prices are frequently omitted when reporting the CPI (i.e. the core CPI) on the basis that food and energy costs are "volatile". The only beneficiary of omitting food and energy price inflation from the CPI is Wall Street because it helps justify keeping interest rates low, which is good for businesses and good for stocks but does nothing for the poor and middle class who spend a relatively large portion of their incomes on food and energy. After watching gasoline prices go from $4 a gallon down to $1.50 a gallon before going back up, is there any doubt that the system that supplies our gasoline is not set up to keep prices low for the benefit of the American population? If gas prices went to $1.50 per gallon once, they can get that low again with the right policy changes. Increase the standard of living for American citizens by implementing policies that reduce food and energy costs: Give farmers incentives to plant more crops to LOWER FOOD PRICES rather than, as is the case currently, incentives to keep fields fallow to keep food prices higher.

Eat corn instead of burning it; eliminate gasoline ethanol mandates and halt ethanol production.

Ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline and causes poorer gas mileage compared to gasoline.



Lower corn prices resulting from the elimination of ethanol in gasoline means lower (animal) feed prices followed by lower beef and chicken prices.

Implement food and energy policies THAT ARE GOOD FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS. If necessary to lower the price of food, subsidize or provide bonuses to farmers for planting more food (preferably healthy food) AND SELLING IT DOMESTICALLY. Do this to get people off food stamps and to increase their standard of living. Instead of giving money to people for food stamps, give the money to food producers to increase the supply of food sold domestically.

As discussed by many conservatives, increase domestic energy supply to create jobs and to lower the price of electricity, natural gas, oil and gasoline.

Give government bonuses to food and energy companies tied to certain production levels (domestically sold food and energy only). WE MUST GIVE FOOD AND ENERGY COMPANIES INCENTIVES TO MAXIMIZE SUPPLY IN ORDER TO REDUCE THESE COSTS TO AMERICANS. The current system does not keep prices low for Americans and is badly in need of reform.

Because food is transported using trucks, food prices can be negatively affected by high gasoline and diesel fuel prices. Therefore consider reducing the price of gasoline and diesel fuel by giving government bonuses and subsidies to oil companies to increase the supply of gasoline and diesel fuel sold DOMESTICALLY.





c) Create Jobs for Americans in America

Our federal government spends an unimaginable amount of money each year. Why isn't this money spent entirely on American-made goods and materials? Why can steel made in China be used to build United States Navy ships when it's taxpayer money being used to buy those ships and it is a matter of national security to have a strong steel industry in America? And to make matters worse, our trade deficit with China helps China fund their own military buildup that now includes their own aircraft carriers. To boost the American economy and to act in the best interest of American national security, require all U.S. government contracts to provide 100% MADE IN THE USA products and materials because taxpayer money should be used to strengthen the American economy not China. Taxpayer dollars will go to help American businesses and American workers not foreign businesses and foreign workers. Imagine the economic impact from spending the entire federal budget IN AMERICA each year. Finally a positive aspect of big government! American companies move operations abroad then import their goods back to America and we let them do it without any penalty. The businesses will return to America when the business taxes are eliminated but for those that don't, recognize that "merchants have no country" and apply tariffs to every non-food item that is composed of 50% or more dollar value of foreign made parts and/or labor. 50% is a good compromise between free-trade and protectionism. All goods sold in America will contain at least 50% (dollar value) made in America parts and/or labor. Along with the elimination of corporate taxes this will bring blue collar jobs back to America. As Patrick J. Buchanan points out in his column, TARIFFS MADE AMERICA GREAT. There are economists and wealthy politicians who are adamantly against tariffs. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE UNLIKE MANY WORKING CLASS AMERICANS, THEIR JOBS DO NOT DEPEND ON HOW WELL MANUFACTURING DOES IN AMERICA. This issue has been around since the country was founded. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison writes:

Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good.

Although Madison is likely implying that the 18th Century manufacturing class would prohibit imports to benefit themselves, which is the opposite of what we have today with our multinational manufacturing companies, the premise is the same; the manufacturing class (today's multinational corporations) will decide what is best for themselves not what is best for the American public good. Tariffs are therefore essential to give businesses incentive to manufacture their products in America to provide good paying manufacturing jobs to Americans. Ask any HR manager at any company what determines employee compensation and they will tell you that the labor market does. If the labor market determines worker compensation, then stop flooding the job market with immigrant labor because it causes wage stagnation. Put the American worker first by stopping immigration until Americans are back to work with rising wages, then what is left can go to immigrants. Many conservative republicans think that the blame for wage stagnation belongs on the workers for not getting more job skills to get a better job. That reasoning is flawed and simply nonsense. While justifying income inequality, conservatives will point out that people are different. They say that some folks work harder than others and that some folks are smarter than others and this is what causes income inequality. But then conservatives don't apply this reasoning when it comes to jobs. If people are different, which we clearly are, then a sound jobs policy will take this into account. A sound jobs policy will identify that people are different and that while many go to college, many do not and should not. Those that do not go to college need good paying jobs too, just as they had in the past. We therefore need the blue collar manufacturing jobs to come back to America to put an end to income inequality.

d) Align the Interests of Congress with The Interests of Average Americans

CEO compensation packages that include large amounts of free stock are justified in corporate America in order to "align the interests of the CEO with the interests of the stockholders." Similarly, Americans need TO ALIGN THE INTERESTS OF CONGRESS WITH THE INTERESTS OF AVERAGE AMERICANS. Do this by setting after tax congressional salaries equal to the most recent after tax average household income. Because our millionaire politicians are insulated from food and energy price increases since they are so wealthy, REQUIRE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WHILE IN OFFICE, TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES WITH WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD EARNS. Just as currently required for POTUS, all money and assets Congress has must be inaccessible while in office. This will also help prevent passing legislation that they themselves knowingly benefit from thus reducing conflicts of interest with spending bills. The money, assets and any gains will be returned upon leaving office. Just like the President, they will have no knowledge of the whereabouts of their money. When millionaire Democrats in Congress are forced to live on the average American household income, they will finally have incentive to improve the lives of American citizens instead of exploiting their lack of wealth to get votes. When millionaire Republicans in Congress are forced to live on the average American household income, they will finally put the interest of American citizens above the interests of multinational corporations. Make it mandatory that any money or gifts received above the average American household income be given to charity, which has the additional benefit of discouraging corruption and eliminating the money influence in Congress. Requiring members of congress, while in office, to support their families with what the average American household earns gives Congress incentive to: Raise the average household income (so they themselves will have more money to live on).

Develop domestic energy to increase wages and lower energy prices so they themselves will have more money to live on.

Create good paying jobs to increase average household income.

Keep taxes low so they themselves have more money to live on.

Implement policies that keep food and energy costs low instead of implementing policies that help energy companies and large agri-businesses keep prices high.

Additional benefits include:

Congress will know first hand how the average American is doing financially and economically without having to review economic data.

Those going into "public service" to enrich themselves won't.

Built in term limits. Members of Congress won't want to stay in Congress forever because they will eventually want access to their millions waiting for them in their bank accounts.

Public service will now require sacrifice (the millionaire congressmen will have to give up the butler, personal assistant and driver).

We common people might actually have a chance to be elected.

When members of Congress implement programs that keep average household income low when favoring businesses (e.g., the H1B visa program) they will be keeping their own income low.

Congress would feel what Americans feel when gas hits $4/gal instead of not feeling the pain and proposing additional gas taxes to fund road repair like some moron congressmen did and continue to do when gas prices drop a little. Millionaire congressmen don't feel the impact of gas going to $4/gal or food prices doubling like most Americans because these costs are small to millionaires.

CONGRESS NEEDS INCENTIVE TO ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO MAKE THEM FINANCIALLY LIKE THE PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE IN CONGRESS.

3. Tax Reform

a) Eliminate all Government Business Taxes and Fees for Political Purposes.

See section 1a for details.

b) Implement a One Rate Flat Income Tax with No Deductions on all Individuals for Political Purposes.

Tax policy has economic impacts but more importantly has political impacts. The biggest problem with our tax code is that a very large number of American voters pay no tax and many who don't pay taxes actually get paid by the government with earned income tax credits so they have absolutely no incentive to ever vote for lower taxes or want smaller government. Therefore we must scrap the entire tax code and institute a flat tax ON ALL INDIVIDUALS EQUALLY (i.e. one tax rate for all) WITH NO DEDUCTIONS. When all taxes come entirely from INDIVIDUALS at an equal percentage rate regardless of wealth or income, it is much more likely the people will want the small limited federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers because EVERYONE will directly feel the cost of large inefficient government when paying the high taxes required to fund it. People currently have no link between wanting bigger government and paying more taxes because they expect others (corporations, the wealthy etc.) to pay the higher taxes that are needed for the bigger government they want. With a single rate flat income tax on all individuals with no deductions, and no taxes on businesses, Americans who want bigger government will be forced to pay for it. There are those that say the wealthy actually pay less in taxes (or a smaller percentage) than the middle class because they have accountants and many large tax deductions. If that is true, a flat tax with no deductions means that the wealthy will pay comparatively more than they do now (no more deducting mortgage interest on that $20 million dollar mansion and no more lower tax rate on investment income). While it's debatable if the wealthy will pay more or less with a flat tax with no deductions, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE MOST IMPORT ASPECT OF TAX POLICY IS POLITICAL NOT ECONOMIC. If all deductions are eliminated and everybody pays the same tax rate, there will be no more demonizing the wealthy for not paying enough tax or demonizing the poor for not paying any tax; everybody will pay the same amount (i.e. percentage). The people who are currently poor will start paying taxes because their incomes and standard of living will go up from the policies in section 2 (profit sharing, food and energy price reduction etc.). With a single rate flat income tax with no deductions on all individuals, everyone, including the poor, will have an equal amount of 'skin in the game' and will object to raising taxes. "Skin in the game" ensures EVERYONE has an interest in keeping taxes low. Progressive tax rates (higher tax rates for larger incomes) cannot do this. Trying to be 'fair' to people with lower incomes will NEVER end rich vs. poor class warfare WHEREAS ONE TAX RATE WITH NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS WILL. Executive compensation ratio limits discussed in section 2 will make progressive tax rates not necessary anyway. With this tax policy: When voters want more government, THEY WILL PAY FOR IT, NOT BUSINESSES AND NOT THE RICH. This will create an environment that promotes small, limited government.

All deductions must be eliminated because as long as they exist, there will be arguments over who should get them and the corresponding big money in politics that goes along with determining who should get them. TO COMPLETELY END THE MONEY INFLUENCE IN POLITICS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS.

Reduce the size of the IRS by 99%.

Create a one third page 1040 form and send every other IRS form to the recycle center. Imagine doing your taxes in 15 minutes!! This can be a reality.

With the mandatory equal treatment of executives and employees (presented in section 2a) and with the equality of taxes, CLASS WARFARE IS ELIMINATED FOREVER.

End tax credits and earned income tax credits for the same reasons as ending tax deductions.

A single rate flat tax on all individuals will mean that politicians will be held accountable for raising the flat tax rate because ALL AMERICANS will feel the effect of the tax increase. Raising the single flat tax rate that all Americans pay would be very difficult for politicians to do, would be highly publicized and debated and would be hard to get away with without a political fallout. For that reason, a single flat tax rate on all Americans would force politicians to be stewards of the American treasury. This is already proven to be the case when county governments try to raise their property tax rates which fund their entire county government. Public outcry is usually tremendous when this occurs.

Eliminating the need for Congress to regularly consider tax law policy frees up time for Congress to get back to performing its constitutionally required duties that it has delegated away (more on this in section 4).

With elimination of corporate taxes, the implementation of a single rate flat income tax with no deductions on individuals and the end of crony capitalism, the government would be out of the business of picking winners (those that it gives money to) and losers (those that it takes money from). Once the government gets out of the business of picking winners and losers then there will be no reason for money to influence politics and the people will regain power over their government. WHEN SALARIES FOR THE WORKING POOR GO UP FROM THEIR SHARE OF THE 25% CORPORATE PROFIT SHARE, AND THEY SEE HOW MUCH TAX THEY HAVE TO PAY, THEY WILL VOTE FOR THE SMALL, LIMITED, EFFICIENTLY RUN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR POLITICIANS WHO PROMISE THEM THE MOST.

c) End All Government Agency Fees and Fund the Government Exclusively with the Flat Tax

Abolish all government agency fees and fund everything with the individual (flat) income tax, which will be set in amount by congress as the Constitution requires. No more unconstitutional fees imposed by unelected executive branch bureaucrats that are really stealth taxes. Agency fees raise revenue for the government therefore they are taxes. End these fees and fund everything using the flat income tax. This gives visibility to the entire cost of government and gives incentive for congress to keep government costs low. Right now, the fees assessed by government agencies are routinely raised because there is no incentive to keep them low because there is no accountability to the voters.





4. Return to Constitutional Government

Now let's look at what is required to return to constitutional government including returning to Congress it's constitutionally mandated duties that it has delegated away.

a) Return Constitutional Duties Delegated by Congress Back to Congress.

Growth of executive branch power was enabled by Congress because over the years Congress has delegated its constitutional duties to the executive branch. In Federalist No. 38, James Madison wrote "CONGRESS, A SINGLE BODY OF MEN, ARE THE SOLE DEPOSITARY OF ALL THE FEDERAL POWERS." The Constitution purposely does not grant Congress latitude in their duties so that decisions made would be made by ELECTED officials who would answer to the people at the next election. Instead, because Congress has delegated their constitutionally mandated duties to the executive branch, we have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in executive department agencies making decisions that affect us all. Therefore, repeal all unconstitutional laws that delegate congressional constitutional mandates. For example, the Constitution, in Article I Section 8 REQUIRES THAT CONGRESS: Provide for the common defense and general welfare. And yet the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Education, Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, Transportation and Veterans Affairs are all executive branch agencies.

The Department of Defense should not be an executive branch agency. Congress is responsible to declare war, to provide for the common defense, and to raise armies. In Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton writes "... the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE..." As discussed in the next section (section 4b), "whole power" means WHOLE power not funding an executive branch agency to raise the army.



Congress has nobody to blame but itself for having no power to fix the problems at the Veterans Administration (VA), to fire those responsible for the VA scandal, or to force the DOJ to release documents requested by Congress unredacted.

Levy and collect taxes. And yet the IRS, an executive branch agency, under the treasury department, collects our taxes. Thus Congress only has itself to blame when it had no power to end the IRS scandals.

Coin (i.e. make) money. And yet the Bureau of Engraving and Printing under the Treasury Department (an executive branch agency) coins our money.

Regulate the value of money. And yet it is the Federal Reserve that affects the value of money by manipulating the money supply when adding liquidity when buying bonds or reducing liquidity when selling bonds. The second paragraph of Federalist No. 44 states that the right of coining money and regulating its value is the EXCLUSIVE right of CONGRESS. To return power back to Congress, re-establish constitutional government, and restore the balance of power between the Legislature and the Executive, MAKE EACH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HEAD OF THE AGENCY WITH DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE AGENCY INSTEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTEES. End the lack of congressional influence over the federal agencies by MAKING CONGRESS DIRECTLY IN CHARGE OF THE AGENCIES. Congressional committees will run the agencies and it will be clearly defined what each committee must take to the entire congress for approval. No longer will Congress have to beg for information and be stonewalled by the agency because the congressional committee will have direct hiring and firing authority over the agency. Employees of federal agencies will now be accountable for their actions because elected representatives who answer to the American voters will be able to fire them for corruption, collusion, insubordination or poor performance. The congressional committee could appoint/hire an agency "executive" or "administrator" to execute their orders. This model already works well at the local government level where county governments, run by a Board of Supervisors, have a county executive that executes their orders. Past unconstitutional executive orders would never have been possible had congress not delegated their constitutional duties to the executive branch. The congressional committee, not the executive will dictate how congressional funds are spent at the agency as the Constitution requires. Confirmation that Congress was to be more powerful than the executive branch is confirmed in Federalist No. 51:

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

... the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.





b) Return to a Constitutional Military

Since WWII, America has fought in Vietnam, Bosnia and Iraq without the declaration of war from Congress that is required by the Constitution. OUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MILITARY STRUCTURE HAS ENABLED THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS. Nowhere else has the Constitution been more ignored by Congress than in the structure of the military. Most of you will have not previously seen what you are about to read. Don't limit your knowledge by accepting what others tell you. Think for yourself. Read the Constitution for yourself. Read the Federalist Papers and study the Founding Fathers. The American military structure required by the U.S. Constitution consists of: A permanent navy.

A citizens militia.

IF conditions warrant, a TEMPORARY standing army raised for DEFENSIVE purposes to counter a specific threat to the UNITED STATES (i.e. not for nation building, not to protect a foreign country and not raised without good reason).

Nothing else. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution assigns the duties to Congress to declare war, to "provide and maintain a navy", to "raise and support armies", and "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions (emphasis mine all)." Government violations of these constitutional requirements include: The existence of a permanent standing army is a violation of the Constitution. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to "provide and maintain" a navy and to "raise and support" armies. There are purposely no words in the Constitution permitting Congress to maintain an army (i.e. in perpetuity). If the Founding Fathers intended for there to be a permanent standing army then:

They wouldn't have specified in the Constitution that one purpose of the militia was to repel invasions because you wouldn't need a militia to do that if you had a permanent standing army.



They would not have included the provision to limit the appropriation of funding for the army to two years. What sense would it make to limit spending for a permanent army to two years? Article I Section 8 of the Constitution DOES NOT limit the appropriation of money for the Navy to two years, which makes sense because a permanent navy is constitutionally authorized (to be maintained) and would therefore require continual funding.



Article I Section 8 of the Constitution would specifically authorize Congress to "maintain an army" just like it says to "maintain a navy."

It is the duty of CONGRESS to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy and yet the Department of Defense (DoD) is an executive branch agency UNDER THE PRESIDENT. When each congressional oversight committee responsible for executive branch agency oversight is placed directly in charge of the agency as detailed previously in section 4a, the DoD will be directly run by the applicable congressional committee (e.g., the Senate Armed Services Committee) and Congress will perform its constitutionally required duty to raise armies and maintain a navy. In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton makes it very clear that the role of the President is similar to that of a first general and admiral while Congress will declare war and directly oversee the fleets and armies:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. As written by Alexander Hamilton above, THE ONLY ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE MILITARY IS TO LEAD IT AS A GENERAL AND ADMIRAL, AFTER CONGRESS PREPARES THE FLEETS AND ARMIES AND DECLARES WAR. America is nowhere near this constitutionally required military structure; Congress no longer declares war and has delegated all their constitutionally required duties to oversee the military to the executive branch. Sending the national guard to FOREIGN wars, as president Bush did during the Iraq war. Sending the national guard to Iraq was not to execute the laws of the union, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion (i.e. DOMESTIC PURPOSES AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE MILITIA) and was thus unconstitutional. The national guard website used to say that it served the role as the constitutional militia but now it doesn't and very few references to the militia remain. Either the national guard is the militia and they were unconstitutionally sent into Iraq, or they are not the militia and the government has unconstitutionally eliminated the militia over the years by continually redefining it's role.

It is not an exaggeration to say that nowhere else has the Constitution been more ignored by Congress than in the structure of the military because THE MILITIA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY COMBINED WITH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PERMANENT STANDING ARMY (to become the Army National Guard) THEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SENT INTO IRAQ (not used for a domestic purpose) TO FIGHT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR (Congress never declared war on Iraq as REQUIRED by the Constitution). The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves. The Founding Fathers opposed a permanent standing army because they knew that a standing army combined with a powerful executive was a threat to peace and liberty. Based on our $22 TRILLION DOLLAR national debt, OVER $2 TRILLION OF WHICH IS FROM THE COST OF THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ALONE, and our approximate $700 BILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL DEFENSE BUDGET, they have been proven right.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison despised a standing army because they thought that a standing army combined with a powerful executive was a threat to peace and liberty. They have been proven right. Thomas Jefferson quotes that a standing army is a threat to peace can be found here. James Madison saying the same can be found here. Federalist No. 41, written by James Madison and one of the most relevant Federalist essays for today's America, is full of content indicating that the Founding Fathers did not support and the Constitution does not authorize a permanent standing army. The term RAISING is routinely used to describe armies. Where standing armies were to be raised during times of peace, they were to be for SELF DEFENSE not for stationing them in foreign lands to protect foreign countries as they are currently. In Federalist No. 41, Madison writes that standing armies crush liberty from the high taxes that are needed to fund them, that a navy will be provided and MAINTAINED to protect America from danger abroad, and that the limitation to the term of 2 years for the support of a standing army was meant to be a precaution against maintaining a permanent standing army: Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense. Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. Instead of deriving from our situation the precious advantage which Great Britain has derived from hers, the face of America will be but a copy of that of the continent of Europe. It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. Note that because the fiat currency federal reserve system we have today didn't exist when the country was founded, the Founding Fathers saw high taxes as the threat, not government debt and out of control government borrowing and spending to fund the standing army. Madison continues: Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. And a few sentences later, referring to the length of appropriations to fund the standing army, Madison writes: ... and that the American (Constitution) ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term. Click here. to read the entire text of Federalist No. 41 with the relevant content highlighted. In Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton, responding to criticism of the Constitution for allowing standing armies controlled by the executive branch (a criticism that at the time was invalid because the Constitution gave no such right to the executive, but now does apply since Congress has delegated its required duty to control the military to the executive), wrote: ...that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity. Thus TROOPS WERE TO BE RAISED BY CONGRESS not the EXECUTIVE and the clause which FORBIDS appropriating money for more than two years for an army WAS MEANT TO PREVENT A STANDING ARMY FROM BEING MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY. In Federalist No. 25, Alexander Hamilton responds to those who believed that the Constitution should include words that prevent the federal government from keeping a standing army in times of peace. Hamilton justifies temporary standing armies in times of peace by pointing out that without them we would have to wait to be attacked before preparing a defense, something that is suicidal. Also note that Hamilton's justification for the temporary standing army was for defensive purposes. Hamilton wrote: If, to obviate this consequence, it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded. In the previous paragraph of Federalist No. 25, Hamilton, on the same topic (responding to those who believed that the Constitution should prohibit standing armies in time of peace), writes: The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities, instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand. Provocations to produce the desired appearances might even be given to some foreign power, and appeased again by timely concessions. If we can reasonably presume such a combination to have been formed, and that the enterprise is warranted by a sufficient prospect of success, the army, when once raised, from whatever cause, or on whatever pretext, may be applied to the execution of the project. In Federalist No. 26 on the same subject, Hamilton writes: The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. Read the last sentence above again because it is exactly what we have today. The Founding Fathers believed that standing armies were a danger to freedom and liberty, but they also did not want the Constitution to prevent Congress from raising an army if it was needed, so they included the provision to forbid Congress from funding an army for longer than two years, which they thought, rather erroneously it now seems, would prevent Congress from funding a permanent standing army without a specific reason (i.e. a threat to counter). Their logic certainly indicates that they never anticipated that America would maintain an army in perpetuity, or worse, permanently station troops all over the world. The last sentence in the paragraph above "THEY (Congress) ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO VEST IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT PERMANENT FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF AN ARMY, IF THEY WERE EVEN INCAUTIOUS ENOUGH TO BE WILLING TO REPOSE IN IT SO IMPROPER A CONFIDENCE." cannot possibly make it any clearer that a permanent standing army is unconstitutional. In Federalist No. 24, Hamilton provides examples of the need for TEMPORARY standing armies: Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons. When a nation has become so powerful by sea that it can protect its dock-yards by its fleets, this supersedes the necessity of garrisons for that purpose; but where naval establishments are in their infancy, moderate garrisons will, in all likelihood, be found an indispensable security against descents for the destruction of the arsenals and dock-yards, and sometimes of the fleet itself. THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR A TEMPORARY STANDING ARMY GIVEN BY HAMILTON ABOVE DON'T EXIST ANYMORE. AMERICA HAS NO ENEMY ON ITS BORDERS AND HAS THE MOST POWERFUL NAVY ON EARTH. Federalist No. 29 pertains to the militia. In it, Alexander Hamilton writes that the purpose of the militia is for the DEFENSE of the state, that it will reduce the need for a large army, and that no federal army can seize the liberties of the people while a large citizens militia stands ready to defend it: ... it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." In the last sentence of the paragraph above, Hamilton writes that the militia is the best possible security against a standing army. In Federalist No. 46, James Madison reiterates this point when he writes that it is absurd that the federal government could seize power from the state governments by military force and that even if they tried, the state militias would be so much larger in number that they could not be conquered by the federal troops. Thus when armies would be raised they would be small in number compared to the militia and because of that, THE STATE CITIZEN MILITIAS WOULD BE A CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Maybe that is why the federal government eliminated the militias by combining them into the Army. James Madison, in Federalist No. 46 writes: The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; Madison can't envision it, but what he writes above is exactly what happened and he CALLS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT MAINTAIN OUR MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT "TRAITORS"!!!! Madison continues: Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The citizens militia cannot act as a check on the federal army and be a defender of the liberties of the people, as written by Madison in Federalist No. 46 above, because Congress unconstitutionally combined it with the Army and relabeled it the Army National Guard. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED THE CITIZENS MILITIA AND HAS BECOME A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT THAT ROUTINELY ENCROACHES UPON THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF AMERICANS AND UPON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE STATES. Neither Congress nor the Executive can maintain a permanent standing army in perpetuity and place troops all over the world because a permanent standing army is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution must be amended to allow a permanent standing army. If you are a proponent of a permanent standing army IN OPPOSITION TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS then amend the Constitution to add a provision to "maintain" an Army. You can't pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to obey any more than you can pick and choose the laws you want to obey. A return to a constitutional military structure (e.g., the elimination of the permanent standing army, the return of the citizens militia and the return of Department of Defense control to Congress) will end unnecessary foreign wars because only true threats to America will create the political will for Congress to declare war, raise an army, and fund the war. Raising the army would require volunteers and people would likely only volunteer if there is a real threat to America. They would likely not volunteer if the army was being raised to protect other nations, the flow of oil or to give democracy to goat herders. If a draft was instituted to conscript an army due to the lack of volunteers, public outcry and the political pressure would be tremendous without a just cause. Military men and women join the military to protect America but find themselves in a foreign country going door to door nation building instead. This would never happen with a constitutional military structure (i.e. no standing army) because raising one to perform this task would face tremendous political pressure and require people to volunteer for it. Because the army already exists and because Congress has delegated its constitutionally required military oversight duties to the Executive, it is relatively easy for America to engage in military conflict. All that is needed is a report, whether real or not, of crimes against humanity somewhere in the world and a willing President and America is in a military conflict without a declaration of war from Congress. Move DoD oversight from the executive to the Congress and eliminate the permanent standing army and we will not have wars without a real need and without a declaration of war from congress. The absence of a real militia consisting of citizens, not soldiers, is exactly why there is any debate at all about the second amendment. Bring back the citizens militia, with mandatory membership of all males 18-55 years old and voluntary membership of females 23-45 years old and the division over the meaning of the second amendment and the divisive gun rights issue will disappear forever. Creating a citizens militia will create the largest defensive fighting force in the world and make it possible to disband the standing army, which would save America hundreds of billions of dollars annually, important for a nation that is over 22 trillion dollars in debt. OUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MILITARY STRUCTURE THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF OUR REPUBLIC just as the Founding Fathers warned. AMERICA'S EXISTENCE IS THREATENED BY THE HIGH TAXES, DEFICIT SPENDING AND DEBT REQUIRED TO CONTINUALLY FUND THE PERMANENT STANDING ARMY, FOREIGN WARS, NATION BUILDING, AND TROOPS STATIONED ALL OVER THE WORLD. Many of you will still be against eliminating our permanent standing army even after reading the evidence that it is unconstitutional. Maybe you believe it would be unwise because there are too many threats in the world and you wouldn't feel safe without it. There is no doubt that the army has been a fixture in American society for as long as we all have been alive. Maybe your so accustomed to America's permanent standing army that what is known as "normalcy bias" or "paradigm paralysis" prohibits you from contemplating if it is really needed. Consider: That a constitutional military would require the creation of a true citizens militia, and with mandatory militia membership of all males 18-55 years old, this militia would be approximately 50 million strong. In contrast, our current permanent standing army consists of approximately 500,000 soldiers not including the Marine Corp; thus there would be approximately 100 citizens militia to replace every one army soldier.

That another aspect of the constitutional military is a permanent navy. How exactly would the powers of the world invade America without our navy, the most powerful on earth, sinking their landing craft or our naval aviators shooting down their aircraft filled with paratroopers? How exactly would an invading nation transport, either by sea or air, the millions of troops that would be necessary to be a threat to a 50 million strong militia, and how would they do it without our satellites, radar and reconnaissance aircraft see them doing it? No reasonable threat exists today, either in the homeland but especially abroad, to justify America violating the Constitution by maintaining a permanent standing army in perpetuity. James Madison's quote from federalist no. 41 pertaining to the need for a standing army still applies today: Being rendered by her insular situation and her maritime resources impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world gives them the same happy security. Why is the American taxpayer paying to fund NATO and defend Europe and Japan when it is unconstitutional to keep permanent standing armies in foreign lands? The existence of a permanent standing army is what enables the military-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex is what enables the permanent standing army. Unless the campaign finance reforms in section 1c are put in place, Army defense contractors will spend millions of dollars to fight to preserve the billions of dollars that are spent annually on army contracts. They will say the world is too dangerous and will prophesize the doom of America without an army. Rubbish! Read the Constitution and the Federalist papers I quote for yourself; the Constitution forbids maintaining a permanent standing army. WWII General and Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his presidential farewell speech, spoke on the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower, a highly respected military man who led the WWII D-Day invasion, later as President, warned Americans 50 years ago of business (i.e. defense contractor) influence over government!



c) Return to a Constitutional Judiciary

The power of judicial review (ruling if laws passed by Congress are constitutional) is not an enumerated power granted to the Judiciary in the Constitution; NOWHERE IN ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS POWER GRANTED TO SCOTUS. Article I Section 8 grants Congress, NOT SCOTUS the power TO MAKE ALL LAWS. SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to make law but that is exactly what happens when they invoke judicial review. This is relevant because they are routinely wrong, especially when ruling in landmark cases: In a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, SCOTUS overturned campaign finance reform laws by incorrectly ruling that corporations are people with first amendment free speech rights. Because the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights by definition, PEOPLE have free speech rights, not corporations. Groups of PEOPLE who band together for political purposes should have free speech rights but not corporations, which exist for the sole reason to maximize profit and return value to their shareholders. Corporations are not people, have no allegiance to the United States, are not citizens of the United States, and often act in ways that hurt the United States. The Bill of Rights therefore does not apply to corporations. Thomas Jefferson said that "merchants have no country" because he thought 18th century merchants had no allegiance to America, just as modern multi-national corporations have no allegiance to America today. Why then should corporations be given constitutional rights? This ruling, made by the conservative "originalists" on the bench, is rubbish and shows why SCOTUS should not be practicing judicial review. How can originalist justices award corporations constitutional rights when they know the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

In Kelo v. City of New London, in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS gave the middle finger to private property rights when incorrectly ruling that eminent domain can be used to take private property from one citizen and give it to another citizen (a land developer) because furthering economic development and economic growth was considered public use.

By considering it a tax, in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS absurdly upheld the so called individual mandate of the affordable care act (ACA) and established that government can lawfully force citizens to purchase what government thinks people need (health insurance in this case).

In Plessy v. Ferguson, SCOTUS upheld racial segregation.

In Dred Scott v. Sanford, SCOTUS established that blacks were not citizens. This ruling required a constitutional amendment (the 14th) to undo. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to make official that blacks were citizens, something that was necessary because of the Dred Scott decision by SCOTUS.

A ruling by SCOTUS pertaining to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is why America has birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens; no law was ever passed by Congress. While it's debatable if U.S.-born children of LEGAL immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the state in which they reside, there is no question that non-citizen visitors, tourists and illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside (you don't reside in a place you illegally entered or are visiting), and therefore their children, if born in America, are not citizens in accordance with the 14th amendment. No law was ever created by Congress granting citizenship to babies born in America to non-citizen immigrants or tourists; SCOTUS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED THIS "LAW" in 1898 with their ruling in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case. In all these cases, SCOTUS created law with its rulings. From the examples above it is clear that the opinion of nine justices as to what the Constitution means is what determines what the Constitution means at any given moment in time. The fact that landmark rulings are 5-4 decisions IS AN INDICATION THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH OPINION INVOLVED IN THESE RULINGS AND THAT SCOTUS SHOULD NOT BE RULING ON THESE ISSUES. Congress can be held accountable to the people on election day whereas SCOTUS is accountable to no one because of lifetime appointments. UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS CAN BE UNDONE WITH NEW LAWS WHEREAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS BY SCOTUS CAN ONLY (CURRENTLY) BE UNDONE WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. SCOTUS SHOULD THEREFORE NOT HAVE THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Since Article III of the Constitution does not grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review, the people, not SCOTUS, are the keepers of the Constitution as required by the tenth amendment. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES - "IT'S ONLY KEEPERS, THE PEOPLE." - GEORGE WASHINGTON So what is the solution to return to a constitutional judiciary? To stop SCOTUS from unconstitutionally creating law using the practice of judicial review, Congress shall create a tribunal in accordance with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of hearing cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws created by Congress. This tribunal will be made up of members of Congress, preferably members of the House of Representatives since this is the people's chamber of Congress and they answer to the people in an election every two years. The law that creates the tribunal shall include the justification of the legality and constitutionality of this law by stating that the Constitution: Does not grant SCOTUS the power of judicial review.

Grants Congress the power to create tribunals.

Grants Congress, NOT SCOTUS the power in Article I Section 8, "TO MAKE ALL LAWS which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL OTHER POWERS vested by this Constitution."

In article III section 2 allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate Jurisdiction of SCOTUS: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." CONGRESS SHALL CREATE THE APPELLATE EXCEPTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY SCOTUS AND ASSIGN THIS DUTY TO THE NEW TRIBUNAL MADE UP OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (THE PEOPLE'S CHAMBER). THE PEOPLE WILL THEN BE THE KEEPERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. A similar process already exists with the court of impeachments in the Senate. Much of the rationale given in Federalist No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton for the Senate to act as a court for the trial of impeachments INSTEAD OF THE SUPREME COURT can also be applied to the House of Representatives acting as the court of judicial review INSTEAD OF THE SUPREME COURT. Elected members of the House of Representatives, who answer to the people in an election every two years, would then determine if laws are constitutional, not unelected and unaccountable judges with lifetime appointments WHO CANNOT BE REPLACED BY THE PEOPLE. The political viewpoints of SCOTUS judges will no longer be an issue and will be reflected as such during the Senate confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee. In the paragraph of Federalist No. 78 that follows, Alexander Hamilton writes that the LEGISLATURE, NOT THE JUDICIARY PRESCRIBES THE RULES BY WHICH THE DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF EVERY CITIZEN ARE TO BE REGULATED, THAT THE JUDICIARY CAN TAKE NO ACTIVE RESOLUTION AND THAT THE JUDICIARY HAS NO WILL, ONLY JUDGEMENT (i.e. they cannot impose their will, only make judgment). The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. Elsewhere in Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton wrote that (he believed) the Supreme Court would not substitute their own beliefs (i.e. their will) to overrule the legislature on constitutional grounds (a belief that has been proven to be an error in judgment), but also says that if they do, then the Supreme Court justices should not be distinct from the legislature. It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body. Hamilton writes above that if the Supreme Court imposes their will over the legislature (Congress), the judges should not be distinct from the legislature; THE CREATION OF THE PROPOSED TRIBUNAL WILL DO JUST THAT. In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton, referring to the powers of the federal judiciary, tells us that CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY if needed: From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. In the last sentence, Hamilton is referring to the paragraph in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to specify regulations and create exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction: In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. This sentence in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create the appellate exception for judicial review by SCOTUS and the Federalist Papers make it clear that the legislature has the authority to change the judiciary if needed. Several paragraphs in Federalist No. 81, written by Alexander Hamilton, supports judicial review being performed by Congress instead of SCOTUS: That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested. The reasons for it have been assigned in another place, and are too obvious to need repetition. The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature. The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. But perhaps the force of the objection may be thought to consist in the particular organization of the Supreme Court; in its being composed of a distinct body of magistrates, instead of being one of the branches of the legislature, as in the government of Great Britain and that of the State. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make." To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security. In the paragraphs above, Alexander Hamilton recognizes the criticism that SCOTUS should be a branch of the Legislature as it was in Great Britain, recognizes the criticism that the ability of SCOTUS to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution could make SCOTUS superior to the Legislature, recognizes that decisions by SCOTUS would not be subject to the revision or correction of the Legislature, and responds to these concerns by pointing out that if it happens, nothing in the Constitution directly gives SCOTUS this power, and that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to modify the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS for the benefit of the public. THUS THE ELIMINATION OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SCOTUS TO PERFORM JUDICIAL REVIEW (i.e. to "construe laws according to the spirit of the Constitution") WAS PLANNED FOR BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. THUS CREATING THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INSTEAD PERFORM THIS TASK IS CONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS has encroached on the legislative duties of Congress and it is up to WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CORRECT IT AS STATED IN FEDERALIST NO. 49: As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. Once the congressional tribunal is in place UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS CAN BE UNDONE BY A FUTURE CONGRESS WITH NEW LAWS. CURRENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULINGS BY SCOTUS CAN ONLY BE UNDONE WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

d) Restore the Co