It is time for a Tea Party Agenda. This is an agenda that we can point to and say if you elect Tea Party Congressmen and Senators, this is what we are going to work on.
This agenda is based on ideas from Tea Party activists across the nation. The idea behind the agenda is simple. We decided that the best course would be to pick out a small number of goals that everyone would agree on. We kept in mind that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party does not control the leadership, so the parts of the Tea Party Agenda would have to have overwhelming support.
This is a simple agenda that can be passed. That is the idea. This should be an agenda we can take to the American people and ask our Tea Party Senators, Congressmen and candidates to embrace.
It will not solve all of our problems, but it will be a start.
"just delusional thinking"? Please provide concise documentation as to how far the price would drop. Or, loan me your crystal ball.
As for "the global oil community would be buying it out from under us.", that would be a good thing! Have you ever looked at our Balance of Payments?
Here are a couple of ideas I've mulled around. There is a really good book on the role of the Supreme Court: "Democracy and Distrust" by John Hart Ely. Professor Ely advocates for a process, not outcome, based inquiry. See what you think of these issues, which are really just starting points for thought...
A draft outline on how to form a more perfect union.
Reaffirm the U.S. Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, and further establish that the Supreme Court shall have the power to declare acts of the Legislative and Executive branches to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution only where the act would infringe upon something actually written in the Constitution or upon a judicial function.
Several examples illustrate how the Supreme Court shall decide cases in the future.
1. The court will not rule that the president must answer a civil suit during the pendency of his term. His or her refusal to do so would not infringe upon anything written in the Constitution or upon a judicial function. It would merely infringe upon the plaintiff’s desire to haul the Commander In Chief into court. The issue, being thus clearly political, would be left for the president to work out with his constituents and the legislature, which could, if it desired, speak on the issue by passage of an appropriate act.
2.The court will overrule cases where it has created substantive rights, such as the right to an abortion. The right to an abortion, being a religious, political, and social issue, is something that will have to be debated and enacted into law by state legislatures (the power to affect such issues does not inhere in the federal Congress). Nine old crotchety justices, trained to analyze the correctness of legal decisions based on precedent, are uniquely unsuited to determine, out of thin air whether, and to what extent, a woman should have such a right. The court will make no such pronouncements. It is for the states to decide.
3. The court will overrule Wickard v. Filburn and its progeny. Congress has the power to regulate Commerce among the several States. It does not have the power to regulate life itself. Accordingly, all regulatory agencies shall be dissolved and all regulations shall be immediately revoked. All of them. The power to regulate anything other than commerce among the states is reserved to the states, which can regulate to their hearts’ desires. The federal Congress shall study the issue of what regulatory powers directly impact the efficient functioning of commerce among the states. Wage and employment laws are an example of things that are within the exclusive power of the states. Protection of the environment is something that does not have anything to do with trade among the states and therefore is within the exclusive power of the states. Of course, it is within the power of the states to work together and enact similar laws (called “uniform acts”) so that consistency among the states can be achieved. To the extent that the federal Congress desires to regulate commerce among the states, it shall enact one regulation at a time (with full debate on the actual language of the regulation). No regulations shall be issued by any agency within the executive branch. Further, all federal regulations shall have a sunset of no more than five years from the date enacted and must therefore be debated and renewed, if at all, on the floor of Congress.
4. The court shall only step in and rule on a legislative act that appears to be beyond the power of the federal government or, if within such power, if there is evidence that the elected representatives failed in their jobs—to properly represent. Thus, if the legislature decrees for or against an affirmative action program to promote minorities to positions they would not obtain on their own, the Supreme Court will review only whether the legislators gave due consideration to all constituents, including the minorities vis-à-vis the majority (or pluralities). In other words, the inquiry will be of the process by which the law came to be; the inquiry will not be concerned with the outcome of that process. If evidence comes to light that one group, be it minority or otherwise, exerted improper influence (threats, gifts, or anything other than promises of votes or no votes) on one or more representatives, the court will rule the law unconstitutional. If it desires, the legislature could then reconsider the law and seek to pass it again—this time without the constitutional infirmity.
As long as Cash is the Voting criteria, the government will be corrupt. The Airways, being a Public domaine, should have
equal candidate access, starting with an abbreviated campaign period.
I am a Capitalist who is deadly opposed to WALLSTREET's abandonment of all sense of morality.
The Fair Tax is not Fair. Taxation is not intended to be "fair."
It is time to abolish lawyer-contrived Tax Codes.
It is time to recognize that the Wealthiest have far more to lose than the man on the street.
All of America can concede serious Tax Reform "IF" it fairly distributes the burden.
The RICH buy an array of Tax Dodges, limited only by Lawyer macninations.
The Tax has to be as impermeable as the US Constitution.
Otherwise, the larcenists running Washington will obliterate whatever reform is devised.
I propose the American Tithe.
Ten Percent of all revenue.
Two Percent of annual net wealth.
Both taxes proportionally reduce with the reduction of the Debt.
All entities are taxed without any exceptions, including our churches.
Otherwise, we will suffer the indignities of the "Buffet Circle of Holy Friends."
There will be no deductions, exemptions, shelters, foundations, trusts, or other lawyerly legerdermain.
Uncle Sam gets ten cents of your first dollar.
Taxes will be a recognized duty of all Americans. America's children will know the solemn reality of
taxation from first to last.
But, the burden will be tolerable for two reasons.
It will never be changed or revised upward because the Congress must forfiet the power it has so
egrregiously abused. Tax is not a Thug's weapon. Nor is it the tool of Social Engineering.
All other taxes, no matter the name, will be abolished forever.
For the record, Net Worth will be indexed to the highest year, to discourage exportation.
Foreign entities investing in America will be subject to the same tax.
Exporting profits will double the tax.
Americans operating outside the US will pay doubled taxation on earned revenues and net wealth.
Such a tax on dormant wealth will stimulate reinvestment to offset the accrued tax liability.
The permanence of such a Plan will inspire confidence in a government whose history has been not only arbitrary and capricious, but for sale to the highest bidders.
That can be altered with serious election reform.
The screams you hear in the background are the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.
It's about time.
You ate my introduction to The American Tithe.
Great idea Judson,
One other thing you might want to consider is one our Washington State Representatives told a group he was speaking to that none of them ever read the bills they voted on. They let their staff and lobbyists tell them what was in them, then decided how they would vote.
I have a feeling our members in Congress may be doing the same thing and we have unelected people deciding how the votes will go.
Maybe it would be a good idea to get the candidate to sign a pledge that they would personally read the bills before voting on them.
...get the candidate to sign a pledge...
Oh, like they keep their oaths and pledges! :P However, if they actually kept to that pledge, our bills might be a lot shorter, easier to read, and to the point. What they should have to do is pass a short comprehension quiz after they read the bill to demonstrate they understood the content!!
i recieved an email this am that said both obamas "voluntarily" gave up their law liscences just hours before being indicted. michelle for insurance fraud and barry for lying on his bar application. someone needs to investigate this and if true, needs to be made public.
someone should let hispanics know that more than 300 of their countrymen (maybe even friends and relatives) were murdered thanks to eric holder and fast and furious. marco rubio are you listening.
Great point, b mathews ;)
And a VERY GOOD strt,at that!!! I am excited to see how far we can GO!!!! WE must take OUR COUNRTY back!!!
wait until all those 21 year olds that voted for obama in 2008, and are soon turning 26, find out what its going to cost them when they get kicked off their parents H/C plan. dont think they are going to be too happy about it or will be running to vote for him again in 2012. i hope someone makes them aware of this.