The Repeal Amendment Would Make a Real Difference

Here is the language of a new Constitutional Amendment that would make a real difference in controlling the out-of-control federal government:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

This is the Repeal Amendment (www.repealamendment.org). According to the group’s site, “Our Founding Fathers gave enumerated powers to the federal government and reserved most of the power to the states and the people. Today, the federal government has usurped the power that the Founders originally intended for the States and the people. The Repeal Amendment is dedicated to restoring our nation’s liberty by advocating for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that restores the balance of power between the states and federal government.” I like it.

Some have suggested that the passage of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct popular election of Senators, was a huge breach in the wall that limited the federal government’s power. The proposed Repeal Amendment would have the effect of giving the State legislatures the ability to limit the power of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the federal government, by allowing 2/3 of the state legislatures to repeal any law or regulation by a resolution passed in the state legislatures. This could be considered a back-door way of undoing the 17th Amendment, and I really like it.

This proposal comes from Randy Barnett, who is a noted expert on the 9th Amendment. He is the author of a book titled “Restoring the Lost Constitution, the Presumption of Liberty”, which in part suggests that we should be looking at the original meaning of the Constitutional provisions, rather than the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It is not an easy read (I am only half way through it after over a year of reading it), even for a lawyer. But, from what I have read so far, it is worth reading and should be added to your library on liberty and Constitutional construction.

Marianne Moran, from south Florida, is the Executive Director of the organization promoting the amendment. Her e-mail is: marianne@repealamendment.org; her phone number is: 561-247-0502. I am getting involved. I invite those of you who are truly concerned about preserving our constitutional liberties and restoring our constitutional republic to get involved, also.

God Bless You.
God Bless America.
Remember to Keep Christ in Christmas.

Patriot Mark

Amendment 8 Would Loosen the Class Size Requirements

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 8 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 8 would revise the class size requirements for public schools.

Arguments for: Proponents of the amendment argue that its cost is simply too high in today's poor economy. They say the state can't afford to build more classrooms and hire more teachers. They say the amendment would provide needed flexibility that does not exist in the Constitution as amended in 2002.

Arguments against: Opponents say the state's voters made it clear in 2002 that they wanted to limit class sizes. Smaller classes make a better learning environment, they argue. The statewide teachers' union, the Florida Education Association, opposes the bill. The union is calling on the state to fulfill the constitutional mandate and implement the limits approved at the ballot box.

I am in favor of this amendment. Education is a participation sport -- i.e., the students must actively participate in their own education. Based on my experience both as a student and as a parent of students, the class size is not as important a factor in educating students, as is the ability of the teacher to motivate the students to want to learn and to show the students how to learn. Teachers are really facilitators. They cannot open the students' heads and pour the knowledge into the brain cavity. Besides, if class size were a factor, then no freshman in college would get good grades any of their first year classes. Unfortunately, the unions convinced everyone that students would not learn unless classes were small. I have seen no evidence that smaller class sizes have significantly improved test scores, grades, discipline, etc.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities. Vote in favor of those individuals and items that are in line with our Founding Principles.

Amendments 5 & 6 Would Change the Way Re-districting Would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 5 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 5 would require that legislative districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 6 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 6 would require that congressional districts not be drawn to favor one political party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce minority representation. Abiding by the amendment would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

I am voting NO on both of these. Remember, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The leftists, liberals and progressives want a democracy, because it works on mob rule. Our Founding Fathers specifically set up the government to prevent mob rule. From past experience, because this is supported by leftist, liberal and progressive groups, the law of unintended consequences will prevail. Thus, the arguments against will most assuredly come to fruition. I also know that when the liberal trial lawyers support it, it will become nothing more than a lawyer employment protection act. The courts should not be involved in what is a legislative process. The courts are not empowered or qualified to decide the issues of redistricting. The courts are not and never were intended to be the branch of last resort in these matters. Because the guidelines are so strict and so detailed, any minority (except white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males) will be able to scream foul, file a law suit, and tie up the process. This is a horrible idea.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities. Vote in favor of those individuals and items that are in line with our Founding Principles.

Amendment 4 Would Change Way in Which Landuse Planning would be done

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 4 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Amendment 4 would give local voters a veto over any changes in comprehensive plans.

Arguments for: Local governments have proven themselves incapable of placing the public interest before the interests of real estate developers. The people should have the final say.


Arguments against: The amendment would require votes on every change, no matter how minor. Ballots would be long and involved. Voters would be overwhelmed. Growth would grind to a halt, and the state's economy would remain mired in recession.

I will vote NO on this initiative. This is more of the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda pushes democracy. However, this country was not established as a democracy. It was set up as a republic. Pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Our republic is a representative government using democratic principles. We elect officials to represent the interests of the constituents. Mobs can be easily swayed by emotions, intimidation, and coercion from loud minorities. Our Founding Fathers sought to diminish the effect of the mob mentality by setting up the government's structure as a republic.

Making the voters cast ballots on any and all changes would overwhelm them and would slow growth. I find the arguments against, listed above, to be most persuasive. If you do not like the decisions that your representatives are making, then you have the opportunity to change those representatives during the next election. We must trust the decisions our representatives make. If you do not, then you need to elect honorable, trustworthy people to office.

Patriot Mark

If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote, and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives. Vote against those initiatives which increase government's power and control over the individual and private entities.

Florida Amendment 2 Would Provide for Further Homestead Tax breaks for deployed military personnel

Friends:

Here is some information on Amendment 2 to the Florida Constitution. The arguments come from the Collins Center for Public Policy:

What it would do: Instruct the Legislature to enact an additional homestead exemption for Florida homeowners on active military service outside the country. The size of the tax break would be based on the amount of time served overseas in the previous year.

Arguments for: Military personnel based overseas are performing important services for our country at considerable sacrifice. This amendment would help compensate them for that service.

Arguments against: Providing an additional exemption to certain property owners would reduce tax collections by hard-pressed local governments.

Frankly, our military personnel are not compensated nearly as much as they should be for the sacrifices and risks they voluntarily undertake on our behalf. This would also benefit the families of those serving. I am in favor of this Amendment.

Patriot Mark
If you want to save our country and our freedoms, vote and vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Vote for those initiatives which reduce or eliminate government control and interference in our lives.