OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

This proposal is already implicit in the legal structure of the United States of America. The only difference is that this is unpracticable, due to the fact that Jurisprudence is based around a top-down discretion that is inherent in all dealings. Ever since the Civil War there has been a dominance of the Federal Government; mostly to insure that Civil Rights, Environmental Protection, and other issues of national importance can be enforced.

This proposal is essentially in place: I have no clue what further basis is needed to merit this being considered.

The states rights argument started with "Nullification" - the freedom of [southern] states to nullify federal law, courts or policy that they didn't like - promoted by John C. Calhoun during the Jackson Administration. The freedom to enslave was at issue and should have been settled by the Civil War. Think about the freedom to enslave.

Calhoun worried about congressional, executive and activists judges' potential acts that threatened the economy of the South. He feared they would interfere with his "property rights."

Concerns about activist judges' threats to local tyrannies were inflamed by Brown v Board, Affirmative Action and any time a conservative or libertarian wants to loot the community for personal gain and fears our common resistance to their greed. The conservative media led by Fox News and Rush [Jabba the Hut] Limbaugh have largely stifled the voice of freedom and liberty in favor of "states rights" that promote the concentration of wealth with elite conservative leaders.

If you want a return to states having rights, work within your state. Let your state legislature, your governor, your congressman and your states senators know that you want them to return power to your state. You want your governor to be the most powerful person in the state, not the President, as our Founding fathers intended.

Look at the things that Montana and Idaho, and others are already doing. Pass laws, within your state, that return power to your state. The Federal government is NEVER going to give up the power, not willingly. It will have to be taken from them, state by state, power by power, inch by inch.

Yup, let's turn "gay marriage", drug laws, and other divisive social issues over to the States and let the local people decide.

I don't know whether you say that sincerely or sarcastically.

If it's the latter, how much has really been accomplished on these issues while in the hands of the Federal government?

Gay marriage is still illegal except in Massachusetts and a few other states. California is already in a fight over it. The issue still isn't resolved.

Drug laws, the Federal government needs to be involved in whatever war on drugs this country might have. Drugs are coming across the southern, and probably, the northern border. The Feds have been working to win the war on drugs for how long? And how successful have they been? Obviously, they're not doing it right. And there are other issues tied into the drug war, there's an ongoing fight, between the Feds and the states, about Medical Marijuana and there have been calls all along to just legalize drugs. Make it like alcohol or cigarettes.

And if you read the Constitution, you'll find that our founding fathers gave the Feds very limited jobs, and, as stated in the original post, any powers not given, specifically, to the Federal government should be left in the hands of the states and the people. Again, how much good has the Federal government done. The abortion fight continues. Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are still going broke. Maybe if these things were left in the hands of the states and the people, these things would get settled.

Yes, those issues would probably return as opinions change, as new generations take the lead but at least there would be one less party at the table. There's no need for the Feds to be involved in abortion, health care and they only really need to be involved in education as a watch dog to make sure that students in the various states have a chance at an equal education.

If you disagree, state your case. I'd love to hear it.

Citizens of this Great Nation, the debate continues -

"E Pluribus Unum" is the Latin that we subscribe to as our motto: "From Many One" or as we can garner from it, from 50 states there is 1 State. What you are suggesting, ladies and gentlemen, is something far above the simple remedial effect that you suggest it will have.

I express this due to the fact that this proposal will (perhaps; nothing is certain for the future, and what-ifs are merely wasting moments of our lives when applied to the past) inevitably lead to the decline of the United States of America and leave the citizenry vulnerable to the changing dynamics of the world. I will explain: to my eye, what we need is an enriched citizenry body; one that has a) access to information, b) possesses critical thinking skills that can apply to the emergence of new technology jobs, is c) scientifically aware of the forces that govern the physical, chemical, and biological world, of d) citizens that can navigate the complexities of the mortgage, banking, economical world, have e) access to a basal delineation of proper nutrition, at the very least f) understand their basic constitutional rights and can mandate they be respected and invoked whenever a fellow citizen or foreign national attempts to impose upon them a burden that, with regard to the 14th and 16th Amendments, they have no liability to fulfill.

This cannot be accomplished by remanding within the states the total economic and legal custodianship that you profess. The practice of states rights is an on-going experiment: one that I believe proves my point. To illustrate, do you enjoy the great highways of this great nation? Do you conceive that any state would establish a non-toll, extended network of highways through the broad plains of the midwest, or Jehovah forbid into the Rocky mountains, lest President Eisenhower promised to provide 90 cents for every dollar of their construction? Sometimes this, too, was a tough sell; hence why the transportation amendments in the 1950s included Federal dollars for repairs, of which states will not actually begin to repair their federal highways until they have received the correct amounts of money from the Federal government.

Coupled with this we must even begin to critically assess the economics of the individual states of this great nation. I wish to cut through the skin, through the heavily decorated and very appealing, tender skin of the argument and descend into the crux of the matter at hand: it is not a matter of principle, or that the states can provide full remedy to the issues of drugs, abortion, and other issues that are hot-button topics. They can: but it will not please everyone; in fact it will probably at the end of the day be either absolutely despicable to some, absolutely fantastic for only a few, and tolerable for the rest. What I feel is most salient in this matter is the economics of what you are proposing.

"Money talks; bullsh*t walks", they say. What this means is, would the actual apparatus of state government be able to accomplish all, or for a more candid point, ANY of the goals that I think are the most important for the future of this nation? No, I would venture. You see, state budgets are not really equipped for this sort of task; 49 of 50 states are required to have balanced budgets, of which debt can be offset via the selling or bonds for infrastructure projects, but to actually provide a social state that is anything better than a Libertarians dream? I cannot believe that.

This is due to the taxation method of the states. They very literally do not collect enough money to provide any services; in fact, they hardly collect enough money to cover their Kindergarten through 12th grade primary school education budget, and despite that I do not have the numbers in front of me, I am reasonably certain that without Federal grants they do not even collect enough money for that. That is 1 item out of nearly 30 (at lest for Georgia, my home state and a fiscally conservative one at that, so you know that when applied to say California, staring a $50 billion annual DEFICIT {not DEBT, but DEFICIT in a single year} the problem is quite apparent) budget items that would be, by your proposition, eliminated.

Relieving the Federal government of its "burden" or its "hegemony" over state grants-in-aid is literally a Libertarian's paradise: if you are such, then I commend you for your beliefs and willingly salute that you are expressing your freedom to thought and deduction; but I am not. The control that is executed by the Federal government, attempting to provide 300 million individuals, blessed in their self-determination, headstrong in their will to live their lives the way they wish, is a damn difficult job indeed. If you walk softly and try to not step on one toe, you will almost inevitably smash ten other toes- the divergence of opinion is so great that one side of the abortion debate believes that by relieving an organism of self-replicating cells is literally committing the highest sin against the God that created the entire Universe, while the other side states that by implementing Roe v. Wade, the great "crime wave" that was predicted by the consistently rising crime rates of the 1970s and 1980s was dispensed with in the 1990s because the over abundance of 13-28 year old, single parent male youths that would have been born were not, thus saving a potential crime war that may have bled over into the fortresses of suburban safety.

This is how divergent our views are: and the Federal government is "incapable" of addressing that divergence simply because no one is probably capable of addressing it, lest they are a dictator. Instead we must live with the organic product of piecemeal laws that face the problem, usually unsatisfactory; until it has festered so long that, as is predicted by economic theory, so many citizens will rise up and state that the compromise is unsatisfactory, and we must solve the problem. It is a perfect solution; the means of raising enough money is to allow our representatives in Congress to provide enough "bacon" for our districts that offset the amount of taxes that we complain about. And while there is a lot of government restructuring that must be accomplished to address wasteful spending, it is an elegant way of "satsifying" all parties involved: especially as we maneuver into a century where our citizenry body is "raceless", computer-oriented, and yet in such desperate need of a message to unite us and to push us economically to the former position we held as a low deficit spending, highly charged economy, like we had in the 1960s.

(I'm sorry this is long: but I like to debate and had a lot to say on this)

Summary: Our nation needs to have a citizenry that is capable of handling the problems of i) losing high paid, low skill manufacturing jobs, and the solution is a) an informed and educated citizenry that can either adapt to service jobs lucrative enough for a fine life or a high technology or skill job that can allay the poor economic choices of having multiple minimal wage jobs, etc., and provide opportunities to thrive as a collective citizenry body, not as those who possess the information to obtain these jobs (the internet is a significant solution to this concern, and can offset education expenses by having an integrated, networked education system); ii) significantly decreasing health care costs of individual citizens by the solution of b) providing a scientific education that properly educates the citizen about the significance of nutrition and unhealthy living (cutting down on the rise of STIs, a problem in public school education, as well as the disgraceful notion of us being the fattest nation in the world); iii) provides a quality education that does not necessitate "going to college" to have opportunities at certain jobs, and in fact provides a citizen body with a collective knowledge or at the LEAST ability to deal with the growing complexity of our world, the circumstances that have led people to merely accept "lower" "more" "better" as solutions to the intricacies for how these are to be effected, because they are unable to comprehend critical thinking and solution based problem solving; and my final point, that I believe demonstrates all that I have said:

The states are incapable of providing the necessary funding to produce these results. When the results begin to take effect, which seems plausible if an enthralled citizen body is in want of more knowledge or at least the knowledge they need to succeed, it will begin to 1) provide immediate remedy to many people who seek the products of the social net, as they are willing to work and able to create their own dream instead of relying upon that provided by the government, 2) by creating opportunities through critical thinking we can grow the economy, and by promoting a scientific culture instead of squashing funding we can begin to have an explosion of new technologies, of which we can cut down on pollution, provide more jobs, and raise revenues (if not help alleviate situations in other lands, but that is for later), 3) an "enlightened" citizen body will realize, hopefully due to curiosity at news stories about swelling budgets, that continuous deficit spending is not an acceptable practice, and that the Federal government needs to alleviate itself of much spending, but hopefully that can be actualized by a decrease in service that is provided by the private market; one stimulated by a citizen body able to act with an enriched and in depth education.

Indeed, what I wish to postulate is that if every citizen possessed the education to do so, we could very well realize this proposal: yet, the states do not have the funding to provide this education, thus I must side on the auspices of the status quo, invoke this as a desirous scenario, and attempt to fulfill it by my own energies. For, I believe we can solve any problem in this country: simply through education, and specifically by providing a better education in the public schools than private schools can muster. It is accomplishable via integrated, online software, and by raising the salaries of school teachers. Until then, you must face the realities:

There are two sides in this country; sides that form a one (From many {actually, 2} there is 1 federal government). States would pass laws that are completely anathema to the other side; red states make Christian paradises, blue states make Humanist paradises; not one can accept the other; blocks form, the United States Federal government loses all funding and is unable to adjudicate the states, the country falls apart. Disagree? I'd love to hear your opinion.

Sincerely,

Your fellow citizen

I disagree.

I have not proposed, nor do I propose now, to strip the Federal government of all power except those laid out in the Constitution. This would be ludicrous in this day and age. It would be a step back into the stone age.

There are any number of agencies within the Federal government that our forefathers could not possibly have foreseen and therefore, could not possibly have placed in the Constitution. Why no Constitutional amendment was passed to give the federal government these very obvious powers is probably a matter of speed and efficiency. There was simply was no time, and probably no demand, for such a time consuming idea when these agencies were brought about. As I said, sometimes it's obvious that powers have to be given to the Feds.

The FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, is a prime example of this. We MUST have standardized laws and regulations on air travel throughout the country, if only for safety. I can't imagine the horror that air travel would be if pilots were forced to know and follow laws for each individual state as they flew east to west across the continent.

While I don't agree with a lot of their most recent, politically motivated, rulings, I believe the FCC, the Federal Communication Commission(?), is also a necessity and anyone who lives on the border of two or more states will agree with me. It would be wasteful to have two radio or TV stations, in two different states, both broadcasting on the same frequency and fighting to be heard or seen. Therefore, the power to regulate is, and should be, in the hands of the Federal government.

The federal government is supposed to regulate trade between the states. With Airplanes, automobiles and radio and television waves, and other things, not limited by lines drawn on a map, it makes sense for the Federal government to hold the power of regulation.

Having been born and raised a military brat, I have done quite a bit of traveling. I have crossed the US, in a car, twice so I fully appreciate the interstate network that crisscrosses the continent.

Eisenhower's decision to build the interstate was as much a military decision as it was a political decision.

(As a young Army Lieutenant, Eisenhower had crossed the continent in the back of a US Army Truck just after World War I. That trip is what inspired him to introduce the Interstate bill when he later became president.)

The Interstate network is vital to this country, both militarily and economically. While the Federal government would have to continue some oversight and funding of the interstate, as well as planning any future interstate expansions, the states, with some Federal money could take over the task of maintaining the interstates if they don't already.

I think it is a rather logical idea that local and state governments, local and state leaders, can give the citizens what they want more efficiently than the Federal government who must attempt to appease not only one city, or even one state, but fifty states and hundreds, possibly thousands, of cities each with their own problems, distinct personalities, environments and opinions. The smaller the area, the fewer the people, the easier it should be to find a happy medium. Why not allow these city, county and state governments to do as their citizens wish?

This argument could go on, and even expand into many other realms; education, welfare, etc... but no matter what you're discussing, it is better to have feet on the ground, eyes on the sight and knowledge of the terrain if you're going to try and lead a group of people. Communities, cities, counties and state governments are the agencies appropriate for this kind of work. The Federal government is for the bigger things, the things that effect multiple or all of the states.

My apologies for the length but the like the poster above, I too, enjoy the debate and have lots of opinions.

It is clear that the size of our current government has vastly outgrown the antiquated system set up in 1776 by the original constitution. Congress can barely function with the weight of so much legislation; resorting to passing bills in mass rather than one by one consideration. The congressional tactic of earmarking legislative favors is by most definitions, outrageous. The office of the president has gained unprecedented war powers with little intention of relinquishing them. The judiciary branch has failed time and time again to reinforce the constitution, over the other two branches of government. The Federal Government is deeply flawed and seemingly bent on spending vast amounts of future revenue to bail out industries founded upon bad decisions and outright fraud. The time to rewrite the rules has come. The Constitution of the United States is the operating system of our government, nothing more. People fear change, this must be overcome. The last election our country voted for the ideal of change, it is now time to deliver upon that promise.

“Don’t we deserve a time of peace and prosperity, where we don’t have to spend all of our public funds for defense of imaginary villains?” KDT

In response to the two threads below my own essay:

1) I, then, do not know why you have proposed this: that is exactly what local and state governments do. They possess a great amount of autonomy; in fact, they can do quite a bit so long as they do not violate certain statutes and acts that have been ratified by the national Congress: such as the Environmental Protection Act, violations to the 14th Amendment (right to privacy, the normative deduction for allowing abortion), Controlled Substances Act, etc. Local government can address every need; sometimes even subverting certain acts, such as Medical Marijuana, bans on Partial Birth abortions, etc. This is a matter of getting off your (collective, not you specifically) duff and changing the political culture.

2) (a) The Congress of the United States of America can't operate more due to bickering, and the cynical draw of "bi-partisanship" when neither party truly cares, or better the dismantling of the true politician and the rise of the sided demogogue (see: Freshman class of 1994, Contract with America) than with collapsing under its own weight. Omnibus bills contain pork; but pork isn't "waste" it means "jobs": it is only waste when it goes in the pockets of a few individuals. I contend that there are more outrageous aspects to Federal budgeting than earmarks; like contractors who are paid four times over the market value; externalities that are grossly ignored; etc. (b) The president has merely shifted roles since the Great Depression; not only as the leader of their party, but as the de facto leader of their party in Congress, is the principal of all American world affairs, and, apparently since Dubya, can commit American troops in unlimited engagement and can do whatever the president wants in matters of legality. That should be corrected immediately, and many of these individuals who provided the green light should be disbarred and possibly imprisoned. (c) The judiciary branch has upheld the constitution; please list one way that it has failed, and demonstrate precedent. (d) The Federal government is as flawed as we choose it to be: what we encountered recently is merely us saying "we cannot allow businesses owned by Americans employing Americans to be subject to the business cycle" (and crash completely). It was under this context that the government has proceeded; and with steps that I find to be theoretically sound, and will hopefully lead to i) greater regulation of the banking industry, thus reducing the chance of something like derivatives from ever coming back and reducing the credit market so that people will spend within their means and ii) restructure often flawed companies like Ford and GM, so that they can operate better. Thus (e) the rules are fine; perhaps with a wee bit more of a Common Law type of respect, and with a culture that isn't borderline nihilistic with our desire to only obtain capital, fast and cheap, perhaps then we can look and think that we don't need to run humongous deficits, etc. (see above post).

This is depressing. "Remanding within the states the total economic and legal custodianship"? I always thought that the idea behind the constitution was the the sates should have very little power and the federal government would have almost none. The smaller the scope of the governmental entity, the greater the freedom of action it is granted. It is much easier for the people to tell their representatives when to back off that way.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

---Wars without end, the forever chase of terrorists without faces, systematic slaughter of innocent Muslims because our government covets resources.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

---Obama, “Indefinite preventative imprison people who might commit crimes in the future” May 21, 2009 speech.

---Bush Jr. rendition, torture, detention without representation of supposed terrorists

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

---Government Accountability Office (GAO) is charged with the accurate accounting of all funds spent by the Federal government, but they don’t. Especially by military or secret organizations (CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, National Security Agency (NSA)), where are the open books to see these agencies expenditures.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

--- If all presidents had their performance graded on how strong the American dollar was verses other countries currencies, then George W. Bush would represent the near absolute end of depravity. In other words, George W. Bush has broken his promise to preserve the value of the United States of America. George W. Bush saw his shadow and attacked with little provocation a foreign country of smaller integrity. All of his reasons for this action have turned to dust, and he keeps the military machine running with the hollow words of “stay the course”; a course of little planning, reasoning, and clear objectives.

“There will always be half-truths and a few lies in politics, it’s the human option, but the President should be the one above it; not the center of it!” KDT

Article 2, Section 4 : The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

---Denis Kucinich thirty-five articles of impeachment, and they are:

ARTICLE I—CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

ARTICLE II—FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.

ARTICLE III—MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR

ARTICLE IV - MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

ARTICLE V—ILLEGALLY MISSPENDING FUNDS TO SECRETLY BEGIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION

ARTICLE VI—INVADING IRAQ IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.J. RES. 114.

ARTICLE VII—INVADING IRAQ ABSENT A DECLARATION OF WAR

ARTICLE VIII—INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

ARTICLE IX—FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE ARMOR

ARTICLE X—FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

ARTICLE XI—ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XII—INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR CONTROL OF THAT NATION'S NATURAL RESOURCES

ARTICLE XIII—CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP ENERGY AND MILITARY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ AND THER COUNTRIES

ARTICLE XIV—MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

ARTICLE XV—PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ

ARTICLE XVI—RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF US TAX DOLLARS IN CONNECTION WITH IRAQ CONTRACTORS

ARTICLE XVII—ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT CHARGE PERSONS BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES

ARTICLE XVIII—TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, AND ENCOURAGING THE USE OF TORTURE AGAINST CAPTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND OTHER PLACES, AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY

ARTICLE XIX—RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL TO "BLACK SITES" LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE

ARTICLE XX—IMPRISONING CHILDREN

ARTICLE XXI—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THREATS FROM IRAN, AND SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN IRAN, WITH THE GOAL OF OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT

ARTICLE XXII—CREATING SECRET LAWS

ARTICLE XXIII—VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT

ARTICLE XXIV—SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

ARTICLE XXV—DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

ARTICLE XXVI—ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS

ARTICLE XXVII—FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY

ARTICLE XXVIII—TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

ARTICLE XXIX—CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965

ARTICLE XXX—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MEDICARE

ARTICLE XXXI—KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL EMERGENCY

ARTICLE XXXII—MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

ARTICLE XXXIII—REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 911

ARTICLE XXXIV—OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

ARTICLE XXXV—ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS

kdtroxel, so are you advocating that governmental authority be mostly at the state level on the basis of the abuse of power by federal administrations?

10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Should each state reaffirm their sovereignty under this amendment, then each time the Federal government passes a law that is outside the boundaries of the constitution, it will be up to each and every individual state to ratify said legislation. Without ratification of said law, it would not have the force of law unto that state.

As of May 13, 2009, 36 states have declared legislation to discuss their sovereign status. Of those 36 states, Montana passed sovereignty status, and nine others have passed both house and senate waiting only upon the signature of their respective governors. With such muted outrage to the actions of our federal government under the current banker take over on Obama’s watch, to the transparent resource grab under Bush Jr. Administration, and the thinning of the dollar value via rampant issuance of digital currency, it is a wonder that the states do not just get together and request Federal Constitutional Convention. Oddly enough, it only requires 34 states to pass Federal Constitutional Convention.

In regards to power to the state, yes I am in favor of that. States are far more responsive to the will of its citizens than the federal government, whose actions seem to despise the spending of funds on Americans. Whenever they do spend money on Americans it gains the colorful name of entitlement programs. Our federal government likes to spend money on wars (war profiteers), arms (military industrial complex), and aid to other countries (no accountability skims).

I also feel that we the people are owed and detailed explaination as to why the thirty-five articles of impeachment was never seriously considered. Detailed as to why each article was not valid.

I say disband the current federal government and have each state become it's own country with a union and currency like the EU.