Replies

Amend the constitution to eliminate the income tax amendment and ban any taxes on property.
Amend the constitution to eliminate the ability of congress to write tax law. Federal and state. And void all existing tax law.
To finance the government amend the constitution to impose a national sales tax of 10% federal and 5% state. Provide the ability for congress to request permission from the state’s to raise the tax rate in a national emergency, but require three quarters of the state’s to approve the increase. The rate increase expires biennially unless three quarters of the state’s vote to retain it.

I'm not sure that a sales tax at the national level is a good idea, though applying a single, fixed rate to it's jurisdiction takes most opportunities for mischief out.
There's a big problem with the emergency increases measure — remember the Romney-cheerleaders claiming thet he'd issue ObamaCare exemptions to all the states? Well, those exemptions would be an excellent way to apply extortion to the states: Gee, that's a nice exemption you have there Arizona, it'd be a shame if something happened to it because you didn't extend the duration of the emergency tax-rate…

Moreover, with something like that there's a temptation to pass it as a matter of course — the funding of the Army is an excellent example, it's in the Constitution that they aren't to be funded for more than two years at a stretch, as a discouragement from a standing army. Yet, when was the last time that the existence of the Regular Army was in doubt due to not being funded at all?

(Originally, funding for the Army was on a "commission" basis, for particular operations, just like raising the armies involved drawing men from the States.)

Amend the constitution to eliminate judicial review. (This takes care of the tyrants using the courts to impose their will upon us.)

While I agree that the black-robed god-kings need to be restrained, I'm not sure that judicial review per se is unconstitutional; you see even in this anti-judicial review article they explicitly state that the power of the supremem court extends to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party — and if the United States is not a party in matters regarding its Constitution then when is it?

Moreover, if we explicitly remove judicial review from them it would behoove us to institute an explicit review for Constitutional issues; I am unsure what such a review body would look like, nor have I heard any particularly good ideas on the matter.

Though, it is possible that explicitly removing the power of judges to remove members of Grand Juries and reaffirm the power of the Grand Jury as an investigative body able to order prosecutions (via presentment) would be a good amendment.
(See Roger Root's )

Amend the constitution to prohibit wealth transfer payments of any type by government, federal, state, and local governments. (No more vote buying using the treasury.)

I think the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment would do that… if not how would it be avoided?

These are my ideas about taxes.

While I obviously don't agree with all of them, keep it up!
These are issues that need thought about rather than swept under the rug until tax-day, no?
(Besides, if everyone thought the same way there'd be no better ideas than what everyone else had.)

This is the only way to to bring the federal monster to heel.

I agree that a lot depends on reigning in taxation power, but there's more than just that: the special exemptions/immunities of LEOs, politicians, etc for one.

And it has the benefit of encouraging business and commerce.

I'm not sure about that — I would think a sales tax would tend to discourage buying/selling.
Could you provide an example of where sales-taxes promote more business than a universally applied flat-rate income tax?

I agree with the return to the gold standard but we would have to work out the details. I also agree with repeal of the 17th amendment.

Those details are what half of the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment is about (secs I to IV).

I respectfully disagree that there is a problem with the emergency increase measure. This measure requires the federal government to get the permission of the states to raise the tax rate to address national emergencies. Therefore the federal cannot fabricate a national emergency simply to raise taxes. There is no opt out and no greater ability for the federal government to extort a state than currently exists. If the federal government wants more money, absent a national emergency, they will have to encourage business activity. And there is no other form of taxation just the sales tax at the state and federal level. If localities want money they can impose a sales tax at the local level. Certainly there are issues to work out in this approach, but as you say this approach eliminates the opportunities for mischief.

I think the elimination of judicial review is vital. We essentially have two methods to remove judicial tyrants from the bench, impeachment and elimination of their seat or bench. Congress has the power to do both but the democrat party protects the lawless judges that dictate their will upon us. Our founders never envisioned a political party in congress protecting lawless judges from removal. Yet that is what we have. Thus, the removal of judicial review is the lesser of the evils. Much of the "constitutional issues" we have will probably dry up and blow away when the left cannot impose their will upon us using the courts. Yet you raise a vital point. Surely there will arise constitutional issues that require resolution and thus some type of body to address these issues is needed. The federal courts have failed as that body exposing a fundamental weakness in our constitution. I suggest a super-majority of both houses of congress resolve these issues. I don't think their schedule will be a problem once we remove the congressional ability to buy votes using the treasury and penalize their enemies using the tax code. Even this approach needs a control so I would provide the states an ability to over rule the decisions with a super majority of some kind.

My post is addressed at only a small portion of your suggestions. While I believe we need expert opinion to craft new proposed amendments, we also need laymen heavily involved. Would have got back to you sooner but I lost two well crafted responses on my I Pad. My I pad locks up so often using OS 8.0 and now OS 8.1 that you would think it is an old Microsoft unit. Indeed I am typing this on my Windows gamer because it is far more stable than my apple device. There is irony here. Roll on FReeper! Apple lovers flame away! IOS 8.0 and 8.1 S@CK!