Teaparty Proposal for Grassroots Consideration

Sandra Crosnoe - Finding Gems & Sharing Them

[Editor’s note:This piece is from Shelli Dawdy of Stubborn Facts. We work together in the Constitutional Liberty Coalition and her proposal should be studied and pondered! Her work is reproduced here for your convenience. You are encouraged by Shelli and I to share it with others as you deem appropriate!]

This post is a proposal for an objective and strategy for the “Tea Party movement”. This is really only one aspect of my overall suggestions. I have written an extensive piece on the need for a real grassroots alternative for the whole movement. You may read either the summary piece by clicking here, or the full text by clicking here.

Proposal: A suggested objective and strategy for Tea Party

july-4-signaturesA general consensus seems to have developed concerning the next move: July 4
I am not alone in my thinking that the greatest show of force to date may be obtained by encouraging as many people as possible to rally at their State Capitols on July 4.

“Independence Day Tea Party – Re-Declaring Our Independence”
A reenactment of the reading of the Declaration of Independence, followed by a proclamation, a “New Declaration of Independence” and a roll-out of a set of Constitutional amendments, which encapsulates a number of already circulating proposed amendments and a number of ideas expounded upon by the economist Milton Friedman, perhaps entitled, a “Second Bill of Rights”.

In the early 1960s, economist Milton Friedman stated the following:

“I believe government has grown to a size that’s far beyond it’s scope. Where are we going? I believe that that depends on us…I believe that we are masters of our own destinies. But if you take the road that we have been on, we are heading toward the destruction of our free society and toward a totalitarian society. We are unfortunately headed down the route where it’s chilling and we’ve already taken a century to attain. Now Britian’s taken it much farther. Now I believe we still have time to avoid it. But we will not avoid it unless the people of this country recognize the danger and take very difficult and important steps to set a limit to the extent which they are going to allow government to interfere with their lives.

The chances of avoiding it may well be less than 50%. We may well be fighting a losing battle. If it’s the right battle, if it’s the only alternative to serfdom, than we ought to fight it.”

Clearly Milton Friedman had foresight and it’s chilling to read his words today. Almost fifty years later, particularly in light of events of the past six months, what do we suppose the chances of avoiding the destruction of our free society have become?

In 1979, Friedman made a documentary series and wrote a companion book outlining his theories of economics and freedom called Free to Choose. The ten part series aired on public television in 1980, and again in a revised form in 1990. Friedman walks through the basic principles of economics and how inextricably tied economic freedom is to personal freedom.

Chapter by chapter, he walks logically through the many problems existent in American’s government at that time. In many respects, it could have been written today, only the circumstances are more dire, the problematic numbers cited increased dramatically, in some cases, exponentially. Through this logical walk, one realizes the truth: the many problems that exist will not be easily solved. As Friedman noted in the early ’60s “unless the people of this country recognize the danger and take very difficult and important steps” the problems, the danger to our free society and the threat of a totalitarian government, cannot be reversed.

Central to the reversal of the tide, Friedman notes, is what he calls the “climate of opinion”, which he defines as the dominant philosophies of the academic community, the inner political circles, the media, and the popular culture. The climate of opinion directly influences public policy. In order to reverse the trend, it is critical to influence the climate of opinion. Is it necessary to review the climate of opinion on the aforementioned circles or the direction in which it has influenced public policy?

We need to change the conversation in this country, quickly, and proactively attempt to reverse the current general climate of opinion.

It is difficult in reading Friedman’s book , if you are someone who already believed the United States has become untethered from its Constitutional basis, not to ultimately conclude, like Friedman, that the only way to permanently alter the course we’ve been following is by attempting to pass Constitutional amendments. Friedman called it “an Economic Bill of Rights”, modeled after the original Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Friedman had not devised a full list of ten amendments nor had he or the group with which he was working on developing the language ever finalize it. The time for such an endeavor was not yet ripe. Although Friedman believed in the necessity of the measures he did propose, he acknowledge the level of difficulty such an undertaking entailed. He purported that although the adoption of the amendments may ultimately fail, the introduction of such a Bill of Rights would bring to the fore a debate, if properly handled, that could change the overall climate of opinion.

It is necessary at this point to act boldly. We have veered so far towards socialism, and are moving so quickly toward a totalitarian government, it is necessary to perhaps, very seriously “overthrow the pitch” in hopes, at the least, of beginning to reverse the course and start moving back in the right direction.

Due to many pieces of legislation, court decisions, and events, there are other provisions that are now necessary to adopt beyond Friedman’s Economic Bill of Rights concept. Very recently, there have been resolutions and amendments proposed both in some State Legislatures and in the United States Congress, that could be incorporated into a Second Bill of Rights.

Even if the Amendments failed to be incorporated in the United States Constitution, it may well be possible to implement those that are relevant in the Constitutions of States.

What follows below is a proposal, a very rough draft to spark the dialogue the needs to occur in every household, in every community, and in every state.

Please use it as a springboard for just that. As Friedman pointed, part of the value in proposing a second Bill of Rights was in the process of debating the issues we confront and the potential solutions.

A Second Bill of Rights?

The following articles are proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

1. Abolishing the Federal Reserve, preventing the future creation of a central bank, preventing the US from adopting any other currency, ending inflation

SECTION 1The Federal Reserve Act of 1908 is hereby repealed.

SECTION 2 Congress shall make no law establishing a central banking system.

SECTION 3 Congress shall make no law nor enter in any treaty or international agreement that provides for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

SECTION 4 The President may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

(H.J. Resolution 41, 111th Congress)

SECTION 5 Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest bearing obligations of the Government, in the form of book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5% per year and no less than 3% per year, excepting by a two-thirds majority of Congress in times of war, and only provided that the exception will expire at the end of a twelve month period, at which time it is subject to renewal by another two-thirds majority.

SECTION 6 Contracts by the U.S. government, with other parties, stated in dollars, shall be adjusted annually to allow for the general change in prices the prior year.

2. Strengthening the Tenth Amendment, Acknowledging the Sovereignty of the States

Examine model legislation in several states. Oklahoma H.J. 1003

3. Term Limits

SECTION 1 No member of the United States House of Representatives shall serve more than a lifetime total of four two year terms.

SECTION 2 No member of the United States Senate shall serve more than a lifetime total of two six year terms.

4. Limiting the amount of taxes Government can collect, based on a percentage of national income

Research proposed amendments – NTLC / Friedman

5. Limiting income taxation, repealing the progressive system, requiring all citizens to pay taxes

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes of persons from whatever sources derived, without apportionment to the Several States and without regard to any census, or enumeration, provided that the same tax rate is applied to all income, in excess of occupational and business expenses and a personal allowance of a fixed amount.

The word person shall exclude corporation and other imaginary persons.

6. Limiting the amount of money, as a percentage of national income, that Government can spend each year

Research prior proposed amendments – NTLC / Friedman

7. Freedom to work, to buy goods and services

The right of the people to buy and sell legitimate goods and services at mutually acceptable terms shall not be infringed by Congress or any of the States.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of goods or labor to price their products or services.

No State shall make any law that shall abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to follow any occupation or profession of his choice.

8. Limiting the power of Congress to restrict trade.

Congress shall not lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what is absolutely necessary for executing its inspections laws.

9. Establishing a system for removal of Judges, implementing requirements regarding the Constitution, preventing citation of foreign laws, public opinion

SECTION 1 All Judges appointed to the Federal Court system including the United States Supreme Court, shall be subject to removal from office if they violate the standards of good behavior.

Definition of good behavior: [text]

System for removal: [model after the impeachment process for the President of the United States, must include both the Executive and Legislative branches]

SECTION 2 Any Federal Court decision, including that of the Supreme Court of the United States, citing any law, code, or government document from any country, nation, or state other than of the United States of America after the year 1791, shall be null and void.

SECTION 3 Any Federal Court decision, including that of the Supreme Court of the United States, citing public opinion or sentiment shall be null and void.

SECTION 4 Any Federal Court decision, including that of the Supreme Court of the United States, not citing the specific Article and Section of the Constitution of the United States to which the decision is tied, shall be null and void.

10. Personal privacy and liberty

Parental Rights

(H.J. Resolution 42 – but Section 2 should be omitted)

Real ID


6 Responses to “Teaparty Proposal for Grassroots Consideration”

  1. Teaparty Proposal for Grassroots Consideration Says:

    […] Original post by Sandra Crosnoe […]

  2. The Center Square Says:

    I share much of your broad objective here, stated simply, to curb the excesses of government.

    However, I think a serious reexamination of your tactics is in order. This draft Second Bill of Rights will only alienate the entire center-left voting population. Remember that Obama won 28 states, plus the District of Columbia, plus one Nebraska district. He outpolled his Republican rival by 10 million votes, and swept the electoral vote.

    I am sure you don’t need me to tell you all that. My point is this: If the future of our country is at stake, why employ a strategy that is designed to resonate with a core conservative element, but is equally destined to be rebuffed by moderates and the left? Doesn’t that ensure failure of the overall objective?


  3. Sandra Crosnoe Says:

    My experience is that the message of life and liberty resonates with the American people. However it is hard to get our message through the MSM filter. Time will tell if social media is able to help us change all that or not.

    It has been difficult when the Republican party gives us leaders like Bush and McCain. If we have completely lost the Conservative right of center brand, then the Republican party will eventually die, because we cannot out Democrat the Democrats.

    As a 30 year + Republican party veteran, I am working to prevent that in spite of top down party actions to annouce a new globalist leader to us for the next round. In any event, as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord and stand on biblical and constitutional principles!


  4. The Center Square Says:

    My concern is that a movement that based in the Republican Party, or in the conservative bloc, is simply too narrow and too far removed from the vast centrist voting populace to ever succeed.

    You make a good point that “the message of life… resonates with the American people.” Yet, for example, the conservative bloc has been battling the abortion issue to no avail for more than 35 years now. I don’t think we can take 35 years of this kind of fiscal policy in Washington.

    I cannot escape the thought that being a little less “right,” being not so anti-Obama, and being lot more mainstream offers a better hope of success. Compromise gets things done. I don’t know; just my opinion, obviously.


  5. Bruce Says:

    Being mainstream is what got us into this mess. The media chose the Republican candidate. McCain apologized his way through his campaign.

    We know what it takes to win – conservative principles. McCain has few.

    We have NOT been seeing conservatism for 35 years. Bush (neither) were very conservative. Neither were any of the Republican nominees, with the possible exception of Fred Thompson. That’s why we have a statist in the White House.

  6. The Center Square Says:

    @ Bruce: Isn’t it just possible that conservatism (especially at full, undiluted strength) is simply a small minority view? Maybe most Americans simply don’t agree with you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: