PostHeaderIcon Proposed Constitutional Amendment #1

(As promised (threatened?) in a previous article, I intend to submit a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution that, in my own judgment, would help restore a Constitutional Republic in our nation. Some of these are my own, some are based on Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and some have been suggested by others).

The Equal Protection Amendment

All Laws, Rules or Regulations promulgated by the Federal Government of the United States of America, or by any agency or branch thereof, shall apply equally to all Citizens of the United States of America, including all members of government whether elected, appointed or employed to whatever position they may occupy.

I sincerely believe that this is the most important amendment needed to our Constitution. While apparently simple at first reading, it would serve to stop much of the misuse and misapplication of power that currently plagues our Republic. Not only would it block government intrusion into may areas where the federal government has no business intruding, it would also stop any and all use of laws and regulations to pander, cater or otherwise favor one person or group of persons over another.

Please offer constructive comments as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

13 Responses to “Proposed Constitutional Amendment #1”

  • Jerry Elkins says:

    That is a very important amendment. Only problem I see Troy. The people needed to change it are the ones that benefit the most.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Not exactly, Jerry. The book by Mark Levin, which Troy references, explains how the entire process from start to ratification, can be accomplished without any participation by DC politicians or bureaucrats, with a Constitutional Convention. If 2/3 of the States call for a Con-con, it would be entirely out of DC’s hands. ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Without any thorough cogitation, I can already suggest:

    Title: Change ‘Protection’ to ‘Treatment’

    Addendum:

    “…, and no exceptions or exemptions to same, or to taxes, or to employment qualifications, or to [add any I may have missed], or any preferential access to any services, or programs, or employment opportunities, or [add what I may have missed], may be made for any subclass of citizens, for any reason whatever.”

    A very good start, Troy. :) ◄Dave►

  • Larry Andrew says:

    As a member of a minority and as one who is acutely aware of the ease with which government can be used by groups to suppress individual rights, I am very much against this proposal.

    While I can understand the degree of frustration with the seeming overuse of this by the courts to protect all manner of special groups of individuals, I think the use of government by majorities to oppress individual rights clearly trumps efforts to limit the courts ability to use this as a tool to offset tyranny of the majority.

    Most of the noise I hear about this seems to come from old white men who control religious institutions or who spend their time trying to blame someone for taking control of their country from them.

    On balance, I say keep it.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      For the love of Zeus, Larry, what is happening to you in your dotage? Please tell me your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek, as you advocate for the Devil. This simply must be so; the alternative is just too depressing to contemplate… ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      Larry,
      Try as I might, I fail to see how such an amendment could be used to the advantage of any person or special interest group. Please explain further.

      Troy

  • Larry Andrew says:

    Geez guys….I don’t have a clue what I meant…it doesn’t read the way I thought I wrote it and….did I write that? When I have more time I’ll try to figure it all out. Maybe I wrote it about another and it got posted here…

    • ◄Dave► says:

      What minority are you a member of, Larry? I don’t recall you ever mentioning that, and in your picture you just look like an ‘old white man.’ :D ◄Dave►

      • Mary says:

        Wait! Larry’s an ex-communicated Mormom. Maybe that’s the minority of which he speaks.

        This is just too damn funny.

        I really need to get hot on Levin’s book, especially since Phyllis Schlafly eviscerated it today in her Townhall piece. I gotta lot of homework to do.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          LOL… That is the only category I could come up with myself, Mary; but it just did not compute. He wears it as a badge of honor, not a claim to victim-hood. ;) ◄Dave►

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Wow! I just read the Schlafly article to which you referred, Mary. Eviscerate is the perfect word, and she did it masterfully. I remain extremely skeptical of Levin’s plan myself, although I am reading his book and don’t mind participating in the intellectual exercise Troy has initiated here, of crafting needful Amendments to clarify and return the Constitution to its original intent. My biggest question is, of course, if the oligarchs are ignoring the Constitution’s constraints now, what would give anyone the confidence that they would not also just ignore the new Amendments? After all, they have the majority of the clueless sheeple on their side, who reckon they are getting more out of the Federal trough than they are putting in, and would be disinclined to change that equation. ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          I just read the article. It makes a lot of sense and I’m afraid I concur on most points. That doesn’t mean the exercise of contemplating the changes doesn’t have value. I’m just getting into Levin’s book now but I don’t think he’s under the illusion that the outcome is anywhere better than slim and none. I do think he believes the exercise is valid and relevant. If it just wakes many up to how far we have strayed from the original intent.

  • Troy says:

    In The Wisdom of a Constitutional Convention I commented:

    I sincerely hope and trust that the outcome of such a blatant rejection of the People’s will would result in a significant backlash against our rulers, possibly even a civil war. As I have opined before, if civil war is our inevitable destiny, I think it far better that it occur now than in the future when the tyrants have had even more time to prepare.

    I also sincerely hope and trust that a rejection of new amendments to our Constitution, proposed by the States and the People, would cause much more severe reaction than the ongoing rejection of the Constitution in its historical form because I perceive a much greater sense of ownership, on the part of the People, of modern amendments, occurring within our own lifetimes and at our own urging, than exists for the historical Constitution which, to many, especially the younger set, may seem like a relic of another place and time.

    Troy

Leave a Reply

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►