[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 I said max 22% meaning they can go under but not over. Elimination of Corporate taxation which shift the trade war in our favor of China

But why 22 percent? I'd like to see a return to taxation as it was written into the Constitution before the 16th Amendment.

Take the vote even more out of the hands of the people? I strongly disagree! That has was too much openness for corruption.

Since the people register in their states with specific political parties (I would not allow outsiders to vote in a party's primary), the people do get a say. Then again, the founding fathers never intended the people to have all that much of a say in electing the President anyway. Originally, the states were supposed to appoint electors (through whatever process they chose) and the electors were supposed to elect the President. Let's get rid of the political parties entirely and return to that system.

Be realistic. Sometimes the budget becomes unbalance and there are no quick fixes!

The budget would only become unbalanced due to unforeseen emergencies like natural disasters or because of war. Otherwise, I expect the government to balance its budget.

States are not individual countries they are part of a Union. They have automony, but it can't infringe on the sovereignty of the whole nation.

They wouldn't be infringing on the sovereignty of the United States but they were intended to have more power than they have today.

You simplify it too much to call it merely a medical procedure. Either way the courts shouldn't be the one creating laws. I want it decided, so its no longer an issue of which party will select the President who will select the pro or anti-abortion judge. Its needs to be answered by Federal Law and not the courts.

To me, it is a mere medical procedure and I don't want the federal government legislating medical procedures (whether through Congress or through the courts).

Full Faith and Credit Clause has to do with sister juridiction courts respecting the previous decision of their sister jurisdiction. FFCC prevents, if I sue you for a specific tort in IL lose, then bringing the exact same tort IN that might have also have subject matter and personal jurisdication.

The full faith and credit clause has been applied to much more than that.

In family law every state has to recognize a marriage if it was valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign) it took place in, unless its considered against public policy! Every State that doesn't make gay marriage legal, has it against public policy and views it void ab initio.

Well, since I don't want the government involved in marriage at all, this is pretty much meaningless. The government shouldn't be conferring rights, privileges or anything else on people just because they choose to mate.

That is the privilege and immunity clause. Very different.

I included it because it's not entirely different. It is closely related to the full faith and credit clause. Together, the two can be used to require that states recognize things like marriage in other states. This is how gay marriage will eventually become recognized across the nation.