[GHook93]

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

There was nothing in the constitution besides that 16th A that states how taxes are to be laid or collected, just that Congress has the power to lay or collect taxes. I like 22% max, because I don't want to see the total tax (Federal, State and Local) exceed 28%. If will also force the Government to cut wasteful spending.

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.

True, but many have open primaries. I believe most states should require party registry to vote in the primary.

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.

You have proof of that. Originally they wanted to exclude people, but they still believed in the basic concept of Democracy.

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.

Downturns in the economy also can have a very similar effect.

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

By the 10th amendment, true. But the commerce, due process, supremacy and equal protection clause limit their power!

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

It is pretty much to the jurisdiction of other state court decisions!

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.

Too late they already are as they should be. What happens when people get divorced? You don't think its a spouse's responsibility to take care of his children. Like it or not the government is involved in marriage!

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.

WRONG, even if a State doesn't see a marriage ceremony as valid, if its valid in the jurisdiction (including foreign jurisdictions) then the State must recognize that marriage as valid, UNLESS they consider it against public policy.

In every jurisdiction that doesn't legalize gay marriage, then they consider it against public policy and voided ab initio. If there was a Federal Law or Amendment the ball game would change.