[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 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.

I refer you to what the 16th Amendment replaced: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons...No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." This makes it clear that any tax Congress imposed had to be in proportion to the census.

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

If there must be political parties, yes; let's get rid of the open primaries. However, I would still want these primaries to be done privately within the party and not run by the State.

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

What they gave us was not Democracy. They gave us a constitutional republic. Are you aware, for example, that in the beginning only land-owning whites could vote? (I'm not suggesting that only land-owning whites should be allowed to vote by the way). Also, consider how the Electoral College was set up. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." Also, in the beginning it was the state legislatures that chose Senators. There's also a large paragraph in the Constitution (subsequently replaced by the 12th Amendment) that states how the electors were to do their job:

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

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

Only if the federal budget is tied to the performance of the economy.

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

Not by much.

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

Even if that is the intent, it has been applied much more broadly.

Too late they already are as they should be.

That can be changed.

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 think that's between the parties involved and not the government. That's what contracts are for.

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.

You know as well as I do that the federal courts can override any so-called "public policy" (as they did with miscegenation laws).

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.

Since laws against blacks and whites marrying each other (miscegenation) were overturned by the federal courts, don't be so quick to think that a state's so-called "public policy" is safe. All the more reason to get the government out of the marriage business.