The text of a proposed Constitutional amendment is provided for discussion below. The Liberty Amendment was proposed in the 1970s and, they say, was approved by five states. Because of the New World Order fears, and the very real imposing actions of the United Nations on the freedom of American citizens, the Liberty Amendment should be even more interesting to Americans today.

For Tenth Amendment advocates, the Liberty Amendment goes far in keeping the federal government out of matters that should be solely a state's business. And, with only a minimal change, the proposed amendment could also be worded so as to insure that no treaty or agreement will ever overrule anything in our Constitution.

Calling it necessary for the promotion of individual liberty and limited government, back in 1998, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted the Liberty Amendment as HJ-116.

"Over the years this amendment has enjoyed widespread support and has been introduced several times in the past by various Members of Congress, but finally this measure has a chance of success given the conservative Congress and mood of the country in favor of a more limited, constitutional government which respects individual liberty," Paul stated when he introduced the bill. (1)

"The income tax is the most regressive tax imaginable, allowing government to take first claim on our lives. The income tax assumes government owns us, as individuals, and has a sovereign claim to the fruits of our labor. This is immoral. But government has been compelled to levy this economically damaging tax because government has grown so big. By reducing the size of the federal government to those functions strictly enumerated in the Constitution, there will no longer be a need for the income tax," said Paul.

Obviously, the Liberty Amendment will not be a cure for all concerns citizens have with today's federal government. It would, however, cause a lot of very worthwhile changes. For that reason, we provide the full text -- with the explanation inserted by the authors -- for your examination.

"Section 1. The government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution."

The first section terminates ownership and operation of all business-type activities currently operated by the federal government, except those authorized by the Constitution. Operation of the Post Office, and certain functions Constitutionally connected with the Armed Forces will not be affected.

"Section 2. The Constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment."

This section insures that the amendment's effectiveness cannot be voided by treaties made with another country, or the United Nations. In fact, Section 2 will require that Congress revise or repeal numerous laws in order to limit the federal government's activities to the original intent of the Constitution.

"Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold."

The federal government will be allowed three years to divest itself of hundreds of businesses and other functions not authorized by the Constitution. This will also include such things as returning national forests and mineral rights back to the states. Again, those properties -- Post Offices, office buildings, military bases, etc. -- used for Constitutionally authorized functions, will not be affected.

"Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

This section effectively scraps the Sixteenth Amendment, and hence the IRS and the whole income tax system. This also means that every taxpayer in the country will suddenly realize at least a 20% increase in take home pay.

1. <http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr042898liberty.htm>

"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?" asked James Madison in 1787. His words ring very true again today.

Later, in The Federalist #44 he wrote: "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding."

Madison was writing about the capricious legislative actions of Great Britain. But, if we rewrote that into modern English, most Americans would identify it as describing today's federal government.

A few years ago, Business Week reported that there are more than 100,000 new laws, rules and regulations enacted in the United States each year. Between 1976 and 1986, state legislatures alone made up 248,000 new laws. And, on average, each of these laws spurred at least ten new regulations.

And that's only the state governments. The federal government is even worse. At last count, we found over 11,585 pages of IRS regulations, 11,270 pages of regulations for Agriculture, 11,808 pages for the EPA, and 5,368 for Labor, to name just a few affecting our personal activities. A quick look in a public library showed 211 fat books containing 122,027 pages of Federal regulations directly affecting American citizens.

That's 122,027 pages of regulations alone, not laws passed by Congress. And, we're responsible for obeying every damn one of them! When you also factor in federal laws, this gets way, way out of hand.

The most important function of government is the protection of the people -- to protect the free exercise of our rights and liberties. Instead, legislators and regulatory agencies seem to be trying to classify every known human activity as either prohibited or mandatory.

Worse yet, any of these rules and regulations can be arbitrarily enforced on an unsuspecting citizen at any time. And, although they might be officially labeled rules and regulations by legislators, to the citizen they have the full force of law. After all, what happens if you break one of these little bureaucratic jewels? Agents with guns come after you and courts fine you and/or put you in prison, that's what!

Madison was right. An over regulated society is not conducive to business -- and hence, to building wealth within that society. These actions by the federal government are, in effect, stymieing the welfare of the country.

Is it any wonder so many American businesses, and American jobs, are moving to less regulated countries?

All retroactive laws are unconstitutional. Supposedly, we are protected against such heavy-handed political impositions. Our social compact with government, the United States Constitution, forbids such actions by government. That is, if We the People are willing to enforce the issue.

First, we should ask our Representatives and Senators if they intend to honor their oath of office. You know, the one where they swear to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. . . .

Then, ask your Member of Congress to read Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Laws shall be passed." This sentence should be pretty clear -- even to a Member of Congress or a Congressional aide -- since the operative word here is "No." The other operative words of interest to us are the Latin words "ex post facto" -- which is legalese for criminalizing an innocent action and then, retroactively, punishing it as a crime.

In the Federalist Papers (#44) James Madison wrote: "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation."

Alexander Hamilton expanded on that thought in Federalist #84 when he wrote: "The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."

In other words, according to Madison, passing a retroactive law violates every principle of sound legislation, and he expected American legislators to know better. Hamilton, however, was a little more blunt. "Tyranny," he calls it.

Even before the Federalist papers, Sir William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Law," was quite clear in his opinion of ex post facto laws: "These are wholly unreasonable," he began the section. Blackstone then contends that all laws should be passed, and the people notified, well in advance of their effective date.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, feared that even "to put the ex post facto provision in the Constitution might proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of Legislation, or are constituting a Government which will be so." William Samuel Johnson, a delegate from Connecticut, thought the clause "unnecessary, and implying an improper suspicion of the National Legislature." They too thought American legislators would know better. Apparently, though, they didn't anticipate the type of politicians we have running the government in Washington today.

Some lawyers say the ex post facto provision only applies to criminal law. The United States Supreme Court, however, said otherwise. The ex post facto provision applies to any law imposing a penalty.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if we're talking about a tax package, environmental laws, rules and regulations, or gun laws. If the law, rule or regulation is retroactive it is, as James Madison instructs "contrary to the first principles of the social compact and to every principle of sound legislation."

Or, it is, as Alexander Hamilton puts it: "Tyranny."

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron304.htm. Revised 3-1-03. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.