Conservative Issues

The Equalizer Amendment attacks the problem of oversized government in four different ways. The first clause allows us to get rid of unconstitutional legislation (see “What is Unconstitutional?”) and the departments and agencies that it has created. The departments that will be downsized or eliminated on constitutional grounds include the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Transportation (DOT). The agencies that will be downsized, privatized, transferred to the states, or eliminated are too numerous to mention. Innumerable regulations, such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Obamacare, are unconstitutional and will be dumped. Once all of the unconstitutional garbage is removed, the federal government will be down to less than half of its year-2010 size, and there will be no budget deficit.

The first clause states, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” This clause makes it as easy for citizens to sue the government as it is for the government to sue private-sector entities. The suits can be brought, of course, in local, state, or federal courts. Any unconstitutional legislation will fall under attack immediately, injunctions will be issued in some cases, and most of the unconstitutional legislation will probably not survive for more than several years after the Equalizer Amendment’s ratification.

The second approach for reducing the size of the federal government is enabled by the non-favoritism clause: “No federal law or regulation shall discriminate against or in favor of a private entity or citizen or a group of such entities or citizens on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, industry type, perceived importance, contributions of money or favors, lobbying activities, or domestic location.” By subjecting the government to lawsuits for any legislation that introduces frivolous favoritism, the Equalizer Amendment strongly counteracts the favoritism on which crony capitalism and the catering to special-interest groups are based. Legislators, who under current private-sector law could be sued individually or as a group for damages under this clause, will be much more hesitant to pass legislation of even a mildly questionable nature or to take in contributions or favors that could be tied to special interests. Less legislation means less government.

The third approach is covered by the second paragraph of the Equalizer Amendment. It requires that government departments go through all of the same tax accounting and regulatory hoops that private-sector entities must go through. Those with net income taxes will have to pay those taxes back to the taxpayers. Subject to these provisions, the government itself will become an advocate of reduced tax complications and will cry out for the elimination of frivolous regulations. In addition to federal taxes, the federal government will have to pay state taxes to the states in which various federal properties are located. Payment by the federal government of state property taxes on federally managed lands will return a big chunk of the federal budget to the states.

The fourth approach is implemented by the last paragraph of the amendment. This paragraph shortens the terms of office of elected federal officials every time the federal government incurs a deficit. This provision will act as a strong incentive to balance the budget. The government will not grow beyond its means except in times of emergency.

With the reduction in the size of the federal government (see “Oversized Government”) that the Equalizer Amendment will bring about, the military, which is exempted from some of the amendment’s requirements and is not significantly impacted by the others, is likely to be the largest department. In addition, a much larger portion of the federal budget will be available to the military. Moreover, the President and the members of Congress, no longer able to play favorites or to push unconstitutional legislation, will have defense as the only matter to deal with that will make them feel important. Defense will THRIVE under the Equalizer Amendment.

The most critical element in national defense is having something worth fighting for. When we have the unequaled liberty and prosperity that the Equalizer Amendment will bring about, we will have something so precious that any attack from the outside will galvanize the entire citizenry into action.

The first clause of the Equalizer Amendment states, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” This means that citizens will be able to sue the federal government in local, state, and federal courts just as easily as the government can sue a private entity. Moreover, just as private citizens and businesses are subject to anti-fraud legislation, the government will be subject to anti-fraud legislation. This means that any abrogation by a federal official of his/her oath of office will be grounds for civil and criminal penalties. Failure of the government to enforce the laws against illegal immigration is a violation of the oath of office by the President and will land the President in court just like the CEO of a fraudulent company. The government will be required to pay damages, legal fees, and penalties, and the President may have to do time in jail.

The Equalizer Amendment attacks the problem of over-regulation in three different ways. The first clause allows us to get rid of unconstitutional legislation (see “What is Unconstitutional?”) The clause states, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” This clause makes it as easy for citizens to sue the government as it is for the government to sue private-sector entities. The suits can be brought, of course, in local, state, or federal courts. Any unconstitutional legislation will come under attack immediately, injunctions will be issued in some cases, and most of the unconstitutional legislation will probably not survive for more than several years after the Equalizer Amendment’s ratification. Innumerable regulations, such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Obamacare, are unconstitutional and will be dumped. In many cases, citizens will not have to wait for the suits to come to trial. The last clause of the amendment’s first paragraph states, “Any existing law approved by Congress or regulation approved by the Executive that does not comply with all of the foregoing criteria is null and void and shall not be enforced.” Laws that are clearly unconstitutional can simply be ignored without penalty.

The second approach for reducing over-regulation is enabled by the non-favoritism clause: “No federal law or regulation shall discriminate against or in favor of a private entity or citizen or a group of such entities or citizens on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, industry type, perceived importance, contributions of money or favors, lobbying activities, or domestic location.” By subjecting the government to lawsuits for any legislation that introduces frivolous favoritism, the Equalizer Amendment strongly counteracts the favoritism on which crony capitalism and the catering to special-interest groups are based. Legislators, who under current private-sector law could be sued individually or as a group for damages under this clause, will be much more hesitant to pass legislation of even a mildly questionable nature or to take in contributions or favors that could be tied to special interests. Less legislation means less regulation.

Most federal welfare is unconstitutional. (See “What is Unconstitutional?”.) Unconstitutional legislation is eliminated by the first clause of the Equalizer Amendment. The clause states, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” This clause makes it as easy for citizens to sue the government as it is for the government to sue private-sector entities. The suits can be brought, of course, in local, state, or federal courts. Any unconstitutional legislation will come under attack immediately, injunctions will be issued in some cases, and most of the unconstitutional legislation will probably not survive for more than several years after the Equalizer Amendment’s ratification.

The first two paragraphs of the Equalizer Amendment limit the powers of the federal government to just what was ratified in the Constitution and the intervening amendments. (See “What is Unconstitutional?”.) This makes the role of politicians much less important than it has been in recent years. These paragraphs also effectively prevent politicians from playing favorites and gaining campaign contributions, bribes, or political favors in return for legislative favors. The job of being a politician becomes much less lucrative and attractive than it has been, especially since politicians will be subject to lawsuits, tax liabilities, accounting requirements, and laws governing truth-in-advertising and fraud. Politicians will not be able to renege on campaign promises or make false claims about legislation they are trying to ram down people’s throats, lest they be sued for damages and possibly jailed. Not being able to deceive the electorate is the last straw. Few politicians will want to make a career of government service.

To top it off, nevertheless, the last two paragraphs of the Equalizer Amendment make sure that politicians are not paid too much and that those who bust the budget have their terms shortened. How do you know how much is too much when it comes to compensation? If hardly anyone ever quits voluntarily, then they are being paid too much. The third paragraph requires that no raises be given so long as the rate at which politicians are quitting voluntarily is lower than the average rate at which comparably-paid non-government employees voluntarily quit their jobs in the private sector. If no politicians are quitting, they don’t get a raise, in other words. Eventually, due to inflation the compensation–which includes pay, on-the-job benefits, and retirement benefits–becomes normal enough that some politicians quit their jobs voluntarily, and then everyone in the next session gets a bit of a raise: whatever the electorate will tolerate.

The provision that reduces the urge to bust the budget is the one in the fourth paragraph that shortens the terms of elected federal officials every time they complete a year in the red. If they consistently run deficits, the terms of representatives can be as short as one year, the terms of senators can be as short as three years, and the terms of the President and Vice President can be as short as two years. This provision removes some of the thrill of spending beyond the politicians’ means and allows voters to dump the scoundrels more quickly. It still allows for deficit spending in time of war or emergency.

We restrict our attention here to morality that applies to actions of consenting citizens that involve only these consenting citizens and do not criminally victimize others.

Legislation that attempts to impose one-size-fits-all morality or amorality on the citizenry of the entire nation is unconstitutional. Rum was the vice in the Revolutionary War days, but not a word is mentioned about it in the Constitution. It is clear that the Constitution as ratified did not grant the federal government the power to legislate morality. It left that power to the states and to the people.

Interestingly, even criminal immorality is left to the states in most cases. Murder, for example, becomes a federal case only if it is committed on federal property or against a federal officer.

Roe v. Wade does not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Nor would a federal act that legalizes gay marriage. Nor, for that matter, would an act that illegalizes abortion or gay marriage. These powers are left to the states and to the people.

The Equalizer Amendment contains two clauses that act to prevent the federal government from trying to legislate morality. The first is, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” This clause allows citizens to sue the federal government with the same ease as that with which the federal government can sue private entities. Since the legislation of morality by the federal government is by and large unconstitutional, any attempt by the federal government to legislate morality will be rendered unsustainable by lawsuits.

The second clause of importance is, “No federal law or regulation shall discriminate against or in favor of a private entity or citizen or a group of such entities or citizens on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, industry type, perceived importance, contributions of money or favors, lobbying activities, or domestic location.” It prohibits the federal government from imposing on private citizens any legislation either for or against any particular religion or gender.

The Supreme Court and many of the lower federal courts have frequently ruled as constitutional legislation that is patently unconstitutional (see “What Is Unconstitutional?”), and they have frequently overruled the voters in various states by overturning state constitutional amendments and state legislation that are totally outside the purview of the federal government. Elitist judges appointed by elitist presidents have infested the federal courts, and their judicial activism has resulted in unrestricted federal power over the states and the people. How can the Equalizer Amendment force the courts to obey the Constitution, and how can the Equalizer Amendment allow citizens to sue the federal government with the same ease as that with which the federal government can sue private entities?

The answer is provided by Thomas Jefferson. The ultimate authority on constitutionality is the people. We have both a right and a duty to overturn an elitist government that no longer serves the people. The Equalizer Amendment provides a way to do this nonviolently. The first clause of the Equalizer Amendment states, “No federal law or regulation shall apply to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all officers and employees of the United States government other than members of the military.” By this clause we are authorized to sue federal judges with the same ease as that with which the federal government can sue private entities. If there is a case to be made that a federal judge or Supreme Court justice has violated his or her oath to defend the Constitution, that case can be brought in a local, state, or federal court, and the judge in question can be penalized for fraud if found to be disobeying the oath. Penalties for fraud can include fines or time in jail, just like the penalties for CEOs of businesses that commit fraud. Federal judges will have to carry insurance to cover the potential fines. The insurance, which is likely to be paid for by the government, will not be cheap, especially for judges who flirt with the edge of constitutionality. In any case, judges who try to push the envelope of constitutionality too far will find themselves endlessly tied up in court.

What guarantees that local, state, or federal courts will allow citizens to sue federal judges? In most cases local judges are elected. Voters can get rid of any who refuse to support citizens’ interests. State judges are elected in many states and appointed in others. Where appointed, they are appointed by elected officials such as the governor or the legislators. Only a few states give judges tenure for life. It follows that local and state judges are, by and large, more responsive to the people than are federal judges and are more easily replaced when they fail to serve the electorate. Meanwhile, any federal judges who fail to serve honorably will find themselves subjected to lawsuits in local and state courts. This is the way it was meant to be.

"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."

-- Ronald Reagan

Hits On This Page