The Reclamation Amendment for American Freedom

Post Reply New Topic

The Reclamation Amendment would create a fourth branch of the government run by We the People called the Oversight branch, it would be the final check and balance for the other 3 branches to prevent further corruption.

Further it would eliminate the National Debt, remove the power the banks have to print money, lessen their power overall, and it would bring the troops home, havebthem sent to their respective state militias and posted along the borders to protect us from dangerous loegal immigrants.

http://www.reclamationprojectx.org/TheAmendment.htm


So please discuss, and if interested get involved,mwe really need this to pass, we need 75% of the states to pass it for it to be ratified

Utterly stupid.

The repeal of the 16th Amendments will plunge the United States into a fiscal chasm from which it will never recover. US dollars will, almost instantly, become worthless in the foreign exchange markets, because the federal government will no longer have the fiscal capacity to guarantee its own T-bills. That will mean that the United States will be forced to buy hard currency--and the only way to do that is through a trade surplus, which the United States does not have. If you are bent on the destruction of the United States, you have found the fastest route.

I don't see the point of repealing the 17th amendment. Has your democracy been abused by the direct election of Senators?

"The original 13th amendment" is ambiguous. Does this mean the thirteenth amendment presented to the states for ratification? That would appear to be what was ratified as the Twelfth Amendment, which renders the proposition meaningless. Or does it mean the thirteenth amendment proposed for consideration in Congress? Or, instead, does it mean the original text of the 13th Amendment? If so, what constitutes, "original?" The first scribblings on the back of a cocktail napkin by Henderson? Sumner? Whose original?

But let's carry on. The proposal is factually inaccurate in its premise. The US Constitution is not rooted in the Common Law--it is wholly and entirely a creation of statute.

It is self-contradictory. In the second paragraph it claims that the US Constitution fully supports belief in god or gods and the practice thereof, and then goes on--in the very next sentence--to say that the Constitution will not support any such belief and practice in any way, manner, shape or form.

The voiding of "contracts, agreements etc. (and let's not get into how stupid that is...)" is followed by a permissive clause that would allow for the reinstatement of valid claims. But if the claims were voided, then they aren't valid and cannot be reinstated. If they were valid, then they were never voided and need no reinstatement. So clearly, this clause must mean that there are some contracts, agreements, etc. hidden or withheld that ought properly to be honoured despite their invalidity. So which are they? This document gives no guidance.

And then there's the utter lunacy of the unchecked "fourth branch," with the obligation to affirm or nullify any act of the other three branches which may conceivably have the force of law. Are you insane?!?

Every single decision of a federal court at the trial, appellate and supreme court level would require a vote. Every resolution and act of Congress. And every single decision by a federal public servant in every single department of the government. The decision to allocate $10,000 to the office supply budget of the Air Force Base in some random backwater is a decision of the executive branch, and it has the force of law because it restricts the authority with which the Base Commander can spend public money. Every decision of a Consul at a United States Embassy to approve or refuse a visa to a foreign visitor is a decision that has the force of law, because it permits or refuses permission to a person to seek admission to the United States. And then when that person actually arrives, the decision of an officer at the port of entry to admit that person is another decision with the force of law. And the decision of a TSA officer to permit a person to pass a security checkpoint and board an airplane.

This is the creation of a person with no legal training, no understanding of the functions and working of government and who cannot remotely comprehend the consequences of implementing what he has written.

Mr. Skolnick need not have asserted his copyright in this piece of rubbish, because only a moron would choose to lay claim to it in its present form.

The problem is not the national debt but this conception there is anything the American people can do anything about it.
You could pour endless money into government they will still bankrupt it. They see it as more money to spend. And this goes for both parties as of the last 2 decades.

Alternate currencies and bartering would work just fine. It did before. Let the debt affect government, don't let it affect the people.

The government wont let it affect them, they will just continue to increase taxes to cover their losses with our money, they did it with the bailouts also, they covered the losses of other peoples failures by hirtong the taxpayer, we are always the one with the short end of the stick, the constitution states the governments only job is to protect our rights and protect our lives from foreign invasion, they have long since overstepped their bounds

The problem, IMO, is global capitalism, not the national debt. I would support an amendment to outlaw the corporatocracy ("corporatism").

Honestly, this is just a moronic far-right libertarian screed.

Hell, the idea of requiring a 100% reserve ratio is sheer idiocy and only promoted by one fringe economist and his lackeys, and basically NOBODY ELSE in the entire discipline.

I see little reason to support something like this, as it's not from any intellectually credible source and if suddenly put in place, would probably end up causing some devastating consequences. (Like, what's going to happen to the economy if corporations are suddenly stripped of their legal personhood? It will run into a huge mess.)

I hope you realize that like any organization, these structures take on a life of their own, whether for good or ill. Appealing to the original intent is rather pointless, as people engage with these structures because of their current status, which is to be evaluated on it's own grounds. I mean, let's say I start a social club, but this social club eventually evolves into a volunteerism group. Has some great injustice happened? No.