Libertarian Issues

The Equalizer Amendment dramatically reduces federal government intrusiveness in three ways. First, it effectively ends all unconstitutional activities of the federal government, and that includes essentially all of its most intrusive activites (see “What is Unconstitutional?”). To see how the amendment accomplishes this, see “Disobedience of the Constitution.” Second, the amendment prevents the federal government from playing favorites, engaging in crony capitalism, providing subsidies to selected industries, interfering selectively with trade, etc. For a description of how this is accomplished see “Over-Regulation (Health, Finance, Energy, Etc.).” Third, the amendment subjects the federal government to all of the legislation to which private enterprise is subject. Once the various departments are forced to comply with onerous intrusions such as Sarbanes-Oxley and the income tax code, the federal government itself will cry out for reform, and we are likely to see dramatic reductions in intrusiveness.

Federal control of drugs, including abused drugs and pharmaceuticals, is unconstitutional. It is an outgrowth of the protection racket on one hand and crony capitalism on the other. Either way, it has served to make many a federal official feel important while enhancing the anti-competitive positions of both legal and illegal sources of pharmacologically active substances.

The Equalizer Amendment ends the wasteful War on Drugs by putting drug decisions back in the hands of the states and the people. It does so by making unconstitutional federal legislation extinct and/or unenforceable. See “Disobedience of the Constitution” to find out how the amendment accomplishes this aim.

The third clause in the Equalizer Amendment 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.” This clause prevents the federal government from treating one citizen, company, or industry differently from any other. Slapping tariffs on imports or exports is not allowed unless the same tariff is applied to EVERY import or export. Of course, such a restriction keeps politicians from favoring one citizen, company, or industry over another and thereby removes most of the fun from the politician’s standpoint. Moreover, the damage to trade that an across-the board tariff would cause is so great that such a measure is unlikely to be considered. Other forms of trade interference are likewise made much less attractive. Unable to play favorites and to get favors, bribes, and campaign contributions in return, politicians will lose interest in diddling with trade, and the economic advantages of free trade will prevail.

People are beginning to become aware of the furtively-controlled monopoly power of the Federal Reserve System. For a very interesting expose of the Fed see Kirk MacKenzie’s book on Money at http://www.silentnomorepublications.com/Money/Home.html. With most people in debt through mortgages or otherwise, the Fed has a stranglehold on our economy. Unfortunately, it has attained a status that makes it neither a government entity nor a private entity. It refuses to comply with Freedom of Information requests, since it claims not to be a government institution, and it refuses to be audited as required of private corporations by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It appears to have a strong influence on Congress, since attempts to pass legislation requiring an audit of its finances have been voted down.

The Equalizer Amendment addresses this problem with the following clause: “Any department or entity that Congress creates shall be treated as a government department or entity, unless the department or entity is made subject to all laws applicable to private entities.” Thus, the Fed, which was created by an act of Congress, must become either a government department or a private entity. Either way, as a result of the first clause of the Equalizer Amendment, the Fed will be subject to Security and Exchange Commission reporting requirements and any other local, state, and federal requirements governing private enterprises. Once the facts come out, there will be a major push to remove the monopoly status of the Fed and to introduce more solidly based currencies that are not subject to manipulation by elitist powers.

Confiscation of property or property rights by the federal government is a violation of the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.” No federal power to take property or property rights from law abiding citizens was ever ratified.

The Equalizer Amendment gives citizens the ability to sue the federal government in local, state, or federal courts with the same ease as that with which the federal government can sue a private-sector corporation. Any unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to seize private or state property or property rights can result in fines to the government and/or imprisonment of the responsible federal official, in the same way that illegal activities of a private corporation can result in fines or imprisonment of the responsible officer within the corporation.

The freedom of citizens to enter into contractual agreements with each other of their own free will with the various risks assigned to the parties in an agreed-upon fashion no longer exists in the U. S., much to the demise of our economy. A person cannot buy a lower-cost truck with a side-mounted gas tank, even if he/she is willing to accept the risk of fire or explosion in case of an accident, and a person cannot buy a new car without air bags even if he/she is willing to accept the greater risk of injuries in an accident in exchange for the reduced cost and reduced risk of accidental airbag deployment. Also, a person is unable to benefit from a 50% reduction in cost of a surgery in exchange for accepting the full risk of possible accidents or complications. Why? Because, no matter what the contract says, the government can rewrite it, saying, after the outcome is known, that the acceptance of risk by the injured party is not really part of the contract. The result: prices for cars and medical care are much higher than they need be. Everyone ends up with a one-size-fits-all deal, and lawyers end up with lots of their cash.

In fact, this impairment of contracts by STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is unconstitutional. Quoth the Constitution: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” Impairing contracts is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government, and it is not allowed as a power of the states.

The Equalizer Amendment, which makes it easy to sue the federal government for unconstitutional acts (see “Disobedience of the Constitution”) also makes it easy to sue the federal government for not upholding the Constitution if the federal government neglects to enforce state compliance with the Constitution.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

Hits On This Page