Saturday, April 21, 2018
1. Cleveland (0-16) — Sam Darnold, QB, USC, So. 2. N.Y. Giants (3-13) — Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn St., Jr. 3. N.Y. Jets from Indianapolis (4-12) — Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA, Jr. 4. Cleveland from Houston (4-12) — Bradley Chubb, DE, NC State, Sr. 5. Denver (5-11) — Quenton Nelson, OG, Notre Dame, Sr. 6. Indianapolis from N.Y. Jets (5-11) — Denzel Ward, CB, Ohio St., Jr. 7. Tampa Bay (5-11) — Minkah Fitzpatrick, DB, Alabama, Jr. 8. Chicago (5-11) — Tremaine Edmunds, LB, Virginia Tech, Jr. 9. San Francisco (6-10) — Derwin James, SS, Florida St., So. 10. Oakland (6-10) — Vita Vea, DT, Washington, Jr. 11. Miami (6-10) — Baker Mayfield, QB, Oklahoma, Sr. 12. Buffalo from Cincinnati (7-9) — Josh Allen, QB, Wyoming, Jr. 13. Washington (7-9) — Roquan Smith, ILB, Georgia, Jr. 14. Green Bay (7-9) — Jaire Alexander, CB, Louisville, Jr. 15. Arizona (8-8) — Connor Williams, OT, Texas, Jr. 16. Baltimore (9-7) — Mike McGlinchey, OT, Notre Dame, Sr. 17. L.A. Chargers (9-7) — Da’Ron Payne, DT, Alabama, Jr. 18. Seattle (9-7) — Marcus Davenport, DE, Texas-San Antonio, Sr. 19. Dallas (9-7) — Calvin Ridley, WR, Alabama, Jr. 20. Detroit (9-7) — Derrius Guice, RB, LSU, Jr. 21. Cincinnati from Buffalo (9-7) — James Daniels, C, Iowa, Jr. 22. Buffalo from Kansas City (10-6) — Leighton Vander Esch, OLB, Boise St., Jr. 23. L.A. Rams (11-5) — Kolton Miller, OT, UCLA, Jr. 24. Carolina (11-5) — Justin Reid, FS, Stanford, Jr. 25. Tennessee (9-7) — Harold Landry, OLB, Boston College, Sr. 26. Atlanta (10-6) — Maurice Hurst, DT, Michigan, Sr. 27. New Orleans (11-5) — Dallas Goedert, TE, South Dakota St., Sr. 28. Pittsburgh (13-3) — Ronnie Harrison, SS, Alabama, Jr. 29. Jacksonville (10-6) — Lamar Jackson, QB, Louisville, Jr. 30. Minnesota (13-3) — Will Hernandez, OG, Texas-El Paso, Sr. 31. New England (13-3) — Rashaan Evans, OLB, Alabama, Sr. 32. Philadelphia (13-3) — Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A&M, Jr.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
In a perfect world Fundamental Rights would not be necessary. Fundamental Rights are a necessary evil to protect our Liberties. More Fundamental Rights means a much more complex and expensive justice system. If, for example, it was a Fundamental Right to purchase coffee think about how much law enforcement would be needed to investigate violations of this right. More Fundamental Rights means more chaos and actually less Liberty for everyone. The biggest threat to our Liberty and Fundamental Rights are government agency monopolies since legislation and judicial precedent is long lasting. Government is a necessary evil, but unfortunately much of what they do is an unnecessary evil. In past writings, I have pointed out the evils of the Supreme Court whose sworn duty is to protect us from bad legislation but instead they have become a “rubber stamp” for government power grabs. The Court has also unsuccessfully defended federalism and separation of powers that were designed to protect us from government monopolies and unnecessary power. Government is a monopoly and therefore they can do things (or get away with things) that ordinary citizens would be jailed for. Conservatives view government monopolies as necessary (maybe smaller in size) to prevent corruption of human behavior: gambling, cigarettes, drinking, drugs, crime, homosexual behavior and so forth. Conservatives want government to force moral legislation to control human behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, want a big monopolized government to prevent one group of people from taking advantage of another group of people. Liberals view government power necessary to protect minorities, illegal immigrants, women, Muslims, and so forth. Both groups will use absolute power to attain their goals even if it means violating the Liberty and Fundamental Rights of citizens. Consider the Conservative want for a strong military. With our current military enrollment at low levels, conservatives may see a need to institute a draft. However, any draft would violate the Thirteenth Amendment which outlaws slavery and indentured servitude. The rights of cigarette smokers have been violated with higher taxes and restrictions on smoking areas (even on public property). This is discrimination, but cigarette smoke does affect persons in close proximity to the smoker. Conservative government has backed consumption taxes on many so called immoral activities: gambling, alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Liberals have done the same, including implementing “sugar” taxes on dozens of products. Conservatives back the monopoly police force in our country to prevent crime. However, monopolies are never efficient since they face little competition. The actual clearance rate (percent of crimes solved – Burglary, Theft, Robbery, Rape, Assault, and Murder) is less than 40% and even more violators will get off at trial since the justice system presumes innocence (another necessary evil to protect against wrongful convictions). The police have a tough job and I would not want to do it, but these conviction rates are not very good. On the other hand, liberals will protect the rights of an illegal alien over a U.S. citizen. Any illegal alien who accepts government funding, fails to pay taxes, and or accepts a job that would otherwise go to a U.S. citizen is violating the rights of U.S. citizens. Liberals providing preferential treatment to a minority group through legislation such as diversity, affirmative action, or a quota based system is violating the rights of majority groups. Liberals support the taking of private property to be distributed for private reasons is also violating a person’s rights. Many companies are providing Muslims with preferential treatment over other religious groups by providing them with prayer rooms and foot baths. And there is little that can be done to stop a monopolized government and judicial system from violating the rights of one group of people at the expense of another. Providing competition against government monopolies can help resolve some of these rights violations. UPS and Fed Ex have competed against the Post Office with success. Hence, it is plausible to compete against other government monopolies. For instance, many private citizens are using their Fundamental Right of freedom of contract to employ private security personnel and systems to protect their rights that the police have been pursuing unsatisfactorily. Also, the Fundamental Right to self-defense would reduce crime. Criminals are more afraid of confronting a potentially armed victim than being caught by the police. Criminals (as do most people) place a priority on the present and neglect contemplating future consequences. This explains why steeper penalties do not deter criminals. As for the justice department monopoly there are private court systems that are competing against our inefficient public court system with success. It would also be useful to change payment methodologies in public courts where the losing party would pay for all Court fees. This would provide restitution to victims, provide relief to the wrongly accused, and eliminate abuse within the system. Using private prisons (instead of public ones) where inmates can work and pay restitution to victims helps protect the rights of victims and would also deter crime. Clearly in areas like Chicago where the violent crime rate is so high, citizens should be able to practice their Fundamental Right of “freedom from contract” to withhold tax money that can be used instead to employ other security options. People have no say over how their taxes will be used and that should change to hold government agencies accountable. When government agencies fail, citizens should have the right to withhold tax dollars. Government monopolies are coercive by nature because they know people will have to pay taxes or be jailed. Hence, there is no motivation or incentive for agencies to perform adequately, but there is plenty of incentive to be wasteful and even corrupt. Further preventions against government monopolies should allow jurisdictions the power to succeed from the Union if the government is failing them (another federalism power the Supreme Court has denied). Think about the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Nations succeeded from Russia because their government was failing them. Of course, Southern states succeeding before the Civil War puts this power in question when it is done for the wrong reasons (slavery).
Sunday, April 15, 2018
The other aspect of gaining an elevated Fundamental Right belongs to the power principle. Those with the most money and lobbying power gain more friendly legislation and rights. The NRA was pivotal in attaining guns as a Fundamental Right for self-defense. Self-Defense is certainly a Fundamental Right, but guns are not the only means or choice of weapon. I do not believe guns had to be elevated as a Fundamental Right since it was protected in the Second Amendment. For example, elevating Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion as Fundamental Rights is redundant and merely a truism since they are in the First Amendment. Another example of power is the LGBT community. This is a strong faction even though they are not a majority. To get the Supreme Court to rule as they did in Romer v. Evans (preferential treatment to gays), Lawrence v. Texas (Sodomy), and Obergefell v. Hodges (Gay Marriage), they must have some clout. Most minority groups have a strong backing through the work of social justice liberals. In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) the Court barely upheld a Michigan Referendum that states: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Justice Sotomayor in her dissent repeatedly states “race matters”. It is hard to imagine or fathom that an anti-discrimination law can be found unconstitutional, but that is exactly what would happen if there is just one more liberal justice pushing for social justice. This is how biased and discriminatory elevated Fundamental Rights can become the law. Remember, the first Fundamental Right elevated by the Court was in the Dred Scott decision (1857). In that case, the Court held all blacks (including freedmen) had no Constitutional rights. This decision led to many other popular (majority rule) decisions such as Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) – the Separate but Equal doctrine, or Buck v. Bell (1927) that compulsory sterilization of the intellectually challenged is permissible. In Plessy, Justice Harlan proclaimed in his famous dissent: “the Constitution is colorblind”. Our rights are protected through government (legislation and judicial system), but more importantly through the “freedom of contract”. We cannot count on government to protect our rights (as pointed out above), but we can certainly control our property and possessions through the “freedom of contract” and the “freedom from contract”. That is why “freedom of contract” should be a Fundamental Right. However, that Fundamental Right was overturned in the landmark case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1935) where the Court held that “freedom of contract” was not as important as government control over economic issues such as work hours, work pay, and work unions via the Commerce Clause. Let’s examine a few examples or rights which currently are not Fundamental Rights elevated by the Supreme Court. First, is the right for justice. This is a Fundamental Right because every individual is allowed some form of Justice against anyone who harmed them and violated their rights. Everyone is allowed justice if they have been wronged. Justice may come in the form of a restitution (monetary) or prison punishment or both. I would like to see more prisons encourage employment opportunities for inmates (who are poor) so they can pay a monetary punishment for crimes. It could also be used as an incentive for release: once an inmate meets their restitution requirements they can be released. Justice, is not always guaranteed. Our judicial system is set up to protect against convicting an innocent person (the presumption of innocence). This means that guilty people will be set free at a high rate since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the defendant violated someone’s rights beyond a reasonable doubt. People may not receive justice, but they have the right to pursue any options at their disposal to achieve justice. The second right is the right to health insurance or healthcare. This is not a Fundamental Right. Health insurance may be seen as self-defense to fight life threatening ailments. Health insurance is property because it is a personal possession that costs money. Health insurance is also a contract. Hence, health insurance has many qualities of Fundamental Rights but like any form of property, people can only buy what they can afford or want. It is the right of any person to choose what they spend their money on. Besides, health insurance can be taken away from anyone who fails to pay their premiums unlike true Fundamental Rights (Property, Justice, Knowledge, and Parental Decisions). Government sponsored health care is an entitlement and no entitlement is a right. Taking money from one private citizen to give to another private citizen violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (the government can take money for public projects such as infrastructure). This welfare concept violates any Fundamental Right principle that property can be taken (yes money is property) through coercive means without any contractual consent from the taxpayer. Welfare creates a “free rider” system where those on welfare can benefit at the expense of others without any requirements of restitution for their takings. Moreover, government intrusion does not make any product or service better it makes them worse. Government healthcare has fewer insurance options, longer wait times for services, and fewer doctor or medical choices (look at ObamaCare, Medicare, VA, and Medicaid) than private sector healthcare options. If healthcare and health insurance are rights, then government intrusion is a restriction or regulation of those rights. Government intrusion does not make healthcare cheaper because it creates more taxes, opens the doors to fraud and waste, and fails to regulate those mechanisms making healthcare more expensive (such as tort reform).
Friday, April 6, 2018
When it comes to the right of privacy, the Constitution mentions specific negative rights that cannot be abridged. Negative rights are not rights that a person would practice, but are individual rights that the government cannot violate. For instance, the government cannot conduct any “searches and seizures” without a warrant. Although these are negative rights, they are still Fundamental Rights because they protect every single individual the same. The right to privacy as discussed before is very broad and ambiguous. Under my definition it would only pertain to a person being alone, not in a group of people or with a spouse. The only exception to the “self” rule is for children. Parents have the Fundamental Right to make “decisions for their children” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925 and Troxel v. Granville, 2000). Children have restricted rights, for example their free speech is limited by age restrictions on driving, alcohol, the military, to marry, and to buy adult materials. Children do what their parents say, not what they want to do. Property and possessions owned by one’s self are fundamentally protected rights. Property or possessions that have shared ownership are not fundamentally protected since clear ownership may not be determined. For instance, during a divorce, property that is co-owned is divided and many times it is not divided equally. For this reason, rights under multi ownership are hard to determine, but this is not so when property is owned by one person. People that own property individually are free to enter into contracts. Multi-owned properties or possessions can be contracted but only with the consent of all owners. So what Fundamental Rights elevated by the Supreme Court would be allowed to stand as inalienable rights: the right to contract (Lochner v. New York, 1905). Everyone has a right “to” contract and a right “from” contract to protect with their possessions. Anyone who owns a cell phone signs a contract. Most people have a will or marriage contracts (marriage, divorce, or prenuptial). Hence, contracts are a part of our daily lifes. Also, the right to knowledge (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923) and the right to self-defense (D.C. v. Heller, 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago, 2010) would also be Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights are to protect everyone as individuals, not just moralistic (procreation and marriage) or social justice rights (diversity, abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and contraception) that protect a portion of the electorate. The Supreme Court is inflating the value of Fundamental Rights by elevating too many. We all have the right to drive a car, ride a bike, walk, talk, watch TV, play video games, eat what we want to eat, and so forth. We all have rights to live our lives as we please so long as we are not breaking the law. But not everything can be a Fundamental Right. Fundamental Rights should be saved for those aspects of life that are common and vital to all. Women may have the right to get an abortion and people may have the right to engage in sodomy and people may have the right to gay marriage or traditional marriage but these issues should be left to the states to regulate and should not be elevated as Fundamental Rights. Having a diversity of conflicting rights defeats the purpose of having Fundamental Rights in the first place. It makes the law too complicated to interpret. There is no doubt that Fundamental Rights are becoming a byproduct of the “partiality” principle. Everyone is partial to themselves, their family, and their friends over others. In fact, the inalienable right to “pursue happiness” can make us all partial to attain this goal at the expense of others. No Fundamental Right should be partial, but most are. Legislation should not be partial, but it is without exception. How does this happen? It is what James Madison called in Federalist #10 as “factions”. The strongest group of people (mostly the majority) will get their way on topics and issues of politics. This is precisely why Madison proposed a separation of powers for the structure of our government: to help mitigate the faction issue. Two recent stories on the local news demonstrate this point. In the first story, Representative Mike Coffman held a townhall meeting and a person asked him (I am paraphrasing) “I got searched to get into this event I assume to protect you, what are doing for me?” Of course this got a massive applause. In the second story, residents were not happy about lack of space on a bus route for both persons (standing room only) and their bikes. What is their solution to this problem, the state should build a train route between Denver and Boulder. This is the partiality principle at its best. A few people want us to spend billions to solve a standing room and bike restriction problem on one bus route. Why can’t the solution be to add a couple more buses on the schedule? Of course I will never use this train but I will undoubtedly be forced to pay more in taxes if this faction of people can get a strong enough backing. One of the most famous quotes from President Kennedy is “ask not what your country will do for you, instead ask what you can do for your country.” Unfortunately, this is not how people think. This is precisely why I do not like to join organizations (factions). My cycling club wants more tax money to be spent on safer roads. Sure, I would love safer roads, it could save my life. But this action would not be fair to 75% of the people who do not ride bikes. Why should they pay tax money for road upgrades? Should bike lanes be a priority for local taxes? Probably not. Wanting safer roads to bike on would purely be a selfish desire and clearly not looking at the big picture of local needs.
Sunday, April 1, 2018
In previous writings “One Important Test for Fundamental Rights” and “Should Fundamental Rights be Polar Opposites” I illustrate historical analysis, guidelines, and interpretations for Fundamental Rights. In this text, I will hypothesize that Fundamental Rights should only include inalienable rights. What exactly is an inalienable right? The Declaration of Independence refers to unalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing (inalienable is more of a modern term): “incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred”. In other words, an inalienable right is “a right that cannot be extinguished or transferred even by the consent of the right-holder.” In general terms according to Randy Barnett: “Rights to possess, use, and control resources external to one’s person are generally alienable rights” whereas “Rights to possess, use and control one’s person are inalienable rights.” Contracts between alienable and inalienable rights can be distinguished as “to give” or “to do” respectively. Personally, I believe an inalienable right should include control over any resource or possession of property that is solely owned. As the saying goes “first comes rights, and then comes government”. This is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says “All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights” and it is the duty of government to “secure these rights”. Those unalienable rights are as explained by John Locke to have the freedom to do whatever you want with what is yours. People should not have rights to what liberals like to call Hobbesian freedom and that is to do whatever you want (that is okay up to a point when a person violates the rights of others). In other words, you can only control what is yours and you cannot control other people or what they own. This principle is called “individual sovereignty”. There are three sovereignties shared in the Constitution: the federal government, State governments, and “we the people”. Unfortunately, individual sovereignty is ignored at the expense of government, but we always forget that “rights come first, and then comes government”: meaning individual sovereignty should take priority over government sovereignty. Any need to regulate any Fundamental or Inalienable right must be justified as necessary to protect the Fundamental rights of other citizens. Instead, the government believes they have whatever power necessary to achieve an end result and they often neglect the harmful means they will use to accomplish that task. A good government will find the least regulatory or restrictive means to accomplish an ends. Under this definition of a Fundamental Right, these rights can only pertain to one’s self and they should only be rights that are universal or practiced by all or occur naturally within one’s life. Within the Constitution a few of these Fundamental Rights are outlined in the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Religion. And we know the Supreme Court has elevated at least a dozen of other Fundamental Rights not mentioned in the Constitution. For example, we have the Fundamental Right to marry: (Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923 [traditional marriage]; Loving v. Virginia, 1967 [interracial marriage]; and Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 [gay marriage]). We have the Fundamental Right to procreate: (Oklahoma v. Skinner, 1942). And we have the Fundamental Right to sodomy: (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Under my definition, these would not qualify as Fundamental Rights for the following reasons: 1. These are not universal rights wanted by all for example, being single, divorced, childless, and sex could just as easily be considered Fundamental Rights; and 2. These rights are not fundamental because they require more than one’s self to accomplish the task. This does not preclude the Court from finding these cases constitutional, they just cannot do so by elevating them as Fundamental Rights. Likewise, abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973) and contraception (Eisenstaedt v. Baird, 1972) would not be Fundamental Rights. Rights conflict when the Court creates an inflation of Fundamental Rights. The Conservative Court elevates “moralistic” rights and the Liberal Court elevates “social justice” rights which tend to conflict. This is exactly what is happening in Roe (abortion) and Eisenstaedt (contraception) when compared to Skinner (procreation). Abortion and Contraception rights stem from the Fundamental Right “right to privacy” (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). If abortion is a Fundamental Right, then too can be the Fundamental Right to have cosmetic surgery. Sure, people have the right to make these decisions, but they are not Fundamental Rights universally accepted and or practiced by all. Besides, contraception is not a self-made decision, nor is abortion for that matter (doctors, family, and counselors). Even if abortion and contraception were individual decisions, the Constitution is not gender specific. The Supreme Court made horrific discriminatory decisions against blacks and women in the past but that is not a reason to support social justice to discriminate against another group of people. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Most everyone agrees that money is property. In his dissent in Citizens United Justice Stevens said “Money is property, not free speech.” (I believe money is both property and speech since what we buy expresses who we are. In Johnson v. Texas the Court decided that burning the U.S. flag was constitutional. In this case, Johnson was burning his own property to express a message). Hence, taking money from a private company or citizen to distribute to another private citizen or company would violate the Fifth Amendment. Of course the Sixteenth Amendment throws a wrinkle into the equation since it gives Congress the authority to take taxes (income taxes). But the Sixteenth Amendment says nothing about how tax money should be spent, so does it trump the specifics of the Fifth Amendment? I do not think so. I think the Sixteenth Amendment allows the federal government to take property (income tax) without just compensation. However, it can only use that tax money for public reasons such as military, roads, parks, TSA, public salaries, and so forth. Therefore, wealth cannot be distributed for private reasons. However, there have been a few Supreme Court decisions: Berman v. Parker (1954), Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London (2005) where the Court held that private takings for public purposes can be justified if there is a benefit to the community such as increased tax revenue or more jobs. Of course this reasoning makes just about any takings for private reasons Constitutional! After all, what is stopping the government from taking your home and your neighbor’s homes so a company can build a plant to increase jobs and tax revenue? Nothing! But this is liberal hypocrisy at its best because this action is the opposite of welfare. In many Taking Clause cases, the Court is taking from poorer people and mom and pop shops to give it to wealthier persons and companies. In NFIB v. Sibelius (2012) the Court held that ObamaCare was Constitutional. The decision was mixed. The Court said that the mandate portion of the bill was Constitution via the spending or tax power of Congress not via the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause. The Court also held that Congress could not use coercive tactics to force States to implement the law. In other words, Congress could not withhold tax revenue for State Medicaid programs unless States implement ObamaCare. The Court said it was not their duty to say whether ObamaCare was a good law but instead to rule on its Constitutionality. What does all this mean? It means Congress has tremendous taxing or spending power. What can’t Congress force people to purchase and call it a tax? Nothing! It also means that Congress can probably generate any welfare program under the guise of a tax but not under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses. I would still dispute whether tax takings from private citizens and corporations can be redistributed to other private citizens and corporations. Would welfare programs increase tax revenue and jobs to justify a private takings for private reasons? Of course not! People on welfare do not have to get a job and they can stay on welfare their entire lives and this does nothing to improve tax revenues. In fact, taking more money from job creators and revenue producers will do the opposite, it will decrease jobs and revenues for local communities. I would also dispute if States do not have to set up ObamaCare, since the Federal government lost it coercive powers, then does Congress have the power to implement any welfare program? I do not think so. ObamaCare is also a discriminatory law (like Social Security) because it fails to treat all persons within the program the same. For instance, union employees get special benefits and it only targets a small portion of the population. Discriminatory laws certainly do no help the “general” welfare. In summary, there is nothing in the Constitution that justifies welfare, in fact the Fifth Amendment says it is unconstitutional. However, bad precedent for Social Security, ObamaCare, and Takings cases have made Welfare (bad) law (as Justice Roberts said NFIB, it does not have to be good law).
Saturday, March 24, 2018
The Court has made some very questionable decisions during times of emergencies or crisis such as the Great Depression or times of War (Schenck v. United States, 1917 and Korematsu v. United States, 1944 to name a few). The Court found a way to pass Social Security because the economic calamity called for it. Of course, a crisis is one of the worst reasons to expand Congressional power. Why? Social Security did nothing to provide Americans relief during the Great Depression. Social Security was meant to be a tax when it was passed. And since the median age for life expectancy was 62 at the time of its passage, most people would never see Social Security. It was not designed to help Americans get out of the Great Depression. Why take money from individuals and companies at such dire times if it was to help people? Social Security was similar to the Agriculture Adjustment Act (also found constitutional) which paid farmers to not grow crops when people are starving. The government does some really dumb things during times of crisis or emergencies. Worse yet, Social Security is a permanent law that has diminished the Liberties of Americans by taking property without consent and eliminating citizen’s rights to make choices regarding their property. Finally, it is important to note that Social Security is not treated the same for all American citizens. Most public workers do not pay into Social Security, they pay into some other retirement schemes. Hence, Social Security is discriminatory and even if “general welfare” applied to individuals it must apply to all individuals equally, not in a discriminatory fashion. In his famous decent in Plessy (1896) Justice Harlan said the “Constitution is colorblind”. After the Twentieth Amendment (women’s suffrage) supplanted the Fifteenth Amendment (only males could vote) the Constitution was also genderblind. And it can equally be noted the Constitution is socioeconomically blind as well. There is nothing in the Constitution that points to any federal government enumerated power to pass any type of welfare program. That power, should reside with the States. General welfare does not mean to protect whites, blacks, Hispanics, men, women, wealthy, poor, or intellectually challenged. General welfare is meant to protect all groups and all persons collectively, not to create class, ethnic, or gender warfare. In the past, the Court, has made numerous discriminatory rulings when dealing with race (Plessy v. Fergusson, 1896, Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857, Grutter v. Bollinger, etc.), ethnicity (Korematsu v. United States, 1944), gender (Bradwell v. Illinois, 1872, Mueller v. Oregon, 1908), and intellectual capacity (Buck v. Bell, 1927). Justice Sotomayor says “race matters” but if that is true than so too does any other feature that makes Americans diversified. And the Court has failed time and time again to make proper decisions (nondiscriminatory) when facing issues regarding race or other diverse issues that make us all different. The Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is fairly self-explanatory. The Sixteenth Amendment states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The Sixteenth Amendment (along with the Seventeenth Amendment – popular election of Senators) were instrumental in destroying the unique federalism system (state and federal powers) set up by our founding fathers. These two amendments moved a majority of government power to the federal government at the expense of state governments. Congress now had the ability to tax and use coercive spending practices to get States to conform to federal legislations (see. South Dakota v. Dole).