First, noting that the Founders made the 10th A. to clarify that the Founders had reserved the lion's share of government powers to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both federal and state lawmakers, which appropriately prohibits Congress from laying taxes in the name of state power issues.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

When more state lawmakers like those in Georgia, Oklahoma and Washington grow some, and consider legislation to prohibit constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes from ever leaving a state, then the crooks in DC are going to lose interest in the tax-depleted US Treasury and leave DC regardless of term limits. In fact, seats could get hard to fill.

But let's go ahead and make those term limits anyway.

By the way, if you are not familiar with the anti-illegal federal tax policing legislation that Georgia, Oklahoma and Washington are working on, then here's an informative link.

ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/re…

Further, the major problem seems that we allow the Federal Government to collect too much money and we allow congressmen to stay too long. So, we need an admendment replace all Federal taxes with a 10% flat tax. We need an admendment to limit all spending to 10% of GDP in non-war time and 15% in war time, such that war is limited to 6 years with one 4 year extension if 2/3 of the States allow it.

Then, to really get corruption out of congress, pass an admendment to make Congress part time.

We must limit the executive branch to not more than 2 dozen executive orders, and to require all Czars, cabinets, and any other branches to require Congressional approval.

Finally, we must pass an amendment to require that any judicial rulings of the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution and not case law.

More specifically, as evidenced by Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, first consider that the Founders had established the federal Senate to be the voice of the constitutionally powerful state legislatures in the Constitutionally humbled federal government.

Next, the constitutionally powerful states are important where federal taxes versus state taxes are concerned. This is evidenced by the following case precedent established by Chief Justice Marshall, but now wrongly ignored by both federal and state lawmakers. Justice Marshall wrote that the federal government cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So ideally, when costitutionally clueless FDR cried for Congress to make constitutionally unauthorized tax and spending legislation in the 1930s and 40s, legislation which not only usurped state powers but also stole hard-earned citizen dollars that should never have left the states, federal Senators should have stood up and stopped Congress from giving FDR what he wanted.

So why didn't FDR-era federal Senators stop Congress from approving legislation which usurped state powers and stole associated taxes? After all, as previously mentioned, the Founders had established the federal Senate to protect state interests.

Sadly, mostly rural citizens seem to have forgotten about state sovereignty before 1913. This was the year that state legislatures unthinkingly ratified the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments. And I surmise that the reason that state legislatures ratified these amendments is this. Not only had the people evidently forgotten about state sovereignty since the Civil War, but the lawmakers that they were electing to their state legislatures must have been as state sovereignty-impaired as the voters were.

As a side note, consider that the Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist, is arguably pro-big federal government propaganda. This is evidenced by the words, “one Nation,” and “indivisible” in the Pledge. Indeed, given such wording, the Pledge has been arguably diluting the idea of state sovereignty in the minds of school children for many generations.

Getting back to the insane 16th and 17th Amendments, not only must voters have filled state legislatures with constitutionally inept lawmakers by 1913, but voters did an encore performance by using their new 17th A. power to likewise fill federal Senate seats with lawmakers who were as constitutionally-impaired as the clowns that they had been sending to the state legislatures.

So instead of FDR getting the resounding “hell no” that he deserved from a constitutionally-saavy Senate that understood that its job was to protect state sovereignty, constitutionally inept federal senators unthinkingly told FDR, “Anything you want FDR,” just as state legislators had unthinkingly ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments decades earlier.

And since FDR had been in office long enough to nominate eight pro-big federal government justices by the early 40s, all constitutional firewalls to protect state sovereignty from a corrupt, power-hungry federal government had ultimately failed.

Again, the consequence of the 16th and 17th Amendments is that state lawmakers stupidly made it difficult for themselves to fight constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes laid by corrupt Congress.

Are we having fun yet?

What a mess! :^(

The bottom line is that Constitution-defending patriots have a big mess to clean up in both the federal and state legislatues in this year’s midterm elections.

#2 – ok, not never. whew! But, it's only clear on its face if one accepts how you define the words …..

Yes, now you've got it. READ THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION. Any view other than 'trade between the States' is S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G it.

Sorry, but you've got it exactly backwards.