In my world, one would have the opportunity to keep their voting rights by electing to never take money from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.. These are programs that we in Galt's Gulch never consented to.

I will agree that both parties on the same side of the political aisle. It is us against all of them, with the Democrats being like many of those in Atlas Shrugged and the Republicans (and some Democrats) best exemplified by Wesley Mouch.

While I agree with Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments, as of about late 2006, America went past the point from which it is possible to recover. People quote the 17 trillion dollar debt being over $50 K per person. What they neglect is the over 100 trillion dollars in guaranteed obligations. That equates to more than most people will save per person in their lifetimes.

No, I don't want only the rich to have a voice, but what we have now is a two wolves and one sheep deciding what is for dinner. Now that 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes and 50% of the population pays only 3% of the taxes, the opportunity to demagogue against the rich has gone past a critical point. I considered myself a patriotic American until America ceased being exceptional.

The President has no power that is not specifically outlined in the constitution. The rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights are rights belonging to the individual and are not to be abridged by requiring an individual to obtain a license or permit to facilitate the free exercise of said rights. The Supreme Court can only rule on the case presented based on its constitutionality and may only judge the merits of the case presented as either constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot alter language or amend any arguments presented to the court.

True enough, but that gives results in a couple of generations, not in the present.

I tend to believe that's going to be a little late. Though it's drastically important for the future. Much of the genius of the Founders was in their study of Locke and Smith, which at fundamental levels shared many of the same values as an Objectivist.

Why should we fear the state legislatures?

We should fear the people in Washington DC who continue to amend the Constitution by fiat, e.g., the actions of Barack Obama (Executive), Harry Reid (Legislative) and John Roberts (Judicial).

Thanks to the Tea Party landslide of 2010, legislatures all across flyover country have become far more Republican and, more importantly, much more conservative/libertarian.

Keep in mind that the state's cannot change even a single word of the Constitution. They can only, by a 2/3 vote, send amendments out to all 50 states. Then, 3/4 must agree in order to make an amendment to the Constitution.

This is the only CONSTITUTIONAL way I can see to put a leash on the tyrants of both the Democrat and, sadly, the Republican parties.

The only other options I see are to submit or revolt -- both bad options compared to a peaceful Constitutional Amendment Convention.

Yes. You refer no doubt to the Air/Land Militia that Ragnar ginned up almost at a moment's notice, when word came to the valley of John Galt's arrest.

Remember: the offensive action to which I refer is primarily Ragnar's privateering activities. Notice I call him a privateer, one who raids enemy shipping on behalf of others, rather than a buccaneer, who raids shipping for his own gain and for no nobler motive. (Does the word "privateer" refer to the captain of a private ship of war or only to the ship itself? I've never found a consistent convention on that point.)

Notice what Ragnar did: "I have seized every loot-carrier that came within range of my guns." He then sold those cargoes either to European freedom fighters, who paid him in gold they robbed from government treasuries, or else to "customers" in the United States. I think we know who the one customer was: Midas Mulligan. That's how the valley obtained certain supplies that no one yet in the valley could make. Ragnar Danneskjöld plundered the shipments of the Bureau of Global Relief and sold some of those cargoes to Midas, who paid him in gold. Which he then turned around and deposited in Midas' bank, to the accounts of Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, and others.

That about fits the definition of a privateer, doesn't it?

Zenphany, the best action at this time would be to get as many objectivists into as many positions in the universities as possible.

coaldigger your assessment of our current situation is correct. that is why I phrased my post the way I did. What I hoped would be discussed is something way down line for the country or something for use in an actual gulch much sooner.

LOL. Your right. I'm on third shift this week, so I'm just glad I did not say it was written in 1975.

It's interesting to me that so many seem to think that The Constitution needs a rewrite, rephrasing, or amended. Many quite strongly.

No piece of paper or parchment or the words on it will ever be a strong enough deterrent to those wishing to subvert the ideals embodied in the writing. If the people living under the system of government that defies those ideals allows it's continuance, it will only get worse.

Only when the citizenry stand up and send a resounding NO, to those in power that abuse their positions, will words on a document mean anything. And then the next generation will have to do the same.

I think instead of hoping for some magic writing to change or alter things, this is a time in history to substantiate the old adage that 'Actions mean more than words.'

Yes, I did come up with that on-the-fly. I simply applied what I knew about the model for a Committee of Safety to the governance, such as it was, of Mulligan's Valley as Rand described it.

Terms like "President" or "Mayor" don't apply here. There is no legislature because Galt's Gulch operates strictly according to the principles of English Common Law. Judge Narragansett applies those as an arbiter.

The Triumvirs of Atlantis, in their roles as the Committee of Safety, are simply a voluntary group who use their resouces for the defense of the community in which they live--or in Ragnar's case, for offensive action against the outside world.

Overall, the Constitution doesn't need to be changed. The Supreme Court ruling that allowed the definition of "General Welfare" in the declaration of Ind. to be interpreted to mean, "the individual welfare" is what probably led to the problems we face today.
Overturn that ruling.