Deciding which of the twenty-seven amendments to abolish is a tough task to do. All of them have very legitimate functions in protecting fundamental human rights and ensuring the smooth functioning of government. In all honesty, I would not repeal any of the twenty-seven amendments, but for the sake of argument, I would repeal the sixteenth amendment which grants the federal government the power to collect income taxes. To begin this discussion, it is important to note that taxation is theft, but if there is one lesson to take from America’s history, it is that taxation (or a mechanism to raise revenue in general) is vital to a healthy and functioning government. It is a necessary evil. Even though taxation may be necessary, the income tax
…show more content…
As a libertarian leaning individual that believes in strong individual liberties and small government, the list of possible amendments is very long. To pick a relatively controversial one I would recommend adding an amendment guaranteeing the right to life for children when a functioning brain has been detected, which would effectively ban abortion around the 10 week period. To skim down the argument for the purposes of this essay, I will give a series of premises that I base my reasoning on to reach this conclusion. 1. The only legitimate function of the government is to preserve the four Lockean rights of “life, health, liberty, and possessions”. 2. The Due Process clause guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and property to “any person”. 3. At some point in the pregnancy period, the child becomes a person that should have its right to life protected by the state through the Due Process Clause. At this point the argument of “my body, my choice” ceases to exist and it is the duty of the government to intervene. 4. If we legally, in all 50 states, classify someone as dead when the brain is no longer functioning, then it only seems proper to classify someone as alive when the brain begins functioning. 5. Thus, the conclusion reached is that a child becomes an alive person worthy of rights when the brain begins functioning, which is generally around the 10 week period.
As a libertarian leaning individual that believes in strong individual liberties and small government, the list of possible amendments is very long. To pick a relatively controversial one I would recommend adding an amendment guaranteeing the right to life for children when a functioning brain has been detected, which would effectively ban abortion around the 10 week period. To skim down the argument for the purposes of this essay, I will give a series of premises that I base my reasoning on to reach this conclusion. 1. The only legitimate function of the government is to preserve the four Lockean rights of “life, health, liberty, and possessions”. 2. The Due Process clause guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and property to “any person”. 3. At some point in the pregnancy period, the child becomes a person that should have its right to life protected by the state through the Due Process Clause. At this point the argument of “my body, my choice” ceases to exist and it is the duty of the government to intervene. 4. If we legally, in all 50 states, classify someone as dead when the brain is no longer functioning, then it only seems proper to classify someone as alive when the brain begins functioning. 5. Thus, the conclusion reached is that a child becomes an alive person worthy of rights when the brain begins functioning, which is generally around the 10 week period.