Policy: How we Repair the Government
My Plan to fix corruption and partisanship in the Federal Government
3
Repeal the 17th Amendment
The 17th Amendment, which shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote, has deeply damaged states’ rights and the balance of our federal system.
Before its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures to represent the interests of their states as sovereign political bodies. This structure created a vital check on federal power; if the federal government overreached, state legislatures could respond through their senators. By moving Senate elections to a direct popular vote, the 17th Amendment severed that direct tie between senators and their state governments.
Senators now campaign primarily to national parties, big donors, and broad public opinion, instead of being accountable first to the peoples' closest representatives in their own state capitols. This change has encouraged senators to think and act like national politicians rather than guardians of their states’ unique needs and constitutional powers.
The result has been a steady expansion of federal authority at the expense of the states. With fewer institutional incentives to defend state sovereignty, the Senate has become far more willing to approve federal mandates, regulations, and spending programs that intrude into areas once reserved to the states. Instead of serving as a shield for local self-government, the Senate often functions as a second national House of Representatives.
Restoring a strong role for state legislatures in the selection of senators would help return the Senate to its original constitutional purpose. It would strengthen states’ voices in Washington D.C., revive an important check on centralized power, and move our system back toward the Founders’ design of a federal government that is limited, balanced, and truly accountable to the people through their states.
Not only would it give states their check on central power and protect their sovereignty, repealing the 17th amendment would also create incentives for the citizens of each state to be more aware of state governance.
2
Repealing the 16th Amendment
The concentration of money in hands of few is bound to foster tyranny of the worst kind.
Our Founders understood that one lever of power is money, and that if the federal government had no restraint on taxation, it would consume the liberties and freedoms of its people through overtaxation and theft of labor.
The original text of the constitution did not allow unrestricted direct taxation; such as that of wealth and income; however the 16th amendment circumvented this control and check on federal taxation power by giving to the federal government unbridled taxation power of direct means instead via income tax. The original text of the constitution only allowed for direct taxes, if said taxes were apportioned to the many states based on the most recent census; this acted as a check on power for both the states and the federal government. If the states inflated their population numbers falsely then they would have to pay a larger sum of the direct tax laid by the federal government; if the Federal government laid a direct tax it would not be a unilateral power but rather a discussion among the many states as to collect said tax.
The 16th amendment ended this check on central power by giving full rein of direct income tax to the federal government and thus concentrated the peoples wealth into the hands of the few; and where there is money there is corruption. Not to mention the sweeping power the words "from whatever source derived" gave the federal government to tax almost anything the people earned even if the earnings were gifts.
1
Increase the Size of the House of Representatives
One of the first items mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is in Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." Every check on power there after is based on the size of congress, including the Electoral College for the presidential election process. Congressional district size, is the most important check the people have on the Federal Government and the size has of each district has removed voters further and further away from their representative and in doing so took away our agency in government and our check on government power and over reach.
By increasing the House of Representatives the following would happen:
- Congressional Districts would shrink in size, forcing representatives to be more accountable to their constituents
- The bar for running for congress would be lower for regular citizens and allow more locally active people to run; creating much needed competition in politics and more rigorous elections
- Create incentives for representatives to protect their constituents' liberties and freedoms from lobbies and corruption
- Solve most of the bureaucracy by decreasing the size of "independent" agencies and departments via larger oversight by a larger number of elected officials. Decreasing the amount of unelected officials from controlling the levers of power.
6
Nondelegation Doctrine:
Reclaiming government power in the legislature
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."
-James Madison
The nondelegation doctrine is the simple idea that the branch of government trusted with making laws must not hand that power off to someone else.
In our system, Congress is supposed to write the rules that govern the American people, and each member of Congress is supposed to be accountable for those rules. When legislators must vote on clear, specific laws, voters can see exactly who supported what, and can reward or punish them at the ballot box. That direct line of responsibility is what keeps representatives honest and responsive.
When Congress delegates broad lawmaking power to independent agencies and unelected bureaucrats, that accountability breaks down. Instead of writing detailed laws, Congress often passes vague statutes that say an agency may regulate “as necessary” or “in the public interest,” and then lets regulators fill in the details. Those details are where the real rules—and real burdens on citizens and businesses—are created. Yet when those rules go wrong, members of Congress can point fingers at the agencies and claim they are not to blame.
The Founders would have found this practice appalling. They designed a system in which the legislative power was placed in the hands of the people’s elected representatives, not distant experts or permanent bureaucracies.
The Constitution vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress for a reason: so that lawmaking would be deliberate, transparent, and answerable to the people. Allowing Congress to give away that core power undermines the separation of powers and weakens the very idea of representative government.
Restoring a strong nondelegation doctrine would force Congress to do its job again: write clear laws, take clear votes, and stand openly behind the rules imposed on the American people. That would mean fewer vague mandates, less government by regulation, and more honest accountability to voters. In a constitutional republic, lawmaking should never be outsourced to agencies that the people cannot easily remove or replace.
5
Gold Standard
For most of our history, the United States tied its money to gold, a real and limited asset that government could not simply create out of thin air. Returning to a gold standard would restore that discipline.
When every dollar must be backed by something tangible, it becomes much harder for politicians and central bankers to quietly inflate the currency, pick winners and losers, or hide the true cost of their policies behind complex monetary tricks.
Fiat currency invites corruption and abuse. When new money can be created with a keystroke, those closest to the printing press benefit first: big banks, well‑connected corporations, and the political class. Ordinary workers and savers pay the price later through higher prices, weaker purchasing power, and boom‑and‑bust cycles that destroy jobs and savings.
A gold standard limits this favoritism by forcing government to live within real economic constraints.
Sound money also protects liberty. When inflation quietly eats away at savings, families lose independence and become more dependent on government programs and debt. Under a gold standard, citizens can trust that the value of their work and savings will not be silently stolen through devaluation. Stable, honest money gives people the freedom to plan, invest, and build for the future without fearing that Washington will change the rules overnight.
The Founders deeply distrusted fiat money because they had lived through its disasters. Under the Articles of Confederation, paper “Continentals” were printed in huge amounts and quickly became nearly worthless. The Constitution reflects this hard‑earned lesson: it forbids states from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
The Founders understood that paper promises controlled by politicians are a dangerous tool that can be used to tax the people through inflation without their consent.
By moving back toward a gold‑backed currency, we would honor the Founders’ wisdom, reduce opportunities for corruption, and restore a monetary system that serves the people instead of the political and financial elite. Sound money is not just an economic issue—it is a cornerstone of limited government, personal liberty, and long‑term prosperity.
4
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
The Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of 9/11, when fear and urgency led Congress to trade away core constitutional protections in the name of security. While keeping Americans safe is a vital duty, the Constitution does not allow the federal government to ignore fundamental rights to achieve it.
The Patriot Act crossed that line, expanding federal surveillance and investigative powers far beyond what the Founders would have recognized as lawful or limited government.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires specific warrants based on probable cause. The Patriot Act weakened these safeguards by allowing broad, often secret surveillance of phone records, emails, financial data, and other personal information. This flips the presumption of innocence and treats ordinary Americans as potential suspects first, citizens second.
The Act also concentrates power in the executive branch and secret courts, undermining the separation of powers that is central to our constitutional design. When government agencies can monitor citizens with minimal oversight and little transparency, abuses become easier and accountability becomes harder. A free people cannot meaningfully hold their government in check if they do not even know when or how they are being watched.
Revoking the Patriot Act is not about being soft on terrorism; it is about being firm on the Constitution. We can and must protect our country while honoring the Bill of Rights and the limits on federal power. Ending the Patriot Act would restore proper respect for the Fourth Amendment, re‑balance power among the branches of government, and reaffirm that our liberties are not bargaining chips to be traded away in times of crisis.