First, Do No Harm: We Must Remove, Replace And Reactivate

Politicians and the businesses who represent them have failed to follow the oldest rule of civilized commerce and trade - "You break it, you buy it." Stellar example - our lives from 2000 through right now. I'm not offering my idea of a Utopia. I just think these things could give us a breather.

 With or without a successful occupation of Wall Street, there are eight laws that are hurting us because they are exerting a domino effect. They have been damaging and attempting to re-define our present day culture.  They are targeting our physical and mental abilities that we need in order to survive  on a daily basis.   They are doing this by legally thwarting  our access to goods and services - outlawing our provision  for  our primary and secondary needs as individuals and groups of individuals.
These are eight steps required for our  daily survival, employment and more.
First things first -
Step one:  We have to legally remove  The Help America Vote Act (Pub.L. 107-252), or HAVA,  a United States federal law which passed in the House 357-48 and 92-2 in the Senate[1] and was signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002.[2]
 The Help America Vote Act disenfranchises huge swaths of Americans.
In  order to effectively and legally remove the Help America Vote Act, other laws implemented by the former administration and subsequently (as a result of September 11, 2001 and our other overseas bellicose expenditures)  must be legally removed immediately following the removal of the Help America Vote Act.   I'm opposed to a Constitutional Convention at the present time because I fear violence driven by anarchical interests of polarized  extremists might prevail.
The American Patriot Acts  provide the legal underpinnings for the Bureaus of Motor Vehicles and Departments of Motor Vehicles  which result in the bureaus and departments becoming  cash cows overnight.  I know that Ohio and Wisconsin  have policies that may or not be legal as follows:
1.  If you have a current license  that has an old address on it, it's perfectly legal to drive.
1.(a)  If you are driving under a current license with an old address and you intend to use it for the  identification needed as per the Help America Vote laws even if you supplement it with utility bills addressed to you at your current address, you will be relegated to being forced to vote with a "Provisional" ballot  which may or may not be rendered into a "Regular" ballot during a 10 day period after you cast that Provisional ballot.  There are harsh rules and practices with very tight time lines that vary by local, state and federal expectations  for the rendering of a "Provisional" ballot into a "Regular" ballot.
1.(b)  If you are driving under a current license with an old address and you do not wish to be relegated to casting a "Provisional" ballot due to the hassle and possibility of an outcome that may or may not change that
Provisional vote you cast into a "Regular" vote, there is an alternative that's disgusting but it's an alternative.
If you put your need to vote above your need to drive, (Ohio & Wisconsin do this "for" you), the Bureaus of Motor Vehicles and Departments of Motor Vehicles force you to literally hand over your driver's license for the approximate fee of $8.00 in Ohio  or $-0- in Wisconsin (as opposed to buying another driver's license with your new address in the amount of approximately $25.00) for a State ID.  In other words, you may no longer drive but you can vote a "Regular" ballot as opposed to a "Provisional" ballot.
 The Help America Vote Act restricts voting thereby destroying participatory democracy by theoretically forcing citizens to choose between voting with a cheap State ID or driving with a current license with an old address  but with no guaranteed outcome of a "Regular" vote. the entry to employment and participation in normal commerce for both  the poor and the middle classes.
Don't  forget that due to the deliberate creation of foreclosures by state, local, county and city privatized government,  there are even more changes in address.
So, you can bus to work (if you are employed) with a State ID and you can cast a "Regular" ballot with a State ID.
Eliminating the Help America Vote Act can be  done legally without taking the huge risk  of violent polarized  anarchy that might occur if  a Constitutional Convention was to  be held.
 We have to legally replace:
 The Help America Vote Act with the voter laws  that  were in code up to  1999.
Step 2:  is to remove the Patriot Acts legally without taking the risk of violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was to be held.  The Patriot Acts have been extensively abused by some employers and some cyber industries of all kinds that are making us carry the burden of unemployment, unable to fulfill all of our other primary needs, not wants.  There are no mitigating laws in place.
I believe that some employers and some cyber industries of all kinds  may be misapplying their privileges  in their particular selections of background checks due to the American Patriot Acts. The reasons for my beliefs are
as bad as my credit history is, I always got jobs.  Unfortunately, I've always had to sign off on my potential employers asking for anything and everything because I'm a teacher.  All of my past  and potential employment was and is  contingent on providing unrestricted access to employers accompanied by written promises  not to sue these employers if as a result of their unrestricted inquiries, they would choose not to employ me.  In November of 2005 I realized what might be happening to me and other people. Up until November 2005 my annual mammography screens were negative.  However,  in November 2005  within 72 hours of being diagnosed with "0 -- Stage Ductile breast cancer, all the interviews that had been coming my way came to a screeching halt. It didn't matter that I was treated successfully but ripped of which is a story for another time and place.  I've always had to sign off on my potential employers asking for anything and everything because I'm a teacher.  All of my past  and potential employment was and is  contingent on providing unrestricted access to employers accompanied by written promises  not to sue these employers if as a result of their unrestricted inquiries, they would choose not to employ me.  So, the only way to stop a potential employer's unrestricted and abusively accessing health records is to totally remove the laws of The American Patriot Acts.  Despite September 11, 2001,  I very much believe that we have to do the following:
 Replace the Patriot Acts with the prior security laws and practices that are "on the books" prior to 2000.  In the dog -- eat -- dog situation we are in, I don't have confidence that employers choose to use the Golden Rule.
The replacement could provide possibilities of gainful employment for the poor and middle classes.
Step 3: We have to legally remove the Military Commissions Acts.
This must  be done legally without taking the huge risk of violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was held.
 The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006,[1] also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress during the presidential administration of former President George W. Bush.[2] HAMDAN v . RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. was drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on [3] the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes."[4]
 During this current presidential administration of President Barack Obama, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill, known as the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[1]
Formally, it is Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub.L. 111-84
 , H.R. 2647
 , 123 Stat. 2190, enacted October 28, 2009). 
We have to: legally replace these laws with our former normative judicial practices, reinstatement  of  the rights of habeas corpus, Miranda warnings, time - honored laws, defense , military and security laws that were ours prior to September 11, 2001.
Step 4:  Eliminate anti - public government welfare laws.   Eliminate  the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity  Reconciliation   Act of 1996
(PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996).   Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R - FL - 22) and Bill Clinton  had a significant part in removing the implementation entitlement programs.  This must be done legally without  taking the  huge  risk of violent polarized anarchy that  might occur if a  Constitutional  Convention  was  held.
Reinstate  the public welfare benefit  laws that are on the books prior to the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert  Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama after the first 3 steps in order to ensure our survival.  Legally restore  public government benefits laws ("welfare") that were in effect from 1963 through 1995.
 Legally restore  public government benefits laws ("welfare") that were in effect from 1963 through 1995.
We must restore the laws that address public government welfare benefits that were in effect
from 1963 through 1995 that preeexist The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193 , 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996).
I think The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193 , 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) law has caused the increase in infant mortality and the decrease of life expectancy as well as many other examples of "collateral damage."
 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193 , 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996)is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it".[2]
PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which had been in effect since 1935 and also supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the US Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
  These laws in addition to other forces at work in society should be evaluated under a lense for contributing to class warfare.
Again the first 3 steps have to precede the 4th step.
 We  have to ensure our collective  survival via the reactivation of the  genuine  public government welfare laws that are already on the books.
Step 5 - Enforce The Fair Credit Reporting  Act  LAWS  as  enacted under the  twentieth century Presidents Kennedy, Johnson & Richard  M. Nixon.
http://epic.org/privacy/fcra/
 History of the Fair  Credit Reporting Act
The Fair Credit  Reporting  Act was passed to address a growing credit reporting industry in the United States that compiled "consumer credit reports" and "investigative consumer reports" on individuals. The FCRA was the first federal law to regulate the use of personal information by private businesses.
The first major credit reporting agency, Retail Credit Co, was started in 1899. Over the years, Retail Credit purchased smaller credit reporting agencies  and expanded its business into selling reports to insurers and employers.
 By the 1960s, significant controversy surrounded the CRAs because their reports were sometimes used to deny services and opportunities, and individuals had no right to see what was in their file.
 By the late 1960s, there was abuse in the industry, including requirements that investigators fill quotas of negative information on data subjects. To do this, some investigators fabricated negative information, others included incomplete information. Additionally, the investigators were collecting "lifestyle" information on data subjects, including their sexual orientation, marital status, drinking habits, and cleanliness. The CRAs were maintaining outdated information, and in some cases, providing the file to law enforcement and to unauthorized persons. Public exposure of the industry resulted in Congressional inquiry and federal regulation of CRAs.
Years of legislative leadership by Representative Leonor Sullivan and Senator William Proxmire resulted in the passage of the FCRA in 1970. After its passage, Senator Proxmire attempted to broaden the FCRA's protections over the next ten years. Shortly the FCRA took effect on April 25, 1971, CRAs were pursued for violations of numerous provisions of the Act.
 Most recently, in January 2000, the three CRAs paid $2.5 million in a case settlement brought by the FTC.
 Comprehensive amendments to the FCRA were made in the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208). The Amendments contained a number of improvements to the FCRA, but it also included provisions that allow affiliate sharing of credit reports, "prescreening" of credit reports (unsolicited offers of credit made to certain consumers), and limited preemption of stronger state laws on credit.
 Introduction
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Public Law No. 91-508, was enacted in 1970 to promote accuracy, fairness, and the privacy of personal information assembled by Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs).
CRAs assemble reports on individuals for businesses, including credit card companies, banks, employers, landlords, and others. The FCRA provides important protections for credit reports, consumer investigatory reports, and employment background checks. The FCRA is a complex statute that has been significantly altered since 1970 by Congress and the courts. The Act's primary protection requires that CRAs follow "reasonable procedures" to protect the confidentiality, accuracy, and relevance of credit information. To do so, the FCRA establishes a framework of Fair Information Practices for personal information that include rights of data quality (right to access and correct), data security, use limitations, requirements for data destruction, notice, user participation (consent), and accountability.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issues commentaries on the statute, but does not engage in rulemaking for the FCRA.
CRAs may also be referred to as "credit bureaus" or "consumer reporting agencies."
 
    Text of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. - - 1681-1681u.
    FTC Commentary on the FCRA, 16 C.F.R. Part 600.
    FTC Staff Opinion Letters on the FCRA.
 
 Step 5 - Enforce  the  Fair  Credit Reporting  Act laws  as enacted under the twentieth century  Presidents  Kennedy, Johnson & Richard M. Nixon.
 In  order to return  to those regulations it will be necessary  to legally eliminate the  Patriot Acts  and  replace the  Patriot Acts with the former security laws  on the books prior  to  the September  11, 2001 attacks.
  This must be done legally without  taking the huge risk of  violent polarized anarchy that  might occur if a Constitutional Convention was  to be   held.   Portions of the Patriot Act do not prevent nor penalize  potential employers who engage  in  profound  fishing expeditions into any  potential job applicants' credit and health histories.
 Potential employers need to stop having the job applicant sign  permission forms that  waive all rights of the applicant whether or not that job applicant gets the job.
 Replace -  It  will  be necessary to  legally replace the  Patriot Acts with the former security laws on the books  prior to the  September  11, 2001 attacks.
Step 6 (a): Medical Taxes
We must: Remove the applicable tax laws that came into effect in the 2000's, the 1990'S and the 1980'S.
This must be done legally without taking the huge risk of violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional  Convention was held.
Some medical tax law changes  came into effect under president Ronald Reagan:January 20, 1981-January 20, 1989.
Julian Block, an author  had an article posted June 18, 1990 on Tribune Media Services.  "Rules Have Become More Stringent On Deductions For Medical Expenses"
"Under tax reform, the non-deductible floor went to 7 1/2 percent of adjusted gross income from 5 percent.
 How Do You Figure Your Deduction?
 To figure your medical and dental expense deduction, complete lines 1 through 4 of Schedule A, Form 1040, as follows:
Line 1.   Enter the amount you paid for medical expenses after reducing the amount by payments you received from insurance and other sources.
 
Line 2.   Enter your AGI from Form 1040, line 38.
 
Line 3.   Multiply the amount on line 2 (AGI) by 7.5% (.075) and enter the result.
 
Line 4.   If line 3 is more than line 1, enter -0-. Otherwise, subtract the amount on line 3 from the amount on line 1. This is your deduction for medical and dental expenses.
 
Recent law changes curtail the writeoffs allowed itemizers for payments of medical expenses.
 
To gain any deduction, your outlays must be for charges that are not covered by insurance, reimbursed by your employer or otherwise satisfied. Moreover, those payments are deductible only for the portion in excess of a non-deductible threshold.
 
Under tax reform, the non-deductible floor went to 7 1/2 percent of adjusted gross income from 5 percent. Adjusted gross income is the amount you list on Form 1040 after all reportable income is offset by certain deductions such as alimony payments and IRA contributions, but before itemizing for such outlays as donations to charities and listing exemptions for yourself and your dependents.
 
Assuming you incur costs that surpass the 7 1/2 percent floor, your deductibles include improvements made to a home or apartment on doctor's orders. Note, though, that you cannot deduct the entire cost if the improvement adds to the value of your dwelling. Your writeoff is limited to the difference between the cost and the increase in value.
 
Example: You spend $5,000 to put in a central air conditioning system after your youngster's allergist recommends that you install the equipment to alleviate an asthmatic condition. If that boosts the value of your home by $4,500, your allowable deduction shrinks to $500, the amount by which the cost exceeds the increase in value.  Example: You spend $5,000 to put in a central air conditioning system after your youngster's allergist recommends that you install the equipment to alleviate an asthmatic condition. If that boosts the value of your home by $4,500, your allowable deduction shrinks to $500, the amount by which the cost exceeds the increase in value.
 
Examples of other improvements that readily pass IRS muster are an elevator or a bathroom on a lower floor that makes things easier for a person with arthritis or a heart condition.
 
Less stringent rules apply in the case of a tenant who for medical reasons makes an improvement, such as a wheelchair ramp. The renter can claim the entire cost because the improvement adds nothing to the value of his or her property. Moreover, whether you are an owner or a renter, your deductibles include the entire cost of detachable equipment-for example, a window air conditioner that relieves a medical problem.
 
Tip: Even if you are ineligible to deduct medically required equipment because its cost is completely offset by the increase in your home's value, you nevertheless qualify for some tax relief. Remember to include as part of your medical deductions what you spend for such operating and maintenance expenses as electricity, repairs or a service contract.
 
IRS audits: Just because something like an air conditioner makes you feel better does not mean that the IRS will share the cost. That is why the tax takers look closely at sizable deductions for installations of equipment. Still, there are steps you can take now that will help in case the IRS later indulges in some second-guessing. Make sure to get a statement from your doctor that explains the medical need for your expenditures. Hang onto bills and canceled checks that show what you paid for improvements. Remember also that you may need those records to figure the profit or loss when you sell your home.
 Appraisals: When a hefty deduction is at stake, it is also prudent to get a written opinion from a competent real estate appraiser that details how little or how much the installation raised the value of your residence. If a disputed deduction ends up in court, the IRS can bring in its own appraiser. But because of the time lag, usually their appraisals are less convincing." (end of article authored by Julian Block,"Rules Have Become More Stringent On Deductions For Medical Expenses"Tribune Media Services June 18, 1990)
 We must: Replace the unacceptable medical deduction rules that demand 7.5 % as the starting figure for medical  deductions tax laws  that came  into effect  in the  1980's, the  1990's and  the 2000's with:
the tax codes and  laws that existed through 1979.
The  former starting  figure for legal medical deductions was 5%.
This  must be done legally  without taking the huge risk of  violent anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was held.
Restore the  5% starting amount for medical deductions.
We must re-institute the medical tax laws prior to the 1980's.
Step 6 (B & C):  Eliminate  the federal government's Office of Faith - Based Funding.
 Replace it with the non - profit laws and applicable tax laws for genuine houses of worship and religiously named social service agencies that in fact provide services for anyone belonging to any faith or no faith at all -   that were on the books prior TO 1989.  Eliminate entirely -  the legal abilities that drive the privatized funding of Health and Human Services Departments' of Jobs and Family Services for all of the states.
 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/other_requirements.htm
 http://law.justia.com/cfr/title28/28-1.0.1.1.39.html
28 C.F.R. PART 38--EQUAL TREATMENT FOR FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
Title 28 - Judicial Administration
Section Contents
1.   Discretionary grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.
2.   Formula grants.
Authority:  28 U.S.C. 509; 5 U.S.C. 301; E.O. 13279, 67 FR 77141, 3 CFR, 2002 Comp., p. 258; 18 U.S.C. 4001, 4042, 5040; 20 U.S.C. 1152; 21 U.S.C. 871; 25 U.S.C. 3681; Pub. L. 107, 116 Stat. 1758 (42 U.S.C. 3751, 3753, 3762b, 3782, 3796dd3796dd3796gg3796gg 3796gg3796h, 3796ii3797u3797w, 5611, 5672, 10604, 14071).
Source:  Order No. 27034, 69 FR 2838, Jan. 21, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
 The Office of Faith - Based Funding has failed the United States.
 We have seen an array of former public employment at the federal, state and local levels worsen the employment outlook when  they are  taken over by private corporations.
Step 6 (b & c):  The separation of church and state is endangered and is rapidly becoming antiquated.
Additionally, I believe that authentic and deserving non-profits may soon  become  unable to continue functioning.
 We have to legally remove The Office of Faith - Based Funding.
We have to remove the laws that are in place that allow the Office of Faith - Based Funding to operate.
These removals  must be  done legally without taking the huge risk violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constiutional  Convention was to be held.
We have to legally remove the tax laws that came into effect in the 1980's, the  1990's and the  2000'S.   This must be done legally without taking the huge risk of violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was held.
We have seen an array of publicly available  jobs suffer by being taken over by private corporations.
The separation of church and state is rapidly becoming antiquated.
Additionally, I believe that the traditionally authentic and deserving non-profits that existed prior to 1997 might be undergoing changes that may further blur the lines.  I fear those who are opposed to public government unless that public government agrees to implement what I would describe as others' religious laws  of the land or other rhetoric.
 Step 6 (b & c): We must replace with the Non-Profit laws that are on the books prior to 1997.
 We need to replace the applicable tax laws above with the tax laws that are  in place from January 20, 1953  through January 20, 1981.
We are suffering from unemployment.  "Privatized public employment"  at the federal level, "privatized public employment" at the state level  and "privatized public employment" at   local levels are eliminating  our access to gainful  employment.  Our potential jobs are apt to be overtaken - made  hostage - by "privatized public" corporations.
The separation of church and state is endangered and rapidly becoming antiquated.
Additionally, I believe that authentic and deserving non-profits and houses of worship like churches, synagogues, mosques and temples may be unable to continue functioning.
 We have to legally   eliminate the Office of Faith - Based Funding.  We have to remove the laws that are in place that allow the Office of Faith - Based Funding to operate.  The problem is how to do this without taking the huge risk of violent polarized  anarchy that might  occur if a Constitutional Convention was held
Step 6 (d)  We must  remove the real estate tax laws that came into effect in the 2000's, the  1990's through year's end 1980.  This must be done legally without taking the risk of violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was held.  No more bundling of mortgages composed of false ratings by credit agencies of their subprime loans, hedge funds and other speculation interests.
 Let's reinstate and activate  the tax laws that are on the books from January 20, 1953  through
January 20, 1981.  No more Savings and Loan Crises from the 1980's - 1990's
Let's do what we can do to avoid reconstituting and repeating the cyclical ever - worsening damage that we can attribute to Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton and George Walker Bush.
 The collapse of Lehman Brothers  and the other bullies shouldn't have been unexpected because the country had already been economically violated by the Home State Savings & Loan events.
STEP 7: We must  legally remove the  Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 or BAPCPA legally without taking the huge risk of  violent polarized anarchy that might occur if a Constitutional Convention was held.
 It's enabling an unending  buffet for creditors.
 We must replace the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 or BAPCPA  legally with  the former bankruptcy codes and laws.
Step 8: We have to legally  remove The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191) [HIPAA].  This must be done legally without taking the huge risk of violent  polarized anarchy that might occur if  a  Constitutional Convention was held. It was enacted by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It was originally sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.).
 We have to legally  remove this  law because it gets in the way of necessary sharing of medical records that might prevent a legitimate medical malpractice suit. 
It also provides a disturbing illusion of medical privacy that was neutered by the  Patriot  Acts  and the  Military Commissions  Acts.
It feeds the adversarial atmosphere by polluting the job  application process for potential employers, medical insurance companies and job applicants.  This must be done legally without taking the huge risk of violent  polarized anarchy that might occur if  a  Constitutional Convention was held.
 We must replace  The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191) [HIPAA] with our laws that are still ours, on the books -  prior to the implementation of HIPPA laws.