Posted on 04/04/2016 2:30:18 AM PDT by Jacquerie
It is through Article V, and not the social justice whims of nine unaccountable lawyers that the Framers envisioned a free people would keep and improve their republic. Enlightenment philosophers and our Framers recognized that whereas power is aggressive, liberty is passive, and unless actively pursued, liberty will always fade in the face of encroaching power.
Much of America has come to accept as final the often fanciful mutterings of the scotus. As illustrated in its Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefell opinions, scotus not only supplanted the supreme law of the land, it trashed the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Its June 2015 decisions alone blew the lid off what remained of limited and free government; without saying, it formalized the Progressive dream of a “living and breathing” Constitution.
But be of good cheer, for there is an escape clause. These and many other decades’ worth of outrages and assaults on free government and society do not have to stand. Scotus is supreme among courts, but is inferior to God and the people acting in their sovereign capacity. It is through the Article V state convention amendment process that We the People can exert sovereign authority above and beyond scotus to not only repeal the 17th Amendment, but its evil offspring as well, for an Article V state amendments convention can reverse every scotus decision that is inconsistent with free government.
Are only good outcomes guaranteed from the Article V process? Of course not, but no people in history ever met in convention for the purpose of enslaving themselves. Like the United States, other previously free societies ran aground on the shoals of tyranny. Some famously extricated themselves.
Over their long republic, the Romans expelled the Tarquins, created consuls, admitted plebeians to marry patricians which rendered them capable of magisterial office, divided lands gained from their enemies, erected tribunes to defend the rights of the commons, appointed and then destroyed the Decemviri, created military tribunes, created dictators. As the times required, a people covetous of liberty stepped back from encroaching despotism and restored free government. They deserve our attention.
Seventeenth century Stuart England was a horrid mess of civil and religious wars, revolutions, a dictatorship, and near absolute monarchy. When James II fled to France, Parliament met in convention to deal with the crisis. The subsequent Declaration of Rights and coronation of William and Mary in 1689 returned England to the path toward free government.
The enormity of an Article V state convention, whether congressionally sanctioned or not, cannot be overstated. In the weeks leading to a convention, our nation will be consumed like never before in actual debate over the purpose of government and how far it has strayed from its designed purposes. A 21st century peaceful rising of the sovereign American people would be the equivalent of the 18th century “shot heard ‘round the world,” for it could mean the rebirth of the American tradition of free government. Not seen since the ratification debates of 1787-1788, anticipation of a state amendments convention will engender national discussion over the foundational maxims of the American republic.
There is a lot of cleaning up to do. Scotus and the administrative state have deposited a fetid crust of anti-freedom, anti-constitutional diktats on a once free people. In view of the sheer volume and regularity of Leftist assaults from the executive and judicial branches, the states should meet annually in convention. Too hard? Impossible? All that is necessary is to meet once, and upon completion of the business at hand, adjourn until a specified date the next year. By never adjourning sine die, and always rescheduling, the states establish a de facto standing and regular amendments convention. America has the means at her fingertips to regularly improve her institutions, to keep them on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.
It is only through the assertion of our God-given societal right to frame our government, that scotus along with the rest of the D.C. elites will know that a legitimate power well above and beyond their control will year after year examine and if necessary, reverse any assault on free government. The Article V state amendments convention could remain a recurring, established feature of the American governing scene by resolving to meet, for instance, every year a few weeks after scotus issues its summer decisions. Knowing that the only earthly power higher than themselves will immediately look over their shoulders and judge the judges, the rampant and unhinged social justice warrior temperament of scotus will be subdued.
Avarice and ambition, man’s tendency to abuse power for personal enrichment is active in all governments at all times. By comparison, lady liberty is somnolent. If never awakened, she will eventually die in her sleep. Through Article V, the sovereign American people can regularly nudge her awake, and together they can take stock of the health and condition of free government.
Precious little time remains.
Annual?
That would be a bad idea IMO.
Perhaps once a generation. Perhaps once a century.
The first restraint upon government is by a limited budget, and thus by limited funds. But when government gives itself power to create near-infinite money out of thin air, then it has near-infinite funding of near-infinite bureaucracy by which to create and enforce near-infinite regulations each having the weight of law.
Government also buys favor and support by funding enough “benefits” that almost half of all households in the US receive some form of direct government money. It can seize an unlimited amount of private land and pay ‘fair market value’ as Susette Kelo of New London, Connecticut found out.
The first order of business of an Article V convention of the States must be to restrain government’s ability to create more money than the citizens want to send in the form of taxes upon themselves. We must stop near-infinite money so we stop near-infinite government.
Personally, I don't know where the single-subject concept comes from. If 34 states each have a unique idea for an amendment that they want to share, they should be allowed to call for a proposing convention to let the other 33 hear the idea.
-PJ
As near as I can tell, the source for this error is a 2011 paper by Robert Natelson which Mark Levin cited in his Liberty Amendments.
“The State-Application and Convention Method of Amending the Constitution: The Founding Era Vision” - Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 9.
Spending must be addressed.
The world cannot withstand a United States going the way of Greece.
Anyone up for repeal of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments? How about a "compromise" where you can keep any one of them except that awful 2nd one.
Proponents of an Article V Convention are far too confident that it would result in a conservative outcome.
The left, in its attempt to conduct a “long march” through our institutions in order to gain power, has concentrated at the national level. They have ignored much at the state level, because that was not were national power was.
But please notice how many state legislatures are squarely in the hands of the (R) party. This is not the “establishment” (R) party, but it is far more a party that is oriented at the Tea Party. And also please note that while the presidential election dynamic is based in the number of electoral votes a state has, the three separate votes that must be held to pass an amendment to the Constitution via Article V are based on the number of states themselves, not on their size.
This nullifies the weigh that leftists bring to any table based on population. The dynamic is totally different. Conservative Wyoming has as many votes as UberLiberal California or New York. In fact, in an Article V context, the left is at a distinct disadvantage.
If the leaders of the Article V convention movement keep their convention plans very simple and they are able to keep their reasons for each of the few changes packaged in a consistent message they will succeed.
On my part, I would propose that the most simple way of restraining many excesses of the federal government is by strict limits on how much it can spend. Spending is the engine that drives everything else: taxes, borrowing, money-printing, loan guarantees, tax credits, subsidies, near-infinite debt.
Recall that the entire monster of tyranny, control and Louis Lerner corruption is based on a single 30 word amendment to the Constitution.
As an example, a single amendment that might be a mere paragraph that limits federal spending to no more than federal tax revenues will have a YUGE positive benefit to the country. It will force the federal government to reduce the number of bureaucrats by at least 30%. It will force the federal government to limit welfare to those who are truly in need and force any able-bodied people to work. It will force wholesale reductions in the ability of government to add additional regulations.
Ronald Reagan proved that when the message is correctly handled and presented, a surprising majority will approve of it. No pain, no gain!
Even if they do agree on a couple of amendments, it will take 10 years for them to get through all the states. By then, they would likely be irrelevant or insufficient. The ‘government’ that ignores current laws will likely ignore future laws they don’t like.
==
Before shutting the doors at such a convention, consider what is going on behind the scenes with the current GOPestablishment.
Similar chicanery and corruption and wheeling & dealing will take place.
Libs/Dems/GOPestablishment/Soros-types/Lobbyists will not sit quietly by and let things happen that go against their interests.
Exactly.
We will gladly give you a balanced budget amendment and you can give us a revised 2nd amendment that forbids citizens from owning guns and gives the government the right and responsibility to seize all guns (including rifles) from citizenry.
Tit-for-tat.
A very bad idea.
Depending on how this election goes, one may well be needed.
But needing a second one in a year would be confirmation that the first one didn’t work—and a dangerous precedent for the dial to be spun in the other direction.
Then why aren't the Leftists already doing this now via the Article V Congressional amendment proposal process?
-PJ
Against this background, some freepers are concerned over what the states could possibly recommend at a convention.
Because they do not perceive the Article V Convention to be very likely and all of their attention is focused on the upcoming Presidential campaign.
All that will change in a heartbeat if there is an actual start date for Article V Convention.
Given a chance to rewrite the Constitution by amendment, the Leftists will bring maximum force to bear. And by "maximum force" I mean violence, directed towards recalcitrant delegates. A beneficial outcome of an Article V Convention cannot be taken for granted.
And then what?
Are they going to riot in 38 states to get the strong-armed proposed amendment ratified? Are they going to riot over each proposed amendment as they individually come up for ratification in the states?
-PJ
Yes.
They will use other intimidation tactics as well. Bribery, blackmail, internet slanders, media libels, civil "lawfare" suits, trumped-up criminal charges, "swatting",vandalism, and drive-by shootings will all be put into play.
There will be a number of "unexpected" sudden deaths from heart attacks and strokes. There will be out right assassinations dismissed as "random burglaries that went wrong".
The Left is not going to surrender their positions voluntarily, lawfully, or peacefully.
Proposed Constitutional Amendments that threaten their power will provoke every bit of resistance the Left can muster. Those who work for substantive changes had better plan accordingly.
-PJ
Government at all levels is heavily compromised. Police already have gotten "stand down" orders in the face of Leftist rioting (c.f Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago). There will be more of this sort of thing.
The "deep state" of Government bureaucracy employees will tacitly support expansion of the State at every opportunity. It will be easy for them to look the other way when their natural allies violate laws "for the cause".
The people in this country are heavily compromised. A substantial plurality want a Socialist Government that will provide them with "free stuff". Nothing will convince them that they cannot have it. And they will support Government takings by force to get their "free stuff".
The wealthy elites who actually rule this country are generally in favor of Socialism. They know it is all a con-game to keep the peasants under control and that it is very effective. They believe that, after all, they own the Government! Constitutional changes that limit Government will reduce the power of many elite factions. They don't want that.
Billionaires indirectly fund the radical Leftists because it benefits them to do so. So do various factions of the Government bureaucracy. There is plenty of money available for paid "radicals" to organize vicious resistance in 38 states and more.
Change is possible. It will be very hard and some of it will be very unpleasant. Rule-of-law is not easily recovered once it has been lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.