Skip to comments.A Question for Article V State Amendment Convention Opponents
Posted on 07/18/2014 12:50:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie
To Free Republic opponents of Article V, I put this question, what infringement of our natural and constitutional rights, or other high crime against our republic, could compel you to support an Article V state amendment convention to propose amendments to our constitution?
Satin Doll; Don Corleone; AuH2ORepublican; Usagi_yo; RipSawyer; entropy12; RKBA Democrat; Georgia Girl 2; ConradofMontferrat; Dead Corpse; tonyinv; onedoug; Dan Miller; gunnyg; Star Traveler; LyinLibs; plain talk; LS; TomGuy; AEMILIUS PAULUS;sickoflibs; familyop; The_Republic_Of_Maine;
The problem is not with the existing document, but rather the refusal of man to adhere to the document. That cannot be changed by altering the document.
Ummm ... probably the complete removal of the US Constitution from being used in courts and in law.
FWIW, I don’t believe we have enough people who are cognizant of the meaning of Liberty to have a Constitutional Convention that would not result in something much worse than what we have now.
Once you start the Convention, nobody can guarantee what will come out of it. There are too many people who are idiots when it comes to political philosophy and history who would be present at this Convention.
Bottom line? I think it is a dumb idea.
The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.
Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:
The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.
In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:
1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.
2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.
3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.
4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.
6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.
7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.
8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.
9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.
10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.
11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.
12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.
13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.
14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.
They get away with it by pretending it means something other than what it says. A CoS would define those meanings to be much harder to fudge on. One amendment might state the
Congress shall not delegate the authority to make rules with the power of law to any government agency it creates. I have better wording on my computer at home. Another amendment would clarify and limit that the “interstate commerce” clause as it was NEVER meant to give Congress literally unlimited power over commerce between states. And let’s not forget that repealing the 17th Amendment would help restore states’ rights. And don’t forget that installing term limits on congressmen would keep an individual from accruing too much power.
That's why it would be an Article V convention; that is one for proposing amendments… and those amendments would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the States's legislatures.
Something to keep a eye on.
Given the ignorant and depraved state of the electorate and the body politic, I do not see how a convention could do anything other than make things worse. Making new law is not a cure for lawlessness and anomie.
I am not opposed to Article V. I am opposed to those presently in government who ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And there is no one with the leadership to oppose them.
Well, doing nothing certainly isn’t working. Besides the states must still vote to accept the proposed amendments.
Sure about that? I have my doubts that will happen. Besides, Mark Levin is for it.
If the “old constitution” isn’t being followed, the “new constitution” won’t be followed either ... :-) ...
Constitutional and State conventions are wonderful ideas WHEN A CABAL OF FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS HASN’T OCCUPIED EVERY OFFICE FROM DOG CATCHER UP TO THE U.S. PRESIDENCY.
They didn’t seize our government in a bloodless coup by ‘being shy,’ so I don’t understand why folks thing the NWO cabal would ‘not brother’ rigging the ______ Convention the same way they’ve rigged the White House, Congress, CIA, FBI, IRS, Border Patrol and DHS.
STEP 1 - expose and remove the Regime.
STEP 2 - hold whatever damn Conventions you want.
In other words, you don’t perform open heart surgery on a patient while al-Qaeda stampedes around the operating room shooting machine guns and clobbering people over the head with crobars.
Pretty powerful argument. Good post, I look forward to reading other well thought and considered posts on this thread.
Personally, I’m in the undecided camp. Yours is the best post FOR an Article V Convention I’ve read to date. I’ve also read several excellent posts against.
I think these types of discussions which used to happen all the time here, are the reason FR is on the forefront of online debate.
Thanks for your post.
Is it a dumb idea by itself, or because you believe there are far too many people in this country who really don’t understand what liberty, and their responsibilities to protect and keep it means?
I don’t think it’s a dumb idea. It’s an idea to be debated on its merits.
the feasibility of a successful outcome is a separate debate IMO.
Thomas Jefferson had seen this problem coming as evidenced by the following excerpt from his writings.
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature. - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Since I believe that it would be easier for the states to amend state constitutions instead of trying to amend the federal Constitution, the states need to amend their constitutions to require parents to make sure that their children are taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers (and limited power to lay taxes) the way that the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
In fact, Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes should be amended into all state constitutions, and also the federal Constitution.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
[ I am not opposed to Article V. I am opposed to those presently in government who ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And there is no one with the leadership to oppose them. ]
Start with amending in Term Limits, It is really hard for them to ignore term limits...
Unless Barry decides to set a precedent and decides to run again in 2016....
[ If the old constitution isnt being followed, the new constitution wont be followed either ... :-) ... ]
A. It would only add amendments.
B. It is really hard to ignore Term Limits.
C. Make the first series of Article V amendments be term limits.