Posted on 05/02/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Here is an FR post that addresses your concern.
I have many concerns about the COS. The proposed ammendments I have seen address symptoms, not the root cause of our problems.
There is no mention of repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which is the main cause of the out of control spending.
No one has suggested repeal of the War Powers Act of 1933, that gives the president the authority to act as a dictator during an emergency declared by the president. The emergenccy declaredc by Roosevelt in 1933 has never been recended, add to that the emergencys declared for the "War on Poverty, "the War on Drugs," The war on Terrorism," etc. .
It seems as if everyone sees it as my State Representative does, "We've got to do something," to which i reply to him "even if it is wrong," he wont disagree with that.
Small states outnumber big states
However, 13 states can block anything. It’s more likely to be a waste of time than a run-away convention.
Small states outnumber big states
However, 13 states can block anything. It’s more likely to be a waste of time than a run-away convention.
I wish, though, that 20 years ago the marriage amendment had been proposed.
"Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths...?" -- George Washington"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." -- John Adams
The electoral system has been around a long time and is, at least, predictable. A constitutional convention would not be. Many of the players would be completely different. There are really no rules for one. There would be too much opportunity for those with sinister motives to have undue influence over it
I may be wrong. I have been before but not very often.
To cure the ill of progressivism, we must first restore federalism.
Federalism was the KEYSTONE to the American republic. It is what distinguished our republic from all others going back to antiquity. Ratification of the 17th Amendment rendered our republic little different from so very many before us. The wonder is that it took so long for an Obama to appear.
I make no promises, no guarantees. At a minimum I hope state delegates will grasp the concept of federalism and return their states to the senate. In my dream, the government would be super-federalized as per Mark Levin's suggested amendments.
It is absolutely necessary that power be distributed once again between the states and the government they and the people created.
I got with my state rep last summer and spent almost an hour discussing Article V. He wasn't aware of it. He listened politely until I explained that he and his fellows in Tallahassee would have input as to treaties and judicial appointments. At that, his eyes lit up. He understood.
The players in both cases are the same. The players are the state legislatures.
When so many states have stood up to Obama over Obamacare, illegal alien invasion, and various executive agency diktats, it is a shame they are not given a lot more respect.
The states are our last line of defense. We must use them.
The Continental Congress rule was one colony, one vote, even though the delegations each had several members.
In Congress, it is one man, one vote, except for deciding Electoral College ties; in that case it is one state, one vote.
Since this essay discusses the Electoral College, I will recall a previous line of discussion and point out that the Constitution bars Representatives and Senators from participating in the Electoral College. Following that reasoning to an Article V convention, I suggested that it was a civil office authorized by the United States, and Congress is barred from participating in such. If the Electoral College is argued to be a similar body, and explicit language exists to bar Congress from the Electoral College, then logically Congress would be barred from an Article V convention, too.
-PJ
You are persuasive but I’m far from being convinced that it would work out as you out as you think it will. Thanks for your time and effort. I will continue to follow the issue and look forward to more posts from you
ALEC agrees with you; the ABA does not. I’m with ALEC on this one.
How ‘bout this: Any person who has previously held elected office of any kind cannot be a state delegate to the COS.
IMHO, the COS should be populated with ‘normal’ people. No politicians allowed.
“As a rule, it takes the federal government about a century to twist the words of the Constitution to meet its desires.”
You’re way out of date, it may have taken a long time a couple of centuries back but now it takes about fifteen minutes.
Oh, so I calmly discuss the malicious lie that the proposal empowers the judiciary?
That would be the Alinsky tactic. Lie as a premise, and then make a discussion out of it.
First of all, some people are just born liars and thieves. They raise to the top positions in the government to be able to steal more. We know some of them. They are a well understood class, so I set them aside.
But there is another group of elected officials. They are, actually, keeping their oaths - but as they understand them. This may differ from what you think they should do. Here is a quick example. The state is in pre-war days. The ruler has two options: to fight or to surrender. No matter what he picks, there are always two camps in his state - one advocates for war (at a price,) another advocates for peace (at a price.) You may belong to one camp or to another, but chances are that the ruler will pick not the decision that you support. Can you say that the ruler broke his oath? Maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends.
In this case, a politician has to decide whether to support an independent, strong, conservative state - which is harsh to lazy, weak, uneducated, criminally minded. Or to support a welfare state that gives everyone a bowl of gray gruel every day and a cardboard box to live in. Which decision is right? The representative gave an oath to make decisions that are best for all his electorate. It may be that the welfare state is mathematically preferrable if, for example, the politician takes into account the riots, the civil war, and other inconveniences that will result from forcing the welfare recipients to take care of themselves. A remote observer will say that it's better to have 90 strong people and 10 dead bodies than 100 weak people. But no politician is willing to go out and personally shoot ten people who "are not fit" to live in the brave new world that he is building.
One could immediately say: "Hey, the politician ought to care for the country, not for those lazy bums!" - and in a way that would be also reasonable. But then the well known dilemma of Teela Brown rears its ugly head: "How many people are you willing to kill today to save so many people in the future?" Politicians are reluctant to kill anyone, today or whenever, for obvious reasons. But sometimes it is necessary - usually by adopting difficult political decisions that will cause harm in the short term but will result in benefits in the long term. The words for that are "shock therapy." And then we recall the meaning of the "long term" to a Congressman... there is no component of the US executive power that survives more than eight years. The legislative power is supposed to be that immortal brain of the country... but it is collectively senile for a long, long time.
So what's the executive summary of all that? It's simple, really. Faced with hard choices, politicians of all sorts tend to pick the easiest solution that does not kill their chances of reelection. Kicking the can down the road is a traditional pastime of an elected official. We may get all upset because Congress does not do X and Y, but Congress may honestly believe (or fool themselves into believing) that half-measures and tolerance of intolerable will work this time around, even though they never worked before. There aren't too many politicians who say what they think. Most of them are gently - or not so gently - pushed out of the public arena before they can damage the status quo. As Congress is a collective body, a lone rebel will not make a difference, other than to entertain with a filibuster. If the rebel becomes too annoying, he'll be taken to the back room and explained, in easy to understand terms, how one shall behave - or else. Rulers of this country *are* above the law when it benefits them.
That's why so many people are interested in spelling out, explicitly, in amendments, what the government is allowed - and not allowed - to do. The budget thing, for example, can - and will, if not stopped - destroy the country with more certainty than a hundred nuclear bombs. The US dollar is accepted today only because it is convenient to the trader. But the run from the USD as a store of wealth is underway for at least a decade.
I follow your points. I cannot imagine why a state legislature would remotely consider appointing a sitting rep or senator.
So, the fact that Soros supports an Article V convention then must make him a conservative! Who knew?
This premise is false. Worse, I see not a single supporting evidentiary link in the piece. You can do better.
If you oppose a state amendments convention, do you also fear the Electoral College?
“Fear” is a strong word but I absolutely think it should be abolished via Amendment.
And no one can say ANYTHING for sure about an Art V convention as there has never been one. There is even some question if one is actually called if they are called for different reasons.
But one thing that is NOT an issue ... it will be special interest central. We are here in our group and it’s easy to surmise that it will become what we want. Quite frankly, there is so little consensus on anything in the U.S. anymore and everything is so balkanized that I expect nothing would get passed. However, it has the potential to devastate the delicate balance in our Constitution and I see it as a method to destroy, not improve, what we have.
It would be a disaster.
It would be a disaster.
And the way things are in Washington is perfectly OK by you?
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.