A PERMANENT ANSWER TO SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABUSES (Hostage)

Free Republic Exclusive ^ | June 25, 2015 | Hostage

[Hostage]

THE SOLUTION

Now it is clear more than ever that the Federal Government needs to be checked BY THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES.

Neither morality nor common sense can be 'legislated' via Congress ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

We need our states to assert AS SOON AS POSSIBLE their Article V constitutional right to AMEND OUR US CONSTITUTION,

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

To understand what must NOW be done will require us to think deep and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’. And it has to be quick because time is of the essence.

We should first take note to understand the following:

(1) It takes 3/4’s of states presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

(2) THE MAIN REALITY: THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Now some may think ... “but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee.

Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments or ignored altogether.

Repeat the main reality:

THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Understand why is this. Understand how this happened.

This lack of power is actually a loss of power as a direct result of the 17th Amendment extinguishing the power of state legislatures before Congress.

NOTE: the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments were all from the year 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day result in disaster. We must avoid these types of 'knee-jerk' mistakes by ensuring our amendment is both broad and specific AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE FOUNDERS.

THEREFORE, if WE THE PEOPLE through our state legislatures are to consider amending our US Constitution by asserting Article V, then we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the CORE OF THE PROBLEM. We must not be 'all over the map'. We must be united. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it and some very respected FREEPERS advocate for doing just that. But in my opinion repealing the 17th Amendment takes too long and is not necessary to solve the problem. Also the 17th is laden with emotional symbolism because it gave a power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; we risk the reason for the repeal to getting lost in the noise and being forgotten.

Let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

The answer is yes.

An illustration is needed that shows how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and incorporates valuable input from concerned Freepers.

************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII

To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the states and to restore effective suffrage of state legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

************************************************
Section 1. A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

Section 2. Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

Section 3. Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, specific federal court decisions and specific executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void. ************************************************

Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. The 28th Amendment can survive as a predominant amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

WHAT MUST WE DO TODAY?

(1) Strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

(2) Strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

(3) Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

(4) Sign up here as soon as possible:

http://www.conventionofstates.com

[nathanbedford]

if I am the one with a reading comprehension problem, why is it that I know what “assuming arguendo” means?

Are you afraid of the question is that why you are evading it?

[Hostage]

What they are missing is the concept of AUTHORIZATION.

If we wear a badge, and within guidelines accompanying our badge, we make arrests or on occasion must resort to shoot to kill, then we are judged to be enforcers of the law because our badges AUTHORIZE us to do the things we do.

If we have no badge and we make arrests and shoot to kill, then we may be judged as criminals who kidnap and murder because we are NOT AUTHORIZED to do the things we do.

Article V is the process by which we earn our badge which provides us necessary AUTHORIZATION to do the things we do.

[nathanbedford]

without authorization we are vigilantes and that is but a step away from terrorists

[INVAR]

I have answered you repeatedly and you refused to understand the plain words I’ve used.

I have no faith in any civil means attempted to restrain or stop this tyranny you are not willing to risk your life, fortune or honor in resisting.

I reject the fantasy implied by your argument that Article V can restore anything, and as to war - jt is inevitable at this point. Liberty cannot co-exist with those now ruling us. They have made their intentions clear if you were paying any attention beyond what party politics would have you think.

We either resist what is being prepared against us, or we go to our graves like beds.

[nathanbedford]

A man of your evident literacy is obviously intelligent enough to understand a question posed arguendo. If such a person repeatedly evades the question one can only assume there is something he wants to conceal.

The question is whether you would rather have war even if you could have the government you want by peaceful means? You simply will not answer the question. I believe you're concealing a mad desire to make war. More, you will not tolerate others seeking to obtain good government by peaceful means because that frustrates your desire for bloodshed.

If I am wrong all you have to do is say so.

But then you must explain, if you're intellectually honest, why you're opposed to trying to find a reasonable and peaceful way to good government.

[Repeal The 17th]

I do not recall any amendments to the ten commandments.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times ... thus far.
If it was “fine as-is” then why were those amendments needed?

[INVAR]

The question is whether you would rather have war even if you could have the government you want by peaceful means?

I reject the entire premise of your question as an absurdity given history, human nature and the fruits of the tyrants now ruling us.

It's not possible, so there is no point in answering a fantasy.

I believe you're concealing a mad desire to make war.

A typical response I would expect from a liberal, not someone on FR. You ignore what the Ruling Class tyrants are saying and DOING and instead you accuse ME of having a mad desire to make war???????

I have said NOTHING about taking up arms for the purpose of waging war on this government regime. I believe that it is time to refuse our consent and to refuse to comply - which WILL engender a violent response from the power now ruling us. You can do the math from there.

Obviously you do not believe tyranny is to be resisted or that liberty is worth fighting for outside of casting a vote. So your fate is sealed. Enjoy.

But then you must explain, if you're intellectually honest, why you're opposed to trying to find a reasonable and peaceful way to good government.

Are you willfully ignorant of human nature and history? I have already told you REPEATEDLY: you cannot be reasonable with the unreasonable. You cannot be civil with the uncivil and you cannot coexist with those who seek your subjugation and elimination.

Somehow, you think you can, and that resisting tyrants is a greater evil than submitting to them. Neville Chamberlain showed the world how your mindset when applied works - so I will repeat for you what Churchill remarked to Chamberlain: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You will chose dishonor and you will have war.”

Continue to deceive yourself that voting for more Amendments to a document made irrelevant will restrain a mob and their tyrannical rulers if that makes you feel better and more moral than me.

We are past the point of offering Olive Branch Petitions to a tyranny.

Lick their palms if you must, and may posterity forget you were ever our countryman.

[boxlunch]

I was 100% on the Article V bandwagon, but I’m starting to feel as many on here do, and don’t mind admitting, I’m beginning to lean toward the #2 group. Even if we pass some of the great amendments suggested, why would SCOTUS not just “interpret” them to mean something that they don’t? It only takes a few “oppressed” people to bring a challenge up before the SCOTUS and they can “make the constitution mean whatever they say it means”.

Until we have state legislators and governors who have the spine to challenge these ungodly, unholy and unconstitutioional SCOTUS prounouncements and interpretations, and who will REFUSE TO COMPLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, and threaten to arrest any federal agent who tries to enforce otherwise, it is all meaningless!!!

Do we have state legislators and governors who are godly, fearless men and who are ready to actually go to war if necessary? I don’t know! I know we have a few in Texas but I certainly don’t claim that the state as a whole is there. I have no idea about other states. And if we have state governments who are willing to do that, then why aren’t they already challenging some of the other garbage that has been laid on us?

As you may know, I was one of the original supporters of Article V on Jacquerie’s threads, and think the idea has merit if there is still enough support at the local/individual and state level (I mean a moral, godly contingent in this nation and fearless state level leaders.)

I’m just no longer confident that we do.

[INVAR]

I was one of the original supporters of Article V on Jacquerie’s threads, and think the idea has merit if there is still enough support at the local/individual and state level

It makes no difference how much support exists at the local/individual level - we JUST SAW that the Oligarchy will do what it pleases to strike down, rule invalid or ignore what the People want at the local and individual level.

That the proponents are so insistent that Article V is going to magically stop tyrants in D.C. from doing what they have been doing to the current supreme law of the land is abject lunacy.

Tyrants cannot be persuaded by civil means, and a government that holds it's people in contempt and no longer fears them is a government that will do as it pleases while eradicating those who dare oppose them.

Article V can be used as a Cassus Belli for justified resistance to the Tyranny now ruling us. But it must be done with the full understanding that it will not arrest, slow or impede tyrants from imposing more tyranny upon us.

[Hostage]

> “Even if we pass some of the great amendments suggested, why would SCOTUS not just “interpret” them to mean something that they don’t? “

The example 28th Amendment of this thread is a game changer and is like no other amendment that has ever existed.

The answer to your fear is in Section 3 where the States are allowed to void any specific Supreme Court ruling. The term ‘void’ in legal definitions means to be treated as if it never existed.

SCOTUS won’t have any interpretation opportunity for Amendment 28 Section 3. If 30 or more states declare according to Amendment 28 that the same-sex ruling of today is void, the state statutes and policies are free to remain intact and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. No reliance is placed on any part of federal government to interpret or enforce. All power from the example 28 falls to the States. That’s why it’s like nothing seen before; why it’s a game changer.

[INVAR]

Rulers who do not adhere to the Rule of Law are not going to be restrained by whatever the states and the people vote upon as the rule of law, no matter what Amendments are added. We have seen this time and again.

The Lawless will not regard the lawful or the law. They will creatively find justifications and loopholes to disregard and nullify the law, not to mention outright sabotage before a prevailing Amendment can be ratified.

Tyrants do not and will not abide by any Amendments that make it through a ratification process unmolested. Not without the threat and show of force.

Not to mention Conservatives are rapidly a growing minority in America as we are actively being REPLACED by foreign squatters at the behest of the ruling class of both parties upon whom will be given ‘voting rights’ in short order.

[Political Junkie Too]

---

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

---

Article V is the means for the several states "to declare the causes which impel them," if only for "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" for whatever may follow.

-PJ

[INVAR]

You and I understand that and agree.

What do we do about the Ruling Class tyrants of the Beast who will no doubts (and already have in some cases) declare the citation of the Declaration to be treason?

Remember that Dear Leader has lectured the emoting masses that disagreeing with the Federal beast “is crazy” because as he stated: “The government … is us” inoculating a vast majority of people from the idea that “the various states” have the authority to do anything outside of Federal permission.

So I ask, what plans do we have to enforce new restraints in Amendment form upon tyrants? Where are those discussions? All I read about is the need to have a COS - as if we need to have one simply for the sake of having one in the vain hope that our lawless leaders will suddenly and miraculously defer to what they have already circumvented and made irrelevant.

All three branches have confirmed the Executive to be a dictatorship, and the legislative has already surrendered their power to it while the Judicial has MADE an unConstitutional agenda ‘legal’. I do not think they are going to be moved by anything coming from a COS that they disagree with.

What contingency plans are being discussed for when the efforts are sabotaged, heisted, criminalized and/or simply decreed to be invalid? The Ruling Class will not just surrender their power without every effort made to thwart any restraints attempted upon their power. Then what?

[Political Junkie Too]

First, we must see what happens when Obama's term expires. The mark of true tyranny will be if he refuses to leave. All the rest can be chalked up to political give and take. We've heard before about the changing dynamic better a strong president and weak Congress, and vice versa.

Obama's strength, such as it is, comes from the weakness of Republicans to challenge him. Obama wears racism as a shield. Prior to 2012, Obama was propped up by Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. If truth be told, Pelosi was the strong one while Reid was the thug. afAter 2012, Obama benefited from the fecklessness of McConnell and the duplicity of Boehner to continue advancing his agenda. To me, that's not tyranny per se, just pushing boundaries and getting away with it.

So, what to do about it?

Some things will take care of themselves, if we can wait that long. The bell will toll for 73 year old McConnell, 81 year old Hatch, 79 year old McCain, 82 year old Grassley, 79 year old Roberts, 80 year old Inhofe, 75 year old Alexander, 71 year old Enzi, 77 year old Cochran. When the personalities leave the Senate, their weak behaviors will go, too. We have to ensure that their replacements don't follow in their footsteps.

Obviously, winning the presidency in 2016 is paramount, because the bell is tolling in the Supreme Court, too. The next president will get at least 3 SCOTUS picks. If Republicans are unwilling to fight the Democrat brand, then external groups must do it. We know in hindsight that Obama used the IRS to prevent these groups from gaining traction. We have evidence that Vichy Republicans collaborated in sabotaging their own base. This cannot be allowed to repeat. People have to be willing to shine the spotlight on the strong arm whenever it appears. It will likely first appear, again, as gag orders meant to prevent others from recognizing the widespread abuse of power. Somebody will have to be willing to be the whistle-blower and violate the gag order to get things started.

As stated elsewhere, there must be some structural changes to the federal government. Some power must be taken back by the states, making the federal government size and reach smaller. This begins in the Senate. First, state legislatures must take back the power to select their own Senators. People complain that state legislatures will just select cronies. I've said, so what? Personally, I think they will choose from amongst themselves. State legislators will be promoted to federal Senators. The Senate in Congress should be thought of as a United Nations of States, with Senators acting as ambassadors of state interests. The give and take will be over issues in common among several states. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #85:

We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact;

Hamilton was referring to Constitutional Conventions, but the same is true for a Senate of states debating common interest legislation. The problem today is that the Senate is not of the states, and its interests are not the states' interests, nor the people's.

And what if the legislatures choose to send cronies? Again, I wrote "So what?" I asked what is wrong with that if the economies of those states depended on those companies? Are California Senators today not the Senators from Google and Oracle? Michigan and General Motors? Massachusetts and Harvard? I'm not as worried about local state cronies appointing federal cronies. As I've written before, at least the cronies will be contained to their state's unique interests. Today, the Senate is disconnected from the interests of their states-in-name-only, and more interested in a globalist agenda that is in conflict with their own states. State control of the Senate is a missing cheekc and balance in the Constitution, regardless of the trade-off of good and bad.

It is my hope that a Senate of states can then begin to dismantle things like the Department of Education and make education local again. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and stop all the globalist regulating that is killing the private sector. Rein in the Bureau of Land Management and return control of "public" land back to the states so the public com actually enjoy the land again.

There is more that can be done: give back the stockpile of bullets that NOAA And the FDA don't need; take charge of immigration policy; restore the budget process...

I'll stop here.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Oh, and single issue bills.

Now I'll stop.

-PJ

[stevie_d_64]

Good words...I think I read them before a while back...

Do you believe there are elected officials that really, really believe them???

Or do you think those words give any testimony to those very same elected people, how tenuous their position is in our government, or in our tolerances???

[TMSuchman]

To hell with the so called elected “officials” ! This is what We the People need to do, throw out ALL the sob’s & start over.

[TMSuchman]

I fear for my Republic! I fear that we are going the way of ALL the other great Civilizations of the past, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Incas, Maya, just to name a few. They too came apart from the inside out & were taken over by a greater outside force/s. When do our so called leaders start declaring themselves above the law, their protection security staff will start wearing purple so we will know who their are, & we cal tell them apart from the rest of the so called internal security forces. We already have to pay tribute at least once a year to them who live apart from us peasants. And let us NOT forget what is taken from us when we purchase anything that we need for our daily lives.

Then we grew up learning that our causes would be heard in the fair & UNbiased courts, & that the so called judges would listen to both sides & also a jury of our peers our listen in and make their decisions heard before all. But the “Will of the People” was the most important & the last word on any subject. But now all it takes is 1 black robed priest [term from the days of old when they were the judges for the elite] to tell us on how the king/s & emperors want us to live.

The Country that I swore an oath to protect from all enemies both forgin & domestic NO longer stands! And it is every person for themselves [or with their family] It is ok to rape, rob, burn, or destroy anything you want all in the name of something, anything you want. As long as you can say that you were oppressed in some way.

So now I am calling for the implementation of Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”

And that we hang every person who has helped cause these problems! Because tempers are short & memories are long. There will be NO appeal or reprieve, or pardon or parole, the judgment will be final! The ship of state is about to be righted & probably be the Veterans who will be the ones who right it, because we can NO longer trust those who make the laws or enforce them!

Will I be branded a traitor to the current regime? I know I will be. Will I be ridiculed, tormented, laughed at, mocked, more than likely. But to those of you who held make this mess of our country, I damn you ALL to the lowest reaches of the ancient Greek hells!

There will be a day of reckoning & you are not gonna like what you are going to get, whether in this life or the next! This I swear, before All Mighty GOD in Heaven

[stevie_d_64]

Sure, that’s a great idea...

How???

When you come up with the plan, lemme know...

I’ve always been a great supporter of the idea of firing them all, and starting over...Stated so many times, for many years...

[boxlunch]

Let me pose this question - given the dreadful ignorance of most of our electorate today, what is to prevent the Supreme Court, or the President - from making a pronouncement that this new “Amendment 28” is unconstitutional and invalid? You said Amendment 28 prevents that - but I still have a big concern.

Now you and I and anyone with half a brain can see you cannot wholesale just say an Amendment is unconstitutional - that is like saying up is down or black is white. But I believe they will effectively try to do that but using some other sort of high faluting legalize language and “interpreting” it in some way that it doesn’t really mean (they would find some emanation in the penumbra that revealed the inner mystical meaning which would be exactly what the federal elite powers that be want and exactly the opposite of what the constitutionalist writers intended...)

- just like they are doing to so many other amendments these last 40 years.(The constitution means whatever the judges say it means http://hubpages.com/hub/Hughes-Hubris )
Example - Article 10 has no “teeth” or is even much more than a placeholder these days.

My question - will Amendment 28 include in it actual enforcement measures - like clearly enumerate that the individual STATES reserve the right to direct state officials, state militias, etc to ENFORCE this by certain means, up to and including physically remove federal judges who try to circumvent this restriction of their power? I think this circular thing where the federal government makes, interprets and EXECUTES the federal law - and states have no specific power to enforce anything - is a real issue and something that will need to be addressed, otherwise Article V amendments can just be ‘reinterpreted’ and essentially ignored or downgraded as have so many others. And also we will have the media, the 5th column, ENDLESSLY propagandizing this whole thing so that uninformed people do not understand what is going on.

I am not a lawyer and probably have not stated this concern very clearly, - but I think it’s a key, core issue.

I do agree Article V may be the last possible measure other 3 other possible outcomes: wholesale revival in which peoples hearts are changed, total tyranny in which the whole country comes under totalitarian control, or all out bloody civil war.
To: boxlunch

---

> Hostage:

The example 28th Amendment of this thread is a game changer and is like no other amendment that has ever existed.

The answer to your fear is in Section 3 where the States are allowed to void any specific Supreme Court ruling. The term ‘void’ in legal definitions means to be treated as if it never existed.

SCOTUS won’t have any interpretation opportunity for Amendment 28 Section 3. If 30 or more states declare according to Amendment 28 that the same-sex ruling of today is void, the state statutes and policies are free to remain intact and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. No reliance is placed on any part of federal government to interpret or enforce. All power from the example 28 falls to the States. That’s why it’s like nothing seen before; why it’s a game changer