A Frankenstein Constitution

[OneWingedShark]

Unless this is accompanied by a vast axing of the government ranks (read: fire scads of civil workers) the new one will be as Frankenized as the old.

Which is why I have lose your job, and all retirement-benefits as consequence of the violation a few amendments I have worked on (esp. confiscation).

[nathanbedford]

First-rate work.

You should use this vanity repeatedly as context permits.

[Jacquerie]

It was in response to thoughtful questions.

[Jacquerie]

Your #44 from yesterday was the foundation. Thanks.

[SC_Pete]

I have not seen a better summary of the problem and the only possible solution anywhere. Thank you so much for doing this.

BOOKMARKED!!!!!

America can be saved—but it is Winter at Valley Forge.

[Repeal The 17th]

In an attempt to answer these objections:
"... They already ignore the existing Constitution! ..."
"... What good would adding more amendments do? ..."
"... The Constitution is fine the way it is! ..."
"... All we need to do is enforce the constitution we have! ..."
"... Why bother? ... "
-----------------------
The passage of time and progressive activism have, in effect, altered and perverted the Constitution
with legislative, executive, and judicial decisions that effectively function as amendments to the Constitution,
but without having had the appropriate agreement or ratification by the States.
-
The federal government has demonstrated a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same objective.
The federal government has created rules and regulations that have their proper origin with
the inalienable rights of the People and the power and authority that the People have granted to the States.
The federal government has usurped the power and authority of the States.
The federal government has pursued action, seizures, and prohibitions against the rights of the People .
The federal government has attempted to seize control of all government and all government decisions.
The federal government has attempted to intimidate the States with threats.
The federal government has attempted to coerce the States with bribes.
The federal government has selectively applied different standards arbitrarily and unequally among the States.
The federal government has forced the States to undertake expenditures and placed conditions upon those expenditures.
The federal government has adopted foreign law and entered into unauthorized international agreements.
The federal government has effectively ignored both the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution.
The federal government has failed.
-
Congress has relinquished its power and authority to the executive branch and the judicial branch.
Congress has allowed federal agencies to create regulations that function as congressional law.
Congress has allowed federal agencies to selectively interpret and selectively enforce congressional law.
Congress has allowed the courts to interpret and effectively rewrite congressional law.
Congress has demonstrated its inability to develop, manage, or control the federal budget.
Congress has burdened future generations to servitude for debts to which they have had no say in creating.
Congress has failed.
-
The federal government must not be allowed to usurp the authority of the States or the rights of the People.
Congress must not be allowed to continue to fail to perform the duties given to them by the Constitution.
-
Without some external action, the federal government can not be expected to give back the authority that it has seized.
-
Without some external action, the federal government will not return to its limited role, and
it will continue to seize control of the States, bankrupt the nation, and deny the rights of the people.
-
Without some external action, Congress can not be expected to reclaim the authority it has given up,
or to correct its inability and unwillingness to perform its assigned duties and responsibilities.
-
The provision for an Article V Convention was specifically inserted and purposefully included in the Constitution
by the States to provide them with the power and authority to remedy federal overreach and to control the federal government.
-
The provision was included in the Constitution by the States as a peaceful method to maintain the union of the States,
and to avoid either the dissolving of the union, or enduring some other less peaceful method of correcting it.
-
The States must act together and must act soon to correct the erosion from the passage of time and the mistakes of past inaction
that have seen the country move away from a federal republic and move towards a democratic republic.
-
There is nothing to lose and everything to gain with an Article V convention.
-
Click to read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

[Da Bilge Troll]

Excellent!

My question to the “antis” is: If a convention is too risky then when will it be time to take a risk?

[Jacquerie]

There is no other reasonable option. History will not look well on a people who gaff this off.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Requiring announcement and proof of jurisdiction before any invocation of corporate law, therefore, is the solution.

Who will require it? How would you implement it?

[Jacquerie]

<>If a convention is too risky then when will it be time to take a risk?<>

Good question, for Obama is simultaneously the strongest and weakest president in history. No president has gathered more raw power, yet to my knowledge, no president has faced lower approval.

This is THE TIME to stomp on rampaging tyranny!

[Talisker]

Well first it would have to be law, preferably a constitutional amendment.

Then it could be invoked - as a court defense, as a mandatory administrative policy, as a regulatory requirement - whatever.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Given today’s American demographics a Constitutional Convention would be a potential disaster.

[Usagi_yo]

“Freepers read, study, and revere the brilliance of our framers’ plan of government, and support like-minded politicians.”

---

Unfortunately there is absolutely no truth in this assumption, particularly the read and study part. Oh they revere and support like-minded politicians, but only in as far as it coincides with their own believes founded in nothing but their wants and desires and not the actual ideas that frame the Constitution and give it the meaning and the power to keep our Country together.

It’s my personal belief that posters who incite or invite insurrection and who refuse to abide by and accept SCOTUS decisions as the final arbiter on Constitutional matters should be relentlessly chastised. Note: This does not mean to agree, it means to abide by and seek change from within, rather than change from without.

[MamaTexan]

It’s my personal belief that posters who incite or invite insurrection and who refuse to abide by and accept SCOTUS decisions as the final arbiter on Constitutional matters should be relentlessly chastised.

When SCOTUS makes a ruling that was outside their jurisdiction to 'hear' in the first place I will not acknowledge it as a legitimate finding! I WILL 'incite', I WILL 'invite', and such actions are not not 'insurrection'........ it's defending the Law.

However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

You want to *chastise* me, go for it! And you can call your buddies to help you if you think it will do you any good.

[Usagi_yo]

“You want to *chastise* me, go for it! And you can call your buddies to help you if you think it will do you any good.”

I have no buddies. Read my profile.

[Usagi_yo]

Full contextual quotes please.

"It’s my personal belief that posters who incite or invite insurrection and who refuse to abide by and accept SCOTUS decisions as the final arbiter on Constitutional matters should be relentlessly chastised. Note: This does not mean to agree, it means to abide by and seek change from within, rather than change from without."

You change the meaning by leaving out the bold face. I'm not saying the SCOTUS is infallible. I'm saying that it's the last resort of judicial review.

I had another reply, but it seems to have disappeared. Need I bother posting it again or will it be deleted, or did I mess up in "post" button. I didn't send it as a private reply.

[MamaTexan]

Note: This does not mean to agree, it means to abide by and seek change from within, rather than change from without."

When you abide by something, you are agreeing to it, so the notation makes no difference.

Compliance IS consent.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Well first it would have to be law, preferably a constitutional amendment.

Via convention or congress?

[Da Bilge Troll]

Given today’s American demographics a Constitutional Convention would be a potential disaster.

No one on this thread has proposed any such thing. We propose the exercise of the alternate amending procedure in Article V of the Constitution.

The disaster we are witnessing before our eyes on a daily basis is not "potential", it is fact.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

By definition the alternative to Congress proposing amendments is a Convention of states. You had better read Article Five of the Constitution.