Don't you get it? It has already happened!
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?”
Until those are published so WE can see them, I don't trust them.
Supposedly, the legislators in various states that are considering the A-5 are proposing their own lists of amendments.
Only state legislatures can determine selectors to attend the A-5.
The ‘people’ have no input into the content or A-5 selectors, except in electing their state legislators.
Don't you get it? It has already happened!
An amendment requiring that Congress pass appropriations for the expenses of states in complying with Congressional legislation. This would exempt state expenses in complying with the U.S. Constitution, and so apply only to acts of Congress. Plus the amendment should allow state governments to ignore Congressional legislation that Congress does not appropriate funds to reimburse state compliance expenses.
This would free up hundreds of billions of dollars in existing state taxes which presently pay for unfunded federal mandates (such as MedicAid), and let state legislatures instead boondoggle it all to people who will generously share with deserving state legislators.
Ya gotta set a thief to catch a thief.
You are assuming there would be integrity in the voting and legislative processes. I no longer think this can be assumed as a matter of course. Look at how Obama won his primaries in 2008, how he won the election in 2012, how Cochran won his primary this year.
The following is an excerpt from the HISTORICAL EXHIBITION PRESENTED BY THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG
The Enabling Act of 23 March 1933
The political situation in the final stages of the Weimar Republic was confusing and unstable. Changing cabinets and coalitions and political, social and economic crises were the order of the day. . . .
The next step towards the ‘Führer state’ was the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Although the NSDAP-led government had a stable working majority in the Reichstag, the National Socialists aspired to formalise their absolute de facto political power by means of an amendment to the Weimar Constitution. Through the ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’ of 24 March 1933, more commonly known as the Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which consisted of only five articles, the government of the Reich was to be vested with almost unlimited powers to enact laws, even in cases where the legislation encroached on core provisions of the Constitution.
Since the Act entailed an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, its adoption required both a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the presence in the Reichstag of at least two thirds of all its members. The prospects of achieving the requisite number of votes were good, since the mandates of the 81 deputies from the Communist Party of Germany had been rescinded under the Reichstag Fire Decree. Moreover, many Members of the Reichstag had already fled or been imprisoned or murdered. . . .
Only the deputies from the Social Democratic Party of Germany voted en bloc against the bill, in spite of the massive intimidation by the SA and SS, whose troops had moved in to surround the Kroll Opera House, where the Reichstag was now meeting. . . .
__________________________________________________________
Excerpts from a WND article:
Michele Thomas, a professional photographer in Hollywood, told WND in an exclusive interview that her resistance to the Obama campaign made her a target of intimidation. “I have received death threats from Obama’s people,” she said. “I think I was called a ‘racist’ a thousand times. If you didn’t stand for Obama, you were a racist. It was a way to intimidate you.”
. . .
Thomas’ charges were affirmed by a Hollywood producer who spoke to WND, Bettina Viviano, . . ..
. . .
What [Thomas] witnessed while volunteering for Hillary in the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses eventually turned her into an activist.
“The Obama campaign people were stealing the caucuses – throwing away votes, intimidating people from entering the caucus locations,” she said. “It was very systematic. The Obama supporters got control over the caucus packages and they manipulated the vote.”
________________________________________________
Moreover, even assuming integrity in the process, the 13% argument cuts both ways. It would be just as easy for leftists to defeat any useful amendment as it would be for conservatives to defeat leftist amendments.
Therefore, a convention has no chance of doing any good, and a non-trivial chance of doing great harm.
It's possible.
There could be a big political landmine if, say, there's an amendment which would eliminate anything like a domestic surveillance/espionage program like NSA's PRISM.
Here's four that I've thought of:
| Tax Reform Amendment | Fiscal Responsibility Amendment |
|---|---|
| Section I No tax, federal or state, shall ever be withheld from the wages of a worker of any citizen of either. Section II No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. Section III The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof. Section IV The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress. Section V No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%. Section VI No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. Section VII No retroactive or ex post facto tax (or fee) shall ever be valid. Section VIII The congress may not delegate the creation of any tax or fine in any way. Section IX No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. Section X Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent applying, attempting to apply, or otherwise causing the application of an ex post facto, retrospective, or retroactive law shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit. |
Section I The power of Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed. Section II The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand. Section III To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI). Section IV The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Section V The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section VI Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold to be confiscated from a private citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee), b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits, c. pay all legal costs, and d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy. Section VII The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void. Section VIII The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation. |
| Commerce Clause Amendment | Senate Reform Amendment |
| Section I The federal government shall directly subsidize no product or industry whatsoever, saving the promotion the progress of Science and useful Arts. Section II The federal government shall never prescribe nor proscribe what the several states teach. Neither the federal government nor the several states shall ever deny the right of parents to teach and instruct their children as they see fit. Section III The congress may impose tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties on anything imported or exported, provided that they are applied uniformly and in no manner restrict, subvert, or circumvent the second amendment. Section IV No law may impose prohibitions of any sort on the commerce between the several states due to the item itself. |
Section I The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed. Section II The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced. |
I don’t buy the underlying premise. The existing Constitution is just fine. But if the people who are charged with obeying and enforcing it refuse to do so, then coming up with a new and improved Constitution isn’t going to much matter.
I view the article V efforts as being a generally harmless waste of time. Sort of like watching football. If it makes the folks who support it happy, then that’s just fine with me. They may even start some good conversations that make a few people think about the Constitution.
I’d rather work on my garden.
The question I would have is are these Republican majorities TEA majorities or GOPe majorities?
It makes a HUGE difference.
“... presidential line item veto ...”
-
An absolutely TERRIBLE idea.
The Comcon is a tyrant's dream. I've been re-reading our "Patriot's History of the United States" and noted how extremely easy it was for the Founders to simply ignore the instructions from the states when they attended the Articles convention---and their charge was ONLY to revise the Articles.
The very first thing they did was agree to meet in secret. The second thing they did was to completely scrap the articles.
It baffles me why conservatives---who so far can't control the electoral system enough to control the House, Senate, and White House and ensure that a substantial majority of the USSC justices are conservatives---think that magically they will be able to control such conventions.
Who names the delegates to the Comcon? The state legislatures? Oh, that makes me feel safe. Governors? Strike two. Special Comcon nominating conventions? And so if, in OH or FL, we can't control the political apparatus to keep from electing Obama, somehow magically we'll control a Comcon nominating convention?
I know EXACTLY in OH who would be at such a convention: the DeWines, Tafts, Kasich, plus some of the old line Dem families for "fairness" and maybe 2-3 Tea Partiers.
A very good fictional book by a Freeper you might want to look at deals with this: Matt Bracken's "Foreign Enemies and Traitors." His scenario is exactly how I think it would play out.
I do not underestimate the malevolence of the other side, I simply say that a good general chooses the ground on which to give battle and I would much prefer to fight in the legislatures of the 50 states than in the federal legislature or in the United States Supreme Court. But make no mistake, fight we must.
The left is fully capable of bringing on a constitutional amendment-in fact it is already doing so-they are fully aware of their options under Article V acting through the federal legislature or the state legislatures. Right now they are prudently acting under the federal legislature. Failing that, they will continue on as they have been, amending the Constitution in the courts, in the Oval Office, in the bureaucracies and we will go on debating the dangers of Article V and decrying the unfairness of it all.
I advocate taking hold of the events before they take hold of us.
You don’t have to believe any of that. All you have to KNOW is that a ConCon would result in vastly more libs dominating it and it would rewrite the 1st and 2nd Amendments out in 30 seconds.
“If that sentiment is correct, then it follows logically that America is no longer capable of self-government. If this is true, then what are the alternatives? Military dictatorship? Theocracy? The sundering of the Union?”
You hit at the nut of the problem. I believe that there ARE people who are still capable of self governance. The problem is primarily a locational one: those who are capable are spread over far too much territory to much matter from a national perspective. Some folks are trying to remedy that. See my tag line for an example.
Many of the proponents seem to think the Libs/Dems are just going to set idly by and let the conservatives ram through these new amendments.
I posted in some of the earliest A-5 threads that the Libs/Dems and every ethnic and social group would have lines of lawyers to make sure they are represented.
2. In fact the left is already fashioning an amendment to rewrite the First Amendment and you are in that fight whether you like it or not. If the left could rewrite the first and second amendments in 30 seconds, would they not already have done so?
3. I have not slightest fear that the left will prevail in rewriting the first or second amendments because of the arithmetic I outlined in my post #27. 4. There are other impediments to rewriting the first and second amendments which include the restrictions placed upon delegates to the convention by the states.
The idea of a runaway "con con" is utterly remote. It represents a danger relatively inconsequential compared to de facto constitutional amendments we are suffering every day.
It is just silly to think that ANY existing rules---even to "be approved by 3/4 of the legislatures"---would BIND any Concon of this type.
Not in a million years. And don't give me this crap about what "fight" I'm in. This is a quick suicide bullet. You're free to go out that way, but I'm not going with you. Whether or not we're suffering doesn't mean you go introduce yourself to Dr. Kevorkian.
Those are awesome amendments! The only critique I have is the one about the fed paying its employees in gold only—how do you deal with the military, which, in war may number in the millions, and where would you find that amount of gold in a legitimate war, where, say the United States is attacked bodily and some states are invested by the enemy?
That's just it, it is not a constitutional convention, but a convention for proposing amendments — it's an important point.
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.