Support a Convention of States to end the tyranny of the federal government

Are you aware of the grave and serious problem that is threatening your liberty and the security of the United States? The current Congress gives Washington, D.C., including the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, more and more power to "legislate" and enforce laws that illegally circumvent the Constitution.

Our political process has been corrupted and the federal bureaucracy has produced severe regulatory burdens that have caused our national debt to grow to $19 trillion.

And there is another $100 trillion coming due in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. We are in a financial crisis that is unsustainable.

Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent sovereign governments.

If we "citizens" do not intervene, then the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people.

Thankfully, the Founding Fathers were prepared for what is happening today, and provided us with Article V of the Constitution, which empowers individual states to propose amendments.

It was George Mason who wanted this option for "application of the legislatures" for "proposing amendments" because he believed that Congress and the individual states should have equal authority in this matter.

It was no accident the constitution retained some of the federal features of the Articles of Confederation.

Madison and other federalists contended that consolidation of power in the new government was impossible as long as the states were still represented in congress as they had been under the Articles. As opposed to anti-federalists, the federalists believed our rights were not best secured with a bill of rights, but rather by division of power. If power was sufficiently divided, no single person or group could possibly oppress us and our God given rights would be secure. Madison so distrusted bills of rights that he called them “mere parchment barriers.”

I learned in high school civics that separation of powers doctrine meant distinct functions between the exec/legislative/judicial departments in Washington, DC. That is a true but an inadequate description, because THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT DIVISION OF POWER WAS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NEW GOVERNMENT. When the states booted themselves from the senate, consolidation of power in DC became a fact.

In its wake, the 17th left behind a federal constitution without a federal government. It set up an internal contradiction in our republic in which the government acts on an entity that doesn't have representation in the law making body. It makes as much sense to boot the people from congress as it does to boot the states . . . no sense at all.

With one amendment, the liberty saving design of our framers was destroyed. The 17th vindicated both Madison and the anti-federalists.

Is there any question today's government is consolidated? All three branches write laws, and there is nothing we can do when the judiciary and executive branches effectively write the law. Our revolution centered on the fact that no law can be legitimate unless the people's representatives consent. We no longer consent to the laws we live under. The law is what Obama or Scotus say it is.

With repeal of the 17th, power in DC would be more than halved. Power would be split once again between one federal government and many state governments. No longer would the senate serve as Obama’s rubber stamp bitch. No longer would anti-10th amendment lawyers have a chance of sitting on a federal bench. No longer would the EPA abuse the people and states with outrageous regulations. No longer would the DOJ abuse the electoral process. The list goes on.

Make no mistake. The 17th was no minor tweak. The framers recoiled at creating a popularly derived congress, for they knew very well what popularly derived legislative assemblies were capable of. The progressives of a hundred years ago knew exactly what they were doing with the 17th. We still hear it today, when they tout the wonders of “democracy.” BS, democracy kills, and our popularly derived senate is killing our republic.

Thank you for the information and yur thoughtful insights.

I, too, initially was not thrilled with the IDEA of a Convention of states because I thought it was too similar to a Con-con- to which I am very opposed.

However, Levin points out that the Convention of States is a Constitutional remedy put forth by the founders fur just such a situation as the one in which we find ourselves. It is birthed and controlled by the states legislatures whereas the Con-con is controlled by Congress.

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of Levin’s book on the subject, The Liberty Amendments. In it, he discusses the entire process as well as the amendments he would suggest—and he does include stipulations that may address some of your concerns.

IMHO, though there is risk, at this point, it may be worth pursuing because we seem to be losing our rights anyway.

Regards :)

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.