To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

I have observed that the “Normalcy Bias” is one of the strongest forces in human nature.

I understand their fears, but I'm willing to try this solution. The alternative is bloodshed.

When there is only 3 seconds left on the clock in the fourth quarter, and your team is down by 5 points and you are on your own 40 yard line, most often a Hail Mary is the only play in the book that makes any sense.

The Ron Paul campaign was a sideshow. No doubt about it. But the main event was predetermined and phony outcomes on floor votes, and rigged rules committee meetings, and rules that basically stack the deck for the establishment for 2016. The RP delegates posed no real threat to anybody or anything. But a phony GOP nominating process is dangerous to the whole country.

central_va showed his extreme depth of analysis and character stating, “Coward.”

What I am, is the Attila the Hun of Conservatives,

But to Progressives I am the thing beneath the bed, the shadow inside the closet door, I am what makes them catch their breath, and pulse race with nothing in sight. I am what they’ve feared every day of their life. I am what their beliefs could never contain, never prepare for, and desperately hope to never encounter. I am the exception that violates their every rule...

However to you, I am your misspent youth catching up to your marginal approximation of adulthood while you eat Cheetos in your mother’s basement, but you may call me Sir.

“Normalcy Bias” is the current favorite exclamation from neophytes as they fish for navel lint, and pretend an understanding.

Go pound salt douchebag!

zzeman, evidently you don’t appreciate the glaring irony of those referencing normalcy bias here also consistently supporting amending the Constitution as a valid means to address a government so flagrantly violating the Constitution and deliberately acting as enemies to this country’s existence to such a degree that it puts the very lives of millions at risk.

In the meantime, the belief is that it’s just profligate government spending along with the necessary partisan finger-point, when the government mysteriously loses an amount in trillions of dollars in little more than a year’s time, when that exceeded the global domestic product for that same time period.

Obama has usurped the entirety of Article I Section 1. He has taken over healthcare. He determines spending. The internet is his. He will have tens of millions of illegals voting in 2016. The senate is about to surrender its treaty powers. His DOJ protects high criminals in the executive branch and is angling to take over state and local level policing.

Against this background we are supposed to fear an Article V convention, and instead keep voting conservative.

I suppose it will take the equivalent of a Reichstag fire to knock the American people off bottom-dead-center and reclaim their republic.

Publius,

You make the statement that indications from the Court in Coleman vs Miller are nothing but obiter dicta, but then do not clarify why this might be the case, examining the issue before the Court.

Despite sidestepping the specifics of the case, your regale the reader with generalized pronouncements about the law.

You ask what the intent is of Article V, but then proceed to reference the Declaration of Independence, when there is no direct tie between the two indicated by any reference. While Constitution Law does indeed recognize the principle of Contemporaneous Construction, to allow illumination of text by directly related writings from the same period, the Constitution and DOI are not contemporaneous and neither illuminates the other.

In Coleman v Miller, the fact is that under jurisprudence, the statements made by the court regarding the authority of Congress are not possibly obiter dicta, as they have direct bearing on the decision reached by the Court. At issue before before the Court was whether or not an amendment to the Constitution could be reintroduced to the Kansas Legislature, after the legislature had already rejected it, and whether or not Congress could leave the bill without a ratification deadline.

The Decision before the Court rested entirely on the Consideration of that authority the United States Congress had over the amendment process, as indicated by Article V, and by that authority, whether or not Congress might recognize a ratification that had previously been rejected, and whether or not an amendment could remain open for ratification for an indeterminate period.

As a result, the Court’s indications regarding Congress’ authority over amendments via Article V have direct bearing on the cease before it. No, it’s not obiter dicata.

Beyond that, your follow-up arguments about the validity of the Court’s statements have no basis in jurisprudence, or even fundamental logic.

Amendment conventions are not sovereign bodies, as they are not the highest authority in the land, however imagining that they are is an extremely alarming perspective from one claiming that a convention is safe.

If the fact that the “Constitution created Congress” had any bearing on Congress’ authority, then Congress could not decide where to put Post Offices, or how many ships were in the Navy, or even propose amendments itself. Congress would be a lifeless body unable to make any decision under the Constitution. While generally this would not be such a bad thing at all, it is not any sort of valid legal argument.

The claim that Article V only gives Congress a ministerial duty regarding State Conventions, is not born out by what is actually given positive indication in Article V, which continually involves Congress being the singular governing authority indicated therein, nowhere referencing the Convention delegates themselves as having unlimited authority (which would be extremely imprudent).

Furthermore, the ‘whole people’ do not collectively have a sovereignty, but rather only the States themselves do, and only within each State’s own borders. If a mere mass of people could suddenly have sovereignty anywhere, at any time, then various “sovereign” groups would continually collide with one another. There is only one Sovereign authority, and it is not simply be banded and disbanded. Sovereignty actually has a defined meaning, and it is not ‘subject’ to being so randomly recognized.

Your entire argument is based on the American Bar Association's 1973 report which the Congressional Research Service has treated as gospel. It's not gospel. It's just an opinion by a lobbying group.

I would suggest you read a document from another lobbying group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which takes a different point of view.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

No, my argument is not based on the Bar Association report in any portion, as I've never read it.

Furthermore, I do not find the Bar Association to be in any particular position of authority relevant to the consideration at hand to warrant reading it. I have however read the CRS report thoroughly, and I find no reliance therein on the Bar's report from 41 years previous, and I doubt the CRS considers the Bar Association any sort of relevant authority either!

Your reference to the Bar Association's report is nothing but a red herring and deflection, every bit as inappropriate and unfounded as references to Phyllis Shafly and "The John Birch Society"! Quite frankly,these One-Trick pony antics I would normally expect from the progressive leftists are starting to tax my charming personality and good humor.

However I am quite familiar with Robert G Natelson of "ALEC" and his position on Article V, and find it, at minimal, disturbingly superficial. Beyond that, Natelson has himself admitted to engaging in propagandist PR with the name "Convention of the States", which Natelson admitted to in his 2010 address of the subject (page 10). Natelson wanted to discourage the indication of "Constitution" in reference to the Convention because it draws attention the FACT (not possibility) that such a convention might overthrow the entirety of the Constitution. The only previous time such a "Convention of the States" occurred resulted in the overthrow of our existing constitution, and did so when delegates were only charged with amending it, and then also fabricated ratification of that entirely new Constitution by considerably lesser terms than those mandated by the existing constitution! That's the inescapable fact of history.

Even Mark Levin had the outrageous dishonesty to state at the 2014 ALEC Summit conference (time 22:24), "The people who support centralized government call this process a Constitutional Convention". That statement, not even triggered by any comment from others, is just outrageously false and a deliberate dishonesty. While Levin was once the only radio host that I could respect, Levin had long previous sacrificed both his credibility and my respect by other dishonest methods prior to my hearing this comment.

The fact of the matter is that Natelson's American Legislative Exchange Counsel has no more authority than does the Bar Association itself!

Furthermore, as to Article V'S own direct indication, the only authority over the convention referenced in that relevant section of the Constitution, and repeatedly referenced as such, is Congress itself! The States are NOT referenced as having any overriding authority, and indeed have to petition Congress, NOR are the delegates themselves referenced has having any overriding authority at the Convention. That's just reality. Any other interpretation is inserting into the Constitution by means of nothing but personal prejudice, an interpretation nowhere indicated by the Constitution.

While what you argue might be ideal, at least from some perspectives (ignoring its inherent hazard and threat), it is not what the Constitution itself indicates, nor is it what history has shown. You and other proponents of Article V Convention of the States are giving false assurances that do not have any basis in fact, or history.

What Article V proponents are doing is ignoring the hazard and threat, while promoting amendments do that do not begin to address the cause of the problems, and have ZERO chance of bettering anything, while they put our liberties and Constitution in play "on the table" and entirely at risk!

I cannot begin to express on this forum how thoroughly and viscerally I resent this being done, particularly by people with so little evident regard and understanding for the Constitution as it exists now. This whole thing is pushing the nation to a point of unavoidable Revolution and massive bloodshed of the worst sort -- one where we would not even having the moral high ground of still being able to claim our unalienable rights! If this amendment Convention results in the evisceration of our rights, and the creation of a fundamentally new Constitution -- then we have nothing to fall back on as being "the law of the land".

Yet Article V proponents blithely repeat the false assurances, while not having the slightest regard for the outcome they are beckoning, and even forcing upon us all. You should recognize that those who refuse to have our form of government overthrown are now arming themselves against Article V proponents every bit as much as the progressive Marxist-Statists.

There is no mention of repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which is the main cause of the out of control spending.

I address it in my proposed amendment for Financial Responsibility, here. It is not a repeal, because a repealed law may be reenacted. It addresses the fundamental problem of continual and unchecked incurance of debt — I think you might like it.

Honestly, EternaVigilance, how do you not see a problem with what the Ron Paul supporters did acting as delegates, presumed to recognize their responsibility to vote for the primary candidate elected in their state, but planning an delegate coup?

Are you talking about the delegates that should have been sent but were denied because of RETROACTIVE rule-changes to the primary?

OneWinged —

If by “RETROACTIVE” rule, you mean a rule that shouldn’t have to even exist telling people to not do what severely ethically wrong? Paul made a point of inserting his representatives as delegates even though they were representing other candidates.

The whole point of delegates not being “bound” to one candidate, is so that if compelling information should surface immediately before the primary, then those delegate are free to change their votes.

Those delegates WERE NOT allowed to be unbound so that an an entirely unethical and corrupt campaign might, by subterfuge, entirely overthrow the intent of the primary process!

And that is why all the Paulites that say that Paul was robbed should be shot, because they have no regard for the election process. What Paul and his supporters intended, assuming they accomplished it (because no one knows for sure), would have not only made a mockery of the whole primary process, but also the election as well.

That’s not the way any ethical group goes about restoring faith in legitimate government. Hell, rather than all the subterfuge and wasted time in primary efforts, perhaps we should just pick a General or Admiral and support a military coup.

Let’s face facts here: by mid June Paul was saying he had as many as 200 delegates. However confirmed official delegate counts at that time were the following:

Romney 1,480
Santorum 267
Gingrich 138
Huntsman 2

The entire total of Republican delegates was 2,286.

Romney not only had a plurality of the delegates, but a majority! In crossing the threshold of 1,144 delegates, for a majority, Romney became the Republican candidate. There is no possible (legitimate) means that Paul was going to get the Republican candidacy.

And I say this all while having no love for Romney. In fact, for the first time in my life, I did not vote in that election because I was so disgusted that Romney could be the GOP candidate at a time when ObamaCare was (and remains) such a gross violation of the Constitution. Contrary to some mistaken beliefs, it is no more legitimate under the Constitution and our unalienable rights for the State of Massachusetts to assume ownership of each citizen’s body in that state. I would say that there could not be a worse candidate than Romney, but given Paul’s conduct, and his Middle East foreign policy, that clearly would not be true.

What Paul and his supporters intended to do is unconscionable, unethical, and does not come close to finding any justification even by reference to a “retroactive rule change.” As a result of what they fully intended to carry out, without batting an eye at killing what little faith remains in the election process, I cannot even stand listening to Paul any more. And frankly, they did a good job of tainting Rand as well.

To OneWingedShark:

I've taken the time to read through your list of proposed amendments (pdf). While generally well thought-out, there are concerns about each one, but there is particularly a concern, actually extreme alarm. regarding one of them, the Grand Jury Amendment. Below are a general response to your amendments including an explanation why what you indicate of Grand Juries cannot be allowed to happen.

Tax Reform: Part of the fundamental reason for rejecting a personal income tax, is that our personal income is not "profit", but rather the equal exchange of our income for labor (generally at a rate established by fair market supply and demand). By taxing any portion of our personal earnings from employment, even yours limited to 10%, it is fundamentally indicating that our labor is of no value, and acting as a punitive measure against an employed and productive society.

While simply repealing the 16th Amendment may seem like a good idea to some, the fact is that the fundamental meaning of what is a "direct tax" has been profoundly corrupted, moving personal earnings from the category of direct taxation, to the category of an indirect excise tax. Mere months after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co (1916), in which the Court stated that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. This is in direct conflict with the recognition of our founders, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, December 12, 1787, recognized the primary definition of direct taxation to include monies earned from "trades and occupations" and recognized the ability to tax these as being tyrannous, indicating such direct taxation to be "so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments."

Simply repealing the 16th Amendment will not begin to ensure the proper outcome, as these despots have corrupted the plain, intended meaning of words.

While I agree that a tax on munitions is indeed an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you may want to consider rephrasing your first sentence of Section 3 indicating "The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, ..." as this is likely to be interpreted by many to be a call for the force of arms to prohibit taxation.

Fiscal Responsibility: While fiscal responsibility by government is a necessary consideration, the conversion of the dollar to a commodity-based value, such as gold, particularly doing so outright at this point in time, is a hazardous endeavor that will result in the dollar fluctuating enormously, particularly at the onset. There is also cause for serious question that the federal government has any physical gold being held at this time. Furthermore, real economics has repeatedly shown over history that the value of a currency does not need to be directly tied to a commodity, particularly when the currency is limited to a stable mount relative to the population; the American colonials demonstrated this themselves with colonial script. The root of the problem is that our dollar is debt-based, and to a private institution (Federal Reserve), when that institution has no legitmate claim to any real debt acquired by its creation of a currency, and certainly not to that currency's full value.

Commerce Clause: The federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause was already clearly defined by the Constitution itself in Article 1, Sections 8, 9 and 10, as the authority to "make regular", or to make uniform, and not any sort of authority to ply anything that might travel across State boundaries with regulation, dictation, and taxation. More here.

Grand Jury Amendment: I cannot emphasize in strong enough terms that your indications about the Grand Jury being "an independent, self-directing body of inquisitors" is extremely misguided, and way beyond being merely dangerous, to being entirely corruptive to the rule of law,resulting in the validation what is known as a "Kangaroo Court" and mob rule. But you've done worse than that. You've mad that mob rule the supreme and incontestable law of the land!

What you've done is recreate an unrestrained "inquisition" under the color of law.

These misguided beliefs are currently being popularized by the sovereign citizen movement, and among groups like National Liberty Alliance, and others who are currently promoting an unhinged authority of the "common law" grand juries, something which has ZERO basis in principle or historical fact, and for good reason.

In Justice Scalia's extended discussion of the Grand Jury in U.S. vs Williams, Scalia provides historical reference for the fact that a grand jury only has authority over that body itself, in order to deliberate upon anything that it might choose. However once that Grand Jury seeks to act outside of its own body, interviewing witnesses and obtaining evidence, then the Grand Jury must appeal to the authority of the Court itself for any authority to do so. Scalia recognizes that allowing any other authority beyond that, would be allowing the Grand Jury to violate individual liberties with impunity.

You further compound the problem by indicating that "any judge or prosecutor" failing to act upon such a Grand Jury's indication, shall be evicted from office.

Perhaps you need to pause and recognize that the cliche, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich", is not positive indication. And then recognize that "ham sandwich" might one day be you.

To put your ill-conceived proposal into perspective: imagine the hell tht would be unleashed if the angry mobs in Ferguson, Missouri could form their own independent Grand Jury, and then compel the State Prosecutor to harge, and perhaps even indict officer Wilson for First Degree Murder, then NONE OF US would ever, not at any time, be secure in the legal system from entirely unrestrained personal attack, for whatever reason or no reason whatsoever, under the unrestrained authority of a Grand Jury. The objective rule of law would become entirely destroyed, and any hope of our freedoms and property being secured entirely gone!

What you've essentially validated here is populist rule, and not even by a very big majority mob either! This is entirely what this nation's founders stood against and intended to entirely prohibit by every structure of the Constitution!

To understand more why this is such fatal mistake, read "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid?"

Overall, these amendments underscore the extreme hazard in allowing unknown and unanswerable delegates, to indiscriminately alter the Constitution by populist mass agreement, particularly when such mass gatherings are notoriously absent moderation, restraint, reason, wisdom and intelligence.

OneWingedShark --

I just noticed another serious error of understanding in your proposed amendments, under "Grand Jury Amendment", section VIII where you indicate:

"The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed."

While most certainly the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted, by referencing the "doctrine of incorporation" applied to the 14th Amendment, you've actually rejected one corruption by the Court, only to to validate an earlier corruption to the principle of this country.

Inherent to the referenced rejection of the"doctrine of incorporation" is that the several States are not obligated to recognize our unalienable individual rights. Somehow the unalienable rights of our founders became highly alienable by States. This was never their intent.

This idea stems from a profound fundamental corruption that the Bill of Rights actually grants us our rights, and they are thereby only applicable to the federal government itself. The Constitution does not grant us those rights, but rather only recognizes what exist beyond the Constitution, only therein phrasing those rights in regard to the structure of the federal government.

This earlier corruption stemmed from Barron vs Baltimore (1833), in which the court indicated that because States are sovereign entities, they are somehow immune to any obligation to persons and their property -- in other words, States can make our rights and property highly alienable, and we've created 50 new little monarchies. Such a corrupt principle is entirely in conflict with everything in the Constitution and all the founder's writings. From this corruption, we have States and municipalities severely infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms (notice I didn't say "Second Amendment right"), and confiscating our property without compensation or trial, under a wide range of excuses.

Those rights are every bit as applicable to the State governments, as they are the federal. It's just that the federal government should be prohibited from any policing authority over those rights.

>> “The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed.”
>
> While most certainly the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted, by referencing the “doctrine of incorporation” applied to the 14th Amendment, you’ve actually rejected one corruption by the Court, only to to validate an earlier corruption to the principle of this country.

Ah, but with incorporation we get the “magical” process by which the court may take some regular text like the first amendment, change it, and apply it to the states. In fact, in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered because it is explicitly binding on one entity only: the Congress.

I reject the idea that repealing the 14th (and incorporation) must needs be the embracing of State sponsored tyranny. One if the major problems today is the rush to put everything into the Federal realm of jurisdiction. — This is one reason why state sovereignty is virtually non-extant, in one of the dissents to SB1070 the justice remarked that in rejecting the State’s ability to ensure laws are enforced the only remnant of state sovereignty is the right/ability/power to defend themselves from being invaded. With that in mind, I ask this: What would the Federal response be to a southern State taking its National Guard and using it to seal the southern border via military force?

Tax Reform:
Simply repealing the 16th Amendment will not begin to ensure the proper outcome, as these despots have corrupted the plain, intended meaning of words.

While I agree that a tax on munitions is indeed an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, you may want to consider rephrasing your first sentence of Section 3 indicating "The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, ..." as this is likely to be interpreted by many to be a call for the force of arms to prohibit taxation.

I agree that a simple repeal of amendment 16 won't do; as you say the simple intent has been disregarded. As for the recognition of amendment 2, I thought it looked obvious that it is prohibiting tax on arms (and munitions). How would you word it?

As to the idea that a personal income tax it is fundamentally indicating that our labor is of no value I disagree… and the only other common alternative of a nation-wide sales tax would invite the federal government into every financial transaction and essentially cement the current/horrible interpretation of the Commerce Clause as per Wickard.

(The only other way I can see structuring taxes would be the tax placed directly on the States — IIRC, that's one reason the Articles of Confederation didn't work.)

Fiscal Responsibility:
While fiscal responsibility by government is a necessary consideration, the conversion of the dollar to a commodity-based value, such as gold, particularly doing so outright at this point in time, is a hazardous endeavor that will result in the dollar fluctuating enormously, particularly at the onset. There is also cause for serious question that the federal government has any physical gold being held at this time. Furthermore, real economics has repeatedly shown over history that the value of a currency does not need to be directly tied to a commodity, particularly when the currency is limited to a stable mount relative to the population; the American colonials demonstrated this themselves with colonial script. The root of the problem is that our dollar is debt-based, and to a private institution (Federal Reserve), when that institution has no legitmate claim to any real debt acquired by its creation of a currency, and certainly not to that currency's full value.

While I understand the assertion that the value of a currency does not need to be directly tied to a commodity the plain truth is that I do not trust the Government (or private entities) to faithfully and justly control a currency's valuation. I recognize the hazard of a switch, but I firmly believe the hazard is greater if left alone, furthermore if the currency is not commodity-based then limiting the debt becomes essentially impossible precisely because non-commodities may be conjured out of thin air like our fiat money. Further, the danger of this debt is enormous: it is essentially selling the people and their posterity into slavery forever because (a) it will never be paid off, (b) it is a guarentee against your future earnings via the income tax, (c) you cannot legally question the debt or its validity [as per the 14th amendment; this means they can but $2000 toilet seats for everyone in China and you can't protest], and (d) paying your taxes is essentially non-optional.

Commerce Clause:
The federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause was already clearly defined by the Constitution itself in Article 1, Sections 8, 9 and 10, as the authority to "make regular", or to make uniform, and not any sort of authority to ply anything that might travel across State boundaries with regulation, dictation, and taxation.

I know this — it does need correction, however, precisely because the federal government has taken it to mean anything and everything under the sun, including non-commerce. Furthermore, that understanding is chilling when you consider that the interstate portion of the commerce clause is precisely between foreign nations and Indian tribes because if a government were to assert on a foreign nation the sort of economic control demanded by the current rendering of the commerce clause it would mean one of two things: (1) that it was a declaration of war, or (2) that the country was actually conquered. Thus the modern rendering of the interstate commerce clause is very, very close to the Constitution's definition of Treason.

Grand Jury Amendment:
I cannot emphasize in strong enough terms that your indications about the Grand Jury being "an independent, self-directing body of inquisitors" is extremely misguided,

Then please explain the concept and usage of presentments. Moreover, please explain how and why they were removed from the current rules courts.

WingedShark wrote:

"Ah, but with incorporation we get the “magical” process by which the court may take some regular text like the first amendment, change it, and apply it to the states. In fact, in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered because it is explicitly binding on one entity only: the Congress."

The reason the 1st Amendment references Congress is that is the business of the Constitution, constructing the federal government itself! It is not as if we have the freedom of speech only to protect us from Congress and the federal government, but rather as referenced in the Declaration of Independence "any form of government", which would include States as well.

That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves. Nowhere in the legitimate State government's authority is it reasonable to restrict freedom of speech, or religion, or to infringe in any fashion on the right to keep and bear arms. Even the 10th Amendment concludes with the clause "or to the people" which is a direct reference to those rights.

By your statement that, "in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered.." you are inherently acting as if the Bill of Rights generally, and First Amendment specifically, grants or provides us those rights. This is actually itself a gross corruption and profoundly wrong.

The First Amendment does not need to be changed, just our own mistaken understanding of our founding principles does.

In fact the catastrophic results from such a belief that the Bill of Rights actually provides us those rights are far-reaching and enormous. As example an interview last year by a retired Marine Major indicated that, if the Constitution was amended, and the federal government wrote a law prohibiting firearms, then it would be the military's job to confiscate those arms, and "that's the way Democracy works".

If Americans don't recognize this ss extremely chilling, particularly coming from our own military, and all too many do not, then that level of ignorance right there is a major part of the problem (pun intended), and how we got to where we are right now.

I've actually spoken to this Major via social media, and he was so incapable of recognizing he might have made any error, even after an extended conversation and explanation, that he ended up threatening me with a complaint.. and I'd said nothing at all personally offensive, except vehemently disagreeing with his perspective. The Major did not even offer any sort of counter-argument.

And the worst part of it is there are members of the military who would believe they were actually supporting the Constitution, while executing orders in one of the darkest moments of this country's history, not to mention the ongoing false beliefs by State police who actually believe what they are doing is legitimate as well.

I never indicated that repealing the 14th Amendment alone would lead to State sponsored tyranny, but rather that the specifically indicated reference to the "incorporation" of rights by that amendment being needing to be undone, as if the States are not equally compelled to recognize the same rights, even if not by the specific terms of the Bill of Rights itself.

Of course the States should have the authority to prohibit any entry into the that State, but this has no bearing on the fact that Rights do apply to those States themselves.

I would be interested to see what the Federal government's response is to any State refusing to act according to federal dictates. However we've already got a good idea how that response might start out. In 2011 when Texas threatened to a law to subject TSA agents to criminal prosecution for the ongoing unlawful factions, the Obama admission made known a threat via U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy that Texas would be turned into a no-fly zone. Imagine all the other things that might be shutdown to any state rejecting ongoing illegitimate federal authority beyond aircraft flights: closed highways, closed energy grids, and this is just starting with the passive responses, not the more direct exercise of force.

If people don't imagine this sort of direct physical conflict is entirely expected to happen, and soon, just take a look at Jade Helm 15.

Winged Shark Wrote:

As to the idea that a personal income tax it is fundamentally indicating that our labor is of no value I disagree… and the only other common alternative of a nation-wide sales tax would invite the federal government into every financial transaction and essentially cement the current/horrible interpretation of the Commerce Clause as per Wickard.
(The only other way I can see structuring taxes would be the tax placed directly on the States — IIRC, that's one reason the Articles of Confederation didn't work.)

You say you disagree, but then don't indicate why. I submit that the reason you do not provide any rationale is that you there is not actually one, and you're just repeating the habituation you've been subjected to annually like Pavlov's dog.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state. I recommend reading Andrew McCarthy's phenomenal 2010 Article on National Review titled "Empty Promise".

When we work, if we are only exchanging our labor for for monetary reward, a fundamentally equal trade, then there is no profit or gain, but we are treated as if all of our income is profit, and thereby taxed. Corporations are taxed, but generally only pay taxes on their net profits, after expenses,etc are deducted. The entirety of the Social Engineering state was created by first allowing personal income tax, which enables the government to engage any sort of agenda, and even pick winners and losers on a personal level.

They began personal income tax first it being only a tax on those greedy corporations, and then later only a temporary tax on the the wealthiest of Americans.

Yet we know from the Pennsylvania Ratification convention, as well as other historical records, that a wages from work are to be considered a direct tax.

Contrary to your understanding of the Constitution, the Constitution did not end "tax being directly on the States". The Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, prohibitions to congress indicates:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally. Even the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention notes indicated of a direct tax, "it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head." That sounds pretty direct and personal to me, and is how they turn us into Pavlov's dogs.

Regarding Grand Jury amendment, WingedShark wrote:

I cannot emphasize in strong enough terms that your indications about the Grand Jury being "an independent, self-directing body of inquisitors" is extremely misguided,

Then please explain the concept and usage of presentments. Moreover, please explain how and why they were removed from the current rules courts.

Independent presentments, or allegations of wrongdoing made by a Grand Jury, have nothing whatsoever to do with Grand Juries being entirely independent entities. Furthermore at no time have those presents necessarily resulted in a prosecution by the government.

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Attorney Leo Donofrio had an excellent discussion of this history in a 2009 blog article titled, "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government". However Donofrio later removed that Article as a result of people in Georgia mistakenly misinterpreting his Article and improperly believing any Grand Jury can be formed anywhere, and have unrestrained authority on its own. In his latter response to that Georgia Citizen's Grand Jury, which resulted in scrubbing the article, Donofrio made the following comments:

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. And I am a true believer in the Constitution. Are you?

Fortunately, I have resurrected Donofrio's original article via the Wayback archive: "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government".

You would actually do well to read my article, "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid", because the side-notes to your amendment actually has several evident misconceptions about Grand Juries, what that "common law" is, and even a misunderstanding of the impact of the Magna Carta. You might be surprised to learn that the one reference to the common law in the Constitution, in the 7th Amendment, is actually there to prohibit common law practice, rather than to praise that common law. I discuss the 7th Amendment in the 4th comments following the article.