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

Free Republic Exclusive ^ | June 25, 2015 | Hostage

[thescourged1]

Indeed it does. Sorry for not being more succinct, but I meant striking off to chart their own course outside of a Constitution that is no longer being followed anyways.

We are hobbled by our own laws, while the lawless govern. That cannot stand. And why should we? Because serfdom is safer? Is leaving the republic in order to escape the tightening noose around our necks that frightening?

I'm not raging at you, FRiend, but I do truly wonder where this is all going to end. Elections are worthless, we've all seen this now. Laws are ignored. Politicians are bought and sold like trading cards. What recourse is there?

Article V would be an answer if our government wasn't so corrupt. Amending a Constitution that is routinely ignored or sidestepped will solve nothing. If anything, I believe it would instigate a Federal push-back, much earlier than our overlords have planned.

/seditious rant off

[dware]

Apparently, you also believe Dinesh D’souza should be prosecuted to the fullest. Why do you hate freedom so much? Maybe you need to just go ahead and register as a leftist nutjob jackboot, because it’s obvious you don’t like America.

[Hostage]

You are correct and thanks for reminding people of basic constitutional provisions.

But people will agree overwhelmingly that Congress will never propose an amendment to give power back to the States.

[Las Vegas Ron]

And Tyrants CANNOT be stopped via civil means. The do not respect the rule of law and civil means that restrain them.

Spot on IMHO.

[Hostage]

> “Apparently, you also believe Dinesh D’souza should be prosecuted to the fullest. Why do you hate freedom so much? Maybe you need to just go ahead and register as a leftist nutjob jackboot, because it’s obvious you don’t like America.”

I don’t believe any such things. But I see you are trying to change the subject from the value of term limits for US Senators in breaking up the career politicians that make up the Washington Cartel.

[Publius]

An Article V essay by Hostage.

[dware]

But I see you are trying to change the subject from the value of term limits for US Senators

I'm changing the subject? Lol. Who ties your shoelaces for you? I proposed that term limits, like campaign contributions, limit free speech. You are obviously all for limiting my free speech, because somehow you think you are so special as to be able to tell me who I can and can't vote for, and by proxy, you CLEARLY support D'souza's arrest and punishment, and further, it's painfully clear that you and your kind HATE the 1st Amendment! Or are you saying that you support free speech, in which case, you are against term limits? It's one or the other, FRiend. Which is it gonna be? Or are you a typical leftist scumbag who wants his cake AND to eat it too?

[Amendment10]

"if the states want to put a major dent in stopping the unconstitutionally big federal government"

Patriots need to redirect their anger from the corrupt federal government and start getting their constitutionally clueless local and state government leaders up to speed on the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.

[Hostage]

Amendment 28 allows for the States to void and repeal SCOTUS rulings. In essence, they can ignore such rulings but they must come together and register their declarations to do so, and there must be 30 of them to have force. The number ‘30’ comes from Mark Levin and all the fine constitutional scholars and notables that he has dialog with. It’s not ‘pulled out of the air’.

[semimojo]

Soon there will be some knowledgeable Freepers that will show what’s been done and what’s being done by the COS Project to address your concerns.

Fair enough. All I know of them is what I saw on the website.

[Publius]

The federal entity obeys the Constitution to the letter. Unfortunately, it's the Living Constitution that it observes. This is the Constitution whose words don't change, but whose meaning evolves over time. This is the Constitution of penumbras and emanations. This is the Constitution whose meaning has been altered by federal judges using precedent and case law until it is barely recognizable as our Founding Document.

The COS Project is aimed at proposing structural amendments that would tighten up the Constitution to prevent federal judges from altering words and intent.

[Hostage]

The quote you referred to is not mine. But I agree with it and with your sentiments.

[nathanbedford]

1.It most certainly WILL work, but it WILL WORK for both sides, not just Conservatives, so be prepared to accept the losses from liberal amendments getting through.

3.As mentioned previously, it WILL work, and it WILL WORK for both sides. To think that this is going to be all good for Conservatives and all bad for the leftists is just plain ignorant. Both sides would end up getting some of the things they want passed. Will they get everything? No, but both sides will come out of this with something.

Lest we operate out of ignorance, plain or elaborate, let us examine the arithmetic and which will lead ineluctably to the conclusion that there is no realistic chance whatsoever of leftist amendments getting through:

There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%.

After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouses (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.

The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.

By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.

Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.

2.Well, the fact is the Feds are currently doing what they want, when they want, and are completely ignoring the current laws, Constitution and BoR's, so really, what's going to make them suddenly adhere to new amendments????

4.It will work. But the fact is, yes, the Constitution and BoR's we have now work fine. The issue at hand is the fact that the Feds are IGNORING ALL OF IT. Adding to it won't make a difference.

The answer to your question is quite clear and it has been expressed many times on FreeRepublic: Article V proponents contemplate process amendments which are very very difficult to evade. For example, term limits, provisions that bureaucratic rulings not ratified by Congress are automatically voided, provisions for a combination of states to overrule Supreme Court rulings. These are but examples of process amendments which entirely change the balance of power and are very difficult to evade.

I might remind you that our Constitution of 1787 lasted until 1861, about 80 years and the post-Civil War Constitution operated effectively until the progressive era. There is every reason to believe that Article V reforms will have a long and effective life.

Or, we can continue to do what we are doing as the country cruises toward the cliff secure in the knowledge that we have not wasted any time in attempts to save our children's birthright.

[Joe 6-pack]

Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I believe an Article V convention is the last, best hope for the remaining moral and religious people to reaffirm and reassert the founding principles of this nation, but indeed, the problem is not just a legal one that will be solved with new amendments. There are cultural issues at play that must be addressed and dealt with if we're ever going to survive.

[muir_redwoods]

I think 7/4/2016 would be a great time for the largest “gun show” in this nation’s history. I think 3,000,000 citizens, massing ten or fifteen miles west or southwest of Lafayette Park, all ready, willing and able to show their prized guns might be instructive to many parties.

[slowhandluke]

What will make them obey new statutes?

I agree strongly with this. If the Supreme Court decides to interpret words and whole sentences in total opposition to what they would mean in common use, and in opposition to what the authors said they meant, then no new words or sentences will change anything.

Our current constitution was written by a runaway convention, their charter back then was only to revise the Articles of Confederation. I think the probable outcome of any new constitutional convention would be to simple affirm that the TPP/etc is the new constitution and that we should all hail the NWO!

[Hostage]

The Article V list was just pinged. Won’t be long now.

Many of the people posting here so far I haven’t seen on Article V threads but some are known to be detractors on other threads of other subjects. By ‘detractor’ I mean a person that rants, raves, tries to change the subject or steer the subject to irrelevant side issues; someone who does not provide novel or useful information nor exhibits a desire to learn more.

[Publius]

James Madison disagrees with you about a runaway convention. Read Federalist #40 for details.

[Armando Guerra]

Here is my wishlist:

WHEREAS pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States may call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which 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, the following Amendments to the Constitution are proposed:

AMENDMENT XXVIII (Repeal of Income Tax)

The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

AMENDMENT XXIX (Repeal of Direct Election of Senators)

The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

AMENDMENT XXX (Marriage Defined)

Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of alternative unions to marriage. State established alternative unions to marriage shall not be imposed upon other states. No marriage benefits established by Congress may be provided to alternative unions.

AMENDMENT XXXI (Balance Budget)

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--

(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and

(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

AMENDMENT XXXII (Term Limits)

Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of Senator more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator, or acted as Senator, for more than two years of a term to which some other person served as Senator shall serve in the office of the Senator more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Senator, or acting as Senator, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Senator or acting as Senator during the remainder of such term. Senators currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

Section 2. No person shall be elected to the office of Representative more than four times, and no person who has held the office of Representative, or acted as Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office of the Representative more than three times. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative, or acting as Representative, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or acting as Representative during the remainder of such term. Representatives currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

[nathanbedford]

Who the hell are you to suggest that you have some right to limit my ability to vote for my Reps???

As Chief Justice John Marshall said, "it is a Constitution we are expounding"(emphasis supplied).

I am not dictating anything I am proposing a method sanctioned by the Constitution to amend the Constitution. If you do not accept Article V then you cannot accept any part of the Constitution because it all comes of a piece.