Posted on 09/25/2013 9:05:21 PM PDT by JOHN W K
JWK
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.
The framers didn’t create a rube-goldberg method of taking back the gov’t. You have, with this idea of using an Art V for that purpose.
Our founders made it clear that there are more direct methods available to the states.
I was talking with a prominent tea party leader in Texas a while back. He scoffed at the people that suggested that Texas should secede. How can we do that, he said, when 37% of our state budget comes from federal dollars. Texas is dependent on the fedgov, just like every other state.
The problem is two-fold: TPTB in Washington have decided its easier and more profitable to hold nobody in check than to hold everybody in check and the money train leaves from Washington to the states, keeping them in check.
Do you really think that the states are going to willingly participate in an Art V convention that cuts off the money train? Some might. 38 of them? No, you won’t get your Art V.
It would be easier to convince a few state gov’t’s to wean off the gov’t teat and having done so, declare their sovereignty from the fedgov. As other states see the success of this “state laboratory” demonstrating what a free state is like, they can follow suit.
Until then, the states are self-shackled. We both agree that change has to come from the states. WHEN that happens, it fastest path to freedom is the states telling Washington where to get off. Until that happens, no state-led revival, art V or otherwise, is going to occur.
for the record, I have debated you honestly and openly. There is no reason to use derision as a method of debate.
The framers didn’t create a rube-goldberg method of taking back the gov’t. You have, with this idea of using an Art V for that purpose.
Our founders made it clear that there are more direct methods available to the states.
I was talking with a prominent tea party leader in Texas a while back. He scoffed at the people that suggested that Texas should secede. How can we do that, he said, when 37% of our state budget comes from federal dollars. Texas is dependent on the fedgov, just like every other state.
The problem is two-fold: TPTB in Washington have decided its easier and more profitable to hold nobody in check than to hold everybody in check and the money train leaves from Washington to the states, keeping them in check.
Do you really think that the states are going to willingly participate in an Art V convention that cuts off the money train? Some might. 38 of them? No, you won’t get your Art V.
It would be easier to convince a few state gov’t’s to wean off the gov’t teat and having done so, declare their sovereignty from the fedgov. As other states see the success of this “state laboratory” demonstrating what a free state is like, they can follow suit.
Until then, the states are self-shackled. We both agree that change has to come from the states. WHEN that happens, it fastest path to freedom is the states telling Washington where to get off. Until that happens, no state-led revival, art V or otherwise, is going to occur.
for the record, I have debated you honestly and openly. There is no reason to use derision as a method of debate.
I know what the intent of amendments is, I'm asking what the intent of Article V conventions for the purpose of proposing amendments was, if states already had other means to control the federal government as you suggest?
I'm sensing that you acknowledge that the Framers put that in there for the states to use, but that you'd prefer that the states fight for 9th and 10th amendment rights, first, before they exercise their Article V powers.
What good is a power if others don't fear your use of them? We already see that Republicans in the House are afraid to use their power of the purse. We already see that Republicans in the Senate are afraid to use their minority rights to block cloture. Now you're advocating that states not use their Article V power to call for an amendments convention.
It's no wonder that Democrats are brazen and fearless. They know that Republicans won't use the powers that they have available to them, and won't stop Democrats from inventing powers that they don't constitutionally have.
You have to throw a punch every now and then for the opposition to take your threats seriously. As it stands now, it's clear that the Democrats strategize on the expectation that Republicans will blink, will fold, will cave, etc. Chuck Schumer said so outright, just the other day.
-PJ
One more thing...
When the Framers created the "more direct methods," those methods assumed a Senate controlled by state legislatures. That is no longer the case.
Since the 17th amendment was passed, the states became bystanders to the federal government. Since Congress isn't about to propose a repeal amendment, the only way for states to take back control of the Senate is to propose, on their own, an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment.
If there were only one amendment to come out of a states; convention, I would like it to be that one.
-PJ
On the issue of the 17th amendment (and the 16th for that matter) we agree: these two devices allowed the fedgov to become a monster.
I would strongly favor the repeal of both.
However, while I agree that this does indeed tie the hands of state gov’t’s, they do still have all kinds of tools at their disposal to wreck havoc on the fedgov’s plans.
Take Obamacare. What would the fedgov do if a state banned the federal exchanges in their state and refused to allow the navigators into the state to work? What if the dept of insurance banned any insurance company from both providing insurance directly and/or through employers and providing coverage through the exchanges?
What would the fedgov do if a state decided that they didn’t want to participate in Medicaid anymore, at all (a huge driver of most state budgets)? You keep your Medicaid dollars, we’ll provide the care we deem appropriate.
What’s Washington going to do? Send out the national guard? Let them. It would make a point as large as the filibuster.
On the point of the 16th and 17th we agree. Still, the states, especially if a few worked in concert, could put a stop to quite a bit of the crap coming from Washington. The only question is if they’ll tolerate putting a stop to the gravy train that comes with the crap.
That’s a problem for my proposed solution. It’s a problem for yours.
“I’m sensing that you acknowledge that the Framers put that in there for the states to use, but that you’d prefer that the states fight for 9th and 10th amendment rights, first, before they exercise their Article V powers.”
I think exercising the 9th and 10th would be easier to accomplish, with less risk, and would likely be just as effective as an Art V.
The fedgov has tied the states hands somewhat. That said, they’ve done a bang-up job of tying their own hands as well. Until those knots come loose, the states aren’t going to be the solution, either by standing up to the fedgov, or by means of an Art V.
The states have to get to a point where taking a stand is the path of least resistance. That day is coming. When it does, I think the easier approach is going to be states banding together to tell Washington where to stick it.
Indeed it does but interacting with lovely people such as yourself always perks me right up. There's nothing like some intelligent discourse with a fine person such as yourself.
Sure is funny to hear folks here that have NO national radio show and NO books published talking about how Levin is wrong.
Oh I see, Marky has a widdle wadio show so he gets to have an opinion and anyone who disagrees can shove it? Tell me friend, I'm thinking about converting to Levinism, can you tell me how accepting Mark Levin as your personal lord and savior has enriched your life?
I don't care how many books he's managed to get people like you to buy, his idea is harebrained and that's being charitable. That he's inspired geniuses such as yourself to rabidly attack anyone who doesn't worship the ground he walks on hardly disabuses me of that opinion. You don't need to have a JD or a radio audience to realize it, just a little common sense. I know, I know, how dare an insignificant non-lawyer, non-talk show host such as myself criticize "the great one"'s latest sermon from the mount. I hope when I die and I'm standing before Mark that he takes mercy on me for my hubris.
Boo Hoo, can’t be done, won’t work, no one around like back then, I give up, whine whine whine.
If you think violent revolution (your tagline) or unworkable ideas cooked up by radio talk show hosts (oh excuse I meant sainted "constitutional scholars") in order to sell books are the best hope then YOU are the one who's given up, given up your sanity amongst other things.
You reference FMDJ? My sidekick? You flatter me, Jacqueline. Okay then let's say I'm Batman and he's Robin, who would that make you? The Joker? Or is Mark Levin the Joker and you're the Joker's henchclown with the rubber nose?
I'll remind you I never said I was any historian. I'm merely someone who is aware of reality while you are someone who lives a world of your own imagining, where your warped view of the past is unrealistically applied to the present.
Would you like some cheese to go with that whine ?
That's a bizarre and elitist comment. By your reasoning, because none of us here have a national radio or tv talk show, we can't criticize "Special Ed" Schultz. None of us here occupy a Senate seat, so I guess we can't criticize McCain or Graham (or Babs Boxer, for that matter). And none of us here has the Presidency, so we dare not talk about how Emperor Zero is wrong.
And yet after all these years, we've had numerous freepers saying Al Franken is wrong, even though Franken had a national radio show that was Air America's flagship program, and authored four political books that were on the New York Times best seller list.
Shame on us. Everyone knows having a radio show and numerous best-selling books makes someone smarter and better than us.
Obama Slaps States That Don't Comply With Obamacare
Residents of states that refuse to set up health insurance exchanges under Obamacare are set to be hit with higher premiums under new rules announced by the Health and Human Services Department.Insurance companies will be charged 3.5 percent of any premiums they sell through the federal exchanges, the department announced Friday. And insurers are likely to pass that surcharge on to clients, leaading to higher premiums.
The only states to be affected are those that refuse to set up their own exchanges because of opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. They are almost certain to be those under Republican control. In those states, HHS will set up the exchanges.
-PJ
I remember a dozen or so years ago I got into a disagreement with some guy on a discussion board. He said because HE was a “published author” and I wasn’t, I had no standing to criticize him. He was an elite and I was a pissant. Too bad I didn’t get to meet him in person so I could laugh in his face.
Go ahead, ridicule him with silly statements about him not being a true Constitutioanl scholar and activist. His Landmark Legal Foundation has done more to protect it than I’m sure you have.
As to revolution, look at those willing to join:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3074802/posts
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.