Replies

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections: 1. It won't work -so don't bother trying. 2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying. 3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side. 4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results. Which category are you in?

Category 5 - HOW DO YOU PLAN TO GET YOUR AMENDMENTS TO WORK

That would be the category that says - If you are going to attempt it - explain to us how you are going to get a lawless post-Constitutional oligarchy to abide by new amendments to a document that has been already nullified, usurped, defied via precedent and rewritten by executive 'action'?

If you want to win support for the process and the cause, explain to us how you intend to get a lawless government to abide by them so the effort is not in vain.

The most common alternative suggestion from opponents to Article V is to enforce the existing constitution through the election of more conservatives.
Insistence that all we need to do is elect good men and women is no different from the Progressive belief that socialism will “work” once the best brains are put in charge. Both rely on a fantasy, that their conservative or progressive politicians are immune to nature. These dogmas are comfortable ruts which have been refuted throughout history, and reflect a naiveté and ignorance of American history, government and passions common to all men. Given the chance, men will grasp power and money, no matter the damage their avarice and ambition do to the larger society.
What has been forgotten or probably never understood by both progs and some Article V opponents, was accepted as an undeniable truth to the Framing generation; liberty is secured through the division of power. It clearly hasn’t been secured by nonexistent self-enforcing words in the constitution. In fact, just about all that remains in force from our constitution is the structure of the government. We still have the institutions of congress, courts and a president, but little more. Nearly every other clause has been excised or bastardized such that they’ve been inverted to allow infringement our liberties.
Liberty is secured through the division of power. Undivided power is despotic; it can be nothing else.
So, if the goal is restoration of liberty, and liberty requires division of authority, the question is how to return the states to the senate. Since our oppressors in DC will never divest themselves of power, and the framers provided a way to go around DC, it stands to pure logic that an Article V convention is our only hope.
Given the anti-American indoctrination by K-12 and universities, I don’t expect young people to know our bedrock principles. What I find amazing is the lack of understanding at FreeRepublic. Open, bold despotism is in the door, it is in the living room. No even-year election can boot him back outdoors. There is one possible way out, Article V.

Here is a readable version of my last:

The most common alternative suggestion from opponents to Article V is to enforce the existing constitution through the election of more conservatives.

Insistence that all we need to do is elect good men and women is no different from the Progressive belief that socialism will "work" once the best brains are put in charge. Both rely on a fantasy, that their conservative or progressive politicians are immune to nature. These dogmas are comfortable ruts which have been refuted throughout history, and reflect a naiveté and ignorance of American history, government and passions common to all men. Given the chance, men will grasp power and money, no matter the damage their avarice and ambition do to the larger society.

What has been forgotten or probably never understood by both progs and some Article V opponents, was accepted as an undeniable truth to the Framing generation; liberty is secured through the division of power. It clearly hasn’t been secured by nonexistent self-enforcing words in the constitution. In fact, just about all that remains in force from our constitution is the structure of the government. We still have the institutions of congress, courts and a president, but little more. Nearly every other clause has been excised or bastardized such that they’ve been inverted to allow infringement our liberties.

Liberty is secured through the division of power. Undivided power is despotic; it can be nothing else.

So, if the goal is restoration of liberty, and liberty requires division of authority, the question is how to return the states to the senate. Since our oppressors in DC will never divest themselves of power, and the framers provided a way to go around DC, it stands to pure logic that an Article V convention is our only hope.

Given the anti-American indoctrination by K-12 and universities, I don’t expect young people to know our bedrock principles. What I find amazing is the lack of understanding at FreeRepublic. Open, bold despotism is in the door, it is in the living room. No even-year election can boot him back outdoors. There is one possible way out, Article V.