To Enforce the Constitution We Have

ArticleVBlog ^ | March 18th 2019 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Subtitle: Render the Constitution Enforceable.

While we enjoy yet another year of the Trump Renaissance, we should still consider the future. One thing is certain. The Trump era ends no later than January 20th 2025. Then what? Shall we risk our Liberty on replacing President Trump with another person of superior public virtue

The horrid fact remains that Congress is but a shadow of its 1787 design. Most members would gladly never cast another recorded vote if it ensured reelection. As a consequence, Congress, through both neglect and assignment, watches without complaint the drift of its powers to the executive and judicial branches. The ambition and avarice of so many depend on Congressional and Presidential elections, that otherwise honest people sink to the lowest levels of depravity to guarantee a favorable outcome. Remember chuckling not long ago at raucous and fraudulent Central American elections? They’re here, and now they aren’t funny.

Despite our slide, a common call from some conservatives is to “just enforce the Constitution we have.” In a perfect world of cuddly puppies and chocolate rivers, we should simply elect the secular saints in our midst. At least a few are around, right? The problem is far less about a shortage of virtuous people and far more about the slow, imperceptible corruption of our institutions, beginning with the Senate in 1913.

To Article V opponents, I say get over it; no free republic ever did and ever will rely on holy politicians. For once, I’d like to hear a prominent Article V Opponent, say Publius Huldah, The John Birch Society or Eagle Forum refute James Madison’s observation in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary . . .

[Jacquerie]

Instead of the dangerous and anti-republican reliance on individual savior-Presidents, or the utopian and unrealistic belief in virtuous politicians, the road to free government renewal begins with restoration of the Framers’ Congress.]

[PIF]

You guys are fools to imagine that once your convention starts that it will go as planned. It will, almost from the outset. be taken over by radical hardcore leftists - just as they have taken over the media and the schools while planning to take the rest of it through the courts and redistricting.

You cannot guarantee that conservatives will keep control and not lose the whole shebang to the Marxists. Leftists are all about changing rules through arcane procedures - you won’t know what hit you.

And stop with the “high-minded” virtue signaling. You get no points for that crap.

[upchuck]

You did a lot of shaming and complaining in your reply.

Any constructive suggestions how we can return to the “Framer’s Constitution?”

[Hostage]

> “It will, almost from the outset. be taken over by radical hardcore leftists ...”

If ‘radical hardcore leftists’ were capable of using Article V for state legislatures to repeal the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, they would have done it already.

The fact that they haven’t is a clear sign they have no power with Article V.

Your argument is a vacuous rant of ignorance.

[nathanbedford]

“It will, almost from the outset. be taken over by radical hardcore leftists ...”

I believe that Hostage was justified in his harsh criticism that, "Your argument is a vacuous rant of ignorance," because if you had simply done simple arithmetic you would know that of 99 state legislative bodies any miscarriage of article 5 convention of the states can be stopped by only 13 legislatures from 13 different states. If you done any research you would know that Republicans own the vast majority of those legislative houses.

That is why there has been no Article V movement from the left.

If you have actually done the arithmetic but proceeded anyway, well, the criticism of your post is more than justified.

Now that you know the math, I am sure you will depart from the group of Article V opponents who predictably chant the "vacuous rant" of Phyllis Shafley or the NRA.

Anyone can object on different grounds, perhaps one who likes the idea that the Supreme Court amends the Constitution at will, or likes the idea that the deep state is amending the Constitution nearly everyday in the bowels of regulation-land. But now that you know the arithmetic, you have no excuse for "vacuity".

[wita]

Your argument is a vacuous rant of ignorance.

That is why there has been no Article V movement from the left.

You sharp knives of the COS army, are fortunately still quite a few States away from finding out just how ignorant you really are.

The left does math, but they have the deciding factor in their hip pocket which COS doesn’t even consider. They know how stupid COS is and are just patiently waiting for you boys to “win” the day.

[nathanbedford]

I'm not clear from your post just what "deciding factor the left has in its hip pocket". However, I have a list of objections which have been raised against a convention of states drafted and posted in 2014, does this list cover your "deciding factor" or should I added new one?

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?

[trebb]

Never get into a argument of someone who can rightly tell you they are tempted to refuse getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed person...

[Keb]

I think this call is missing the point. When your problem is that your officials don’t follow the Constitution, changing the text of the Constitution is not the solution.

Part of the design of the Constitution was that various power centers would hold each other in check. It is Congress that is supposed to maintain the power of Congress. They have the means to do so. Congress issues the paychecks.

The reason Obama officials were able to get away with blatantly lying to Congress, is that Congress is broken from within. I like to think there was a time when the Democrats in Congress were Congressmen before they were Democrats, and Americans before they were Congressmen. Can anyone find a single Democrat in Congress now who puts the functioning of the Congress, or the interests of the nation, ahead of the interest of the Democrat machine? I can’t. There have been some, in the past, but I can’t find them now.

As long as we elect people to Congress who put the interests of the lunatic fringe that has taken over the Democratic party, ahead of the interests of the Congress, the Government, and the Nation, that’s what we’re going to get. Changing the Constitution that we’re not following, isn’t an answer.

[wita]

Any constructive suggestions how we can return to the “Framer’s Constitution?”

How about a hundred plus years of education, using the formula the Founders were educated under, all while dealing with the multi-generations educated under the progressive umbrella.

In my opinion, which is no less valid than that of the COS proponents, we fight the fight for the sovereignty of the several States while avoiding the COS plan for co-opting the State Legislatures into further capitulation to the Federal Leviathan.

It should take at least a hundred years to undo what progressives have done to the country. In contrast I don’t think we have a hundred years to perform the undo. The return of the King will take place prior to that hundred years, and we will be privileged to find out what true government is.

[wita]

I’m in the Circus category. The one that will be orchestrated by the media the moment an article V event is called. The left understands the math, and they aren’t interested in winning the amendment battle. They are interested in shaming the Constitution and winning the media Circus. The very issue COS would have everyone believe isn’t possible.

[wita]

I agree with your comments as far as they went. I am just unsure why you left out Republicans for a bit of the rant? Not all perhaps in the case of the Democrats, but certainly some.

[nathanbedford]

They are interested in shaming the Constitution and winning the media Circus.

I suppose that I should add a new objection: it won't work, it will only make us look bad.

What do you suppose the media has been doing for the last 100 years since the inception of the progressive era? Do you really think they need a convention of states to demean the Constitution, conservatism or us?

That has been so thoroughly done by our media and, even more dangerously, by our education establishment that the downside to a convention of the states resulting in a "shaming" of the Constitution is already a daily menu of the media.

But consider your own logic, the media, you say, will want to stop an amendment to the Constitution by "shaming" the Constitution. How does that work? Would they not be obligated to say that the existing Constitution is superior to the proposed amendment? How does that "shame" the Constitution, it only supports it?

The very issue COS would have everyone believe isn’t possible.

That conclusion seems to fit into the category: 1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

That is the counsel of despair.

[JesusIsLord]

You guys are fools to imagine that once your convention starts that it will go as planned. It will, almost from the outset. be taken over by radical hardcore leftists just as they have taken over the media and the schools while planning to take the rest of it through the courts and redistricting.

BINGO!

[fruser1]

The very real threat of this is that they will rewrite the entire constitution to match the new world order. 2A will be first scratched item.

[Garth Tater]

"If you done any research you would know that Republicans own the vast majority of those legislative houses."

Two questions:

1.) What are the margins in those Republican controlled legislatures?

2.) How much would it cost to buy sufficient Republican votes to have the 2nd Amendment legislated out of existence?

When it comes to politicians, especially establishment Republican politicians, everything has a price. I consider my liberty and the 2nd Amendment, which goes a long way towards protecting that liberty, too valuable to put up for sale - someone might just decide to meet the price.

[nathanbedford]

… put up for sale…

The whole point is that your precious Second Amendment right (a sentiment I share) already is up for sale and is being sold right out from under you. It is being sold every day. Simply look at the parade of gun restriction laws.

It is utterly illusory to believe that your Second Amendment rights will do any more than hopefully deter the government from some tyrannical adventure. If the idea is to wage a civil war, a guerrilla war, a revolution or a campaign of terrorism, against a tyrannical government, that is utterly illusory for the reasons expressed HERE .

Our liberties are being sold out from under us everyday. When the court is in session you can count on your liberties eroding every Monday when the opinions are announced. When the court is not in session, or rather every day of every week of every month you can count on your liberties being sold by bureaucrats clandestinely acting in dark corners. Do you live in San Francisco? How are your liberties doing there? How is your gun helping you in your quest to maintain your liberties if you live in San Francisco? How do you think your liberties will fare if Camilla Harris treats the presidency the way she treated the office of Atty. Gen.?

Every day in every way the current situation is one of eroding liberty.

The objection of the National Rifle Association to the Article V movement is a selfish stand to protect one liberty and their Rice bowl among the shower of cascading liberties. Let the devil take the hindmost, or throwing the Bill of Rights to the alligators in the hope that your favored liberty will be consumed last, is folly.

[wita]

the media, you say, will want to stop an amendment to the Constitution by “shaming” the Constitution.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific. They aren’t interested in winning the amendment battle, because they haven’t yet won the media battle. Now continue below.

I won’t accuse you of trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say what you are attempting to say I said. They aren’t into stopping amendments, they will shame until the amendments just come their way. It will be like Kavenaugh on steroids. They will have control of the narrative and by public outcry the delegates to the convention. That COS is willing to risk it all for amendments to a document that is NOT the problem is astounding in itself. That reams of sheep are willing to follow is less astounding.

My bottom line is COS will not make 34 States and that is a good thing. States better focus on returning their power and Sovereignty before it is too late. The Fed is already limited, the States need to man up and reassert their position, which means pushing back not agreeing to accept what the fed steals from them being dribbled back and delivered in hugely borrowed dollars. The States are enablers to a Congress gone rogue, and no amount of amendments to the Constitution is going to change anything.

We the people are involved and engaged, but I don’t think we the people will have what it takes or leaders either until a full collapse takes place and I don’t believe anyone wants that to happen. At the moment President Trump is leading the charge, we’ll see how that pans out next year.

[wita]

In the interest of specificity, that would be the media battle in the context of an Article V convention.

[nathanbedford]

States better focus on returning their power and Sovereignty before it is too late.

Why do you suppose they put Article V in between Article IV and Article VI?

Just how do you propose the states do that? The whole purpose of Article V when drafted by the framers of the Constitution was to make adjustments to the Constitution when powers become unbalanced. I agree with you, the states must do something to regain their sovereignty. Apart from the states declining to accept bribe money from the federal government, which recent history demonstrates is among the most forlorn hopes on Earth, there is nothing, apart from that which has been robotically advocated over and over, except Article V.

"Manning up" is hardly a recipe to undo all the problems of the deep state or to get the nation out of that slime and muck of the swamp. Manning up? Would do you want us to do, push-ups?

This might surprise you, but I do agree that nothing much is going to happen with respect to Article V until there is some sort of crisis. I can think of about five or six sources for such a crisis, the national debt being foremost among them. Donald Trump is not doing much about the debt, and as valiantly as he is striving against immigration and trade imbalances, his dominion over affairs, such as it is, can last at best six years. The Progressives have been after this since about 1908.

Finally, these fears that there will be a runaway convention, which I think you are alluding to, is utterly illusory. The delegates proceed only under strict constraints established by their state legislatures or conventions. That they would run away is so unlikely as to be fanciful. Let's assume the absurd, delegates to the convention try to run away with it, once again only 13 legislators out of 99 can stop it.

The risks you would have us sustain by doing nothing far, far exceed any fanciful risk of a runaway convention of the states. Anyway, if you have such a fragile atmosphere, you have the risk whether you do it by a convention of the states or a traditionally proposed amendment arising out of the federal Congress. If the forces of evil are strong enough to effect a convention of the states, they certainly will be strong enough to force a mischievous amendment through Congress and you will be in the same box. That, of course, has not happened because the leftists recognize that they don't have enough control of the states to stop the 13.