To Enforce the Constitution We Have

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 . . .

"It is utterly illusory to believe that your Second Amendment rights will do any more than hopefully deter the government from some tyrannical adventure."

For many of us the 2nd Amendment is not an illusionary defense Nathan, it is the acknowledged line in the sand that will bring blood if crossed and it is that threat of blood, not the line in the sand that slows down the evil coming our way.

Without that willingness to resist we would already be just as far down the path to the new order as our European brethren and without the 2nd Amendment we would be ripe for devisive attacks attempting to pull us apart based on exactly when each of us says no to our friends in high places - but with the 2nd Amendment being such a large part of our common heritage we are protected from that line of attack and stand together. Cross the line, pay the price. It's the American way. A gift from our Founders and not something to be placed on the table at a COS.

I don't know why you are going on about San Franciscans Nathan, but what really confuses me is why you, of all people, would be willing to give people like that a seat at a table where the future layout of our government would be discussed. No worries you say, our Republican friends would protect us... yeah right, as long as their price to switch sides isn't met.

You can put your faith in your Republican friends, but me, I'm going keep mine in free and well armed men. And while I'm at it, I'll be doing my best to keep a Convention of States from ever coming in to session.

Thank you for quoting that portion of my last reply to you which expresses my hope that the Second Amendment will deter a tyrannical government. For the record, I fully support our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is that if such a government can be deterred it is likely also to be amenable to the Democratic process. If the government is not amenable to the Democratic will and/or constitutional norms, middle-aged, potbellied men with small arms will do nothing but pitch the country into a dystopian hell because of the reasons which I cited in the reply that I linked in my last reply.

I share your patriotic horror at the notion of surrendering to a to radical left-wing government. We see enough of that today in Venezuela. When our founders acknowledged in the Constitution the "gift" to bear and keep arms, both the government and the people, like my ancestor, were armed with flintlocks. When subsequent generations of my ancestors took up arms against what they regarded to be a tyrannical federal government, they were armed with muzzle loaders but the government had slightly better arms and more of them and, more important, much better artillery. Today, the only chance for the insurrectionists against the world superpower is to wage a guerrilla war or to engage in terrorism. Even so, after much blood of innocents having unnecessarily been shed, they will lose.

All the red-blooded patriotic fervor will not change that. I will rent my rainments and put on sackcloth and ashes with you on the dark day that occurs. But I owe it to my children, and to your children if you have any, to spare them that needless pain and the futility.

That brings us to Article V. You want us to forgo a chance to save our children from tyranny by peaceful means for a chimerical hope that somehow small arms will defeat the superpower turned tyrant. That mindlessness is unfair to my children and to the children of every other patriotic American. To the degree that the NRA propaganda would sell out the rest of the Bill of Rights to protect their special interest, they deserve a special place in hell.

I have long posted on the subject. Years ago, I posted several times that I do not favor an Article V solution because I believe that state politicians are more righteous, or even less venal than federal politicians. I simply believe that their ambitions run along a different line, primarily a desire to enhance their power at the expense of the federal government. That is in keeping with the founders understanding of the nature of man, always to grasp for power. Right now we need to rein in federal power.

So I don't have any "Republican friends" anymore than the Framers had faith in factions, I put my faith where the Framers put their faith, in checks and balances, separation of powers, in constitutional provisions. I do not put my faith in a bunch of middle-aged fools who bear less relationship to modern martial realities than do reenactors, no matter how "free and well armed," no matter much they've been misled by the NRA.

"The problem is that if such a government can be deterred it is likely also to be amenable to the Democratic process."

Yes, especially a democratic process like a COS. A lot more deals and trade-offs can be made (and hidden) in a wide ranging rewrite of the Constitution than can be worked in an attempt to change the 2nd Amendment through the existing process.

Right now the 2nd is protected by the requirement for super-majorities in the Senate and among the States and as long as it comes up as a single issue I think the 2nd Amendment will remain as it is and right where it belongs - but if back room dealing ever begins on a whole slew of issues at once the 2nd could possibly get traded away. I, personally, believe it is too valuable to put at risk that way.

I do admire your hopeful attitude Nathan, but I don't think we have any chance of winning as long as we are playing on their turf. And it is their turf. They own our political system now and the best we can do is play for a stalemate until their magic money machine runs out of time. Thankfully, there is a timer on that machine due to the wonder of compound interest and if that clock runs out while we still have our freedom then they lose and we win. That's the game I'm playing and the reason I don't support a Convention of States.

"If the government is not amenable to the Democratic will and/or constitutional norms, middle-aged, potbellied men with small arms will do nothing but pitch the country into a dystopian hell because of the reasons which I cited in the reply that I linked in my last reply."

That threat of dystopian hell is exactly why our guns will remain in our hands and will continue as a check on the actions of our oppressors. They have no desire to own and rule over a dystopian hell - but that is what they will get if they cross the line. Our reactions to every new attempt to whittle back our gun rights are noted and analyzed and they move us along the path to their new world only at a speed that does not provoke outright rebellion.

And, on a personal note, who are you calling pot-bellied, old man? :)

I may have put on a few pounds, but my combat trained and experienced sons and nephews all seem to be in good shape. They each swore to protect the Constitution and they have the tools and skills to do so. You don't want to be on the wrong side of them if the shooting ever does start.

"When our founders acknowledged in the Constitution the "gift" to bear and keep arms, both the government and the people, like my ancestor, were armed with flintlocks."

And cannons and warships. I may not have a cannon today, but if need be I could have one in about two weeks. But really, who would want a cannon in a modern war? That would just turn you into a target. The combination of knowledge and precise violence is much more effective. If bad times come and I have my choice of a battalion of artillery or the wife of the local gestapo's commander strapped into my chair, I know which one I'll choose.

"Today, the only chance for the insurrectionists against the world superpower is to wage a guerrilla war or to engage in terrorism. Even so, after much blood of innocents having unnecessarily been shed, they will lose."

That military might is wielded by the likes of my sons and nephews and I know what they would do with it. And while active military patriots are doing their duties us old, pot-bellied has-beens will be doing ours. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism? Sure. And more. And worse. I'm a nice enough guy, but if war comes and freedom is on the line I won't hold back.

"...I owe it to my children, and to your children if you have any, to spare them that needless pain and the futility."

And your willingness to forgo that pain in futile resistance is what our would-be masters are hoping for. If you won't engage in a losing battle what will you do should your COS gambit fail? Submit? Do you have a plan B?

Hell, even your plan A is flawed. Do you think they won't scuttle any convention that looks like it might actual solve some of our problems? They have more than enough traitors-within that can be called up to make sure of that. They've been playing this game for a long time and know all the tricks.

Ain't it great to live in such interesting tines?

Recently I've been asking on these threads, can you name any institution apart from the military that you trust? Before writing this reply, I googled institutions that can be trusted and came up with this Gallup poll which shows on virtually every institution graded with very low marks by the public, usually around 30% "great deal/quite a lot" trust in a given institution except for the military which perennially earns 74% of public trust.

In this context I respond to your question, "Do you have a plan B? "

I respond to your follow-up assertion, "Hell, even your plan A is flawed."

I respond by saying that you presented a false binary choice. First the choice is false because the odds of the convention running away are virtually nil because of the arithmetic, of which you have been fully apprised to the effect that only 13 legislatures of different states out of 99 is sufficient to stop any proposed amendment.

The arithmetic is compelling and cannot be dismissed as you try to do by the bland assertion that thousands of legislators and/or delegates to one or two conventions will be bribed. The notion is unrealistic because it is not clear to the George Soros of this world whom they should suborn. Second, venal approaches to honest legislators and delegates would be made public and the whole scheme would be blown. Third, it is unlikely that we cannot find 13 patriotic legislature majorities, not 100% just majorities, to do the right thing.

The choice is false because there are other options. Although you and I are no doubt in agreement that our institutions are disintegrating, we still have some trust in the military. . My plan A, is to exhaust every rational and reasonable alternative to civil war and that certainly includes Article V because it is by any realistic measurement safe without the imagined downside bruited about by devotees of the NRA.

My plan B is to win over the military.

Yes, it is great to be in these interesting times and after three quarters of a century I hope to see a little bit more of them.

I challenge you to accept both plans and abandon this nonsense that by bringing terrorism into the heart of America the Republic will emerge from the battle unscathed, victorious, a representative democracy and not a shattered remnant more reminiscent of The Walking Dead than the kind of decent society all conservatives, you and I, yearn for.

The world that emerges from this guerrilla war marked by indiscriminate terrorism, even if your patriotic and well-meaning sons and nephews are victorious (remember they need rough men ready to do violence as allies who would have their own human lust for power) would be a world in which few would want to live, a place of warlords, barbarous, without the rule of law, without decency, in short, a world that is nasty and brutish.

There is no need to fail to do what might be done because we are locked in despair. As and when we are cast into a fight or submit to tyranny scenario, good men will know what to do. Good men will also do everything they can to avoid that eventuality.

"...to your follow-up assertion, 'Hell, even your plan A is flawed.'

I respond by saying that you presented a false binary choice. First the choice is false because the odds of the convention running away are virtually nil because of the arithmetic, of which you have been fully apprised to the effect that only 13 legislatures of different states out of 99 is sufficient to stop any proposed amendment.

The arithmetic is compelling and cannot be dismissed as you try to do by the bland assertion that thousands of legislators and/or delegates to one or two conventions will be bribed."

Nathan, that particular flaw I pointed out in your plan A was not the chance that it could go rogue and cause us to lose some very valuable parts of the Constitution. It was that by the same logic of yours that if 13 State legislatures could prevent anything bad from coming out of your Convention of States then a different set of 13 legislatures could prevent anything good from coming out as well.

My quote here: "Hell, even your plan A is flawed. Do you think they won't scuttle any convention that looks like it might actual solve some of our problems? They have more than enough traitors-within that can be called up to make sure of that."

That is the flaw in your plan A, not that the COS could go rogue. The logic is yours. If 13 can stop anything bad from coming out then a different 13 can stop anything good and therefore there is no upside to your COS. I hate to use a man's own reasoning against him, but it is what it is.

Thirteen states that are not controlled by legislatures that support our traditional form of government and would not support anything positive coming out of your convention:

Would you like me to name a few more, because I easily could.

Most of the rest of your post must have been meant for someone else. There was no need to tell me again how a revolt by men armed with rifles could never win against the US Military. I largely agree with you - but that has never been my point as to why the 2nd Amendment is so valuable to us that it should never be placed in play in the back room wheeling and dealing that would take place at your COS.

To briefly summarize my reasoning as to why the 2nd is so valuable to us and why a civil war will not come about:

1. As long as we have our guns and they know that we are willing to use them then the damage we would cause (yes, even in losing) would be catastrophic and they don't want that to happen to what they think will soon be their ~~country~~ possession.

2. The 2nd Amendment is not of great importance because it is what stops them from taking our guns. They have a long history of not giving a damn about laws. They do what they can get away with. They always have and they always will. The importance of the 2nd Amendment is that it gives us a common rallying point. It is so firmly woven into our mythos that every freeborn American male knows that we defend it to the death. It is the line in the sand that brings blood if crossed. Without it every man would have to decide for himself at what point he takes up arms - and that would give them leverage points to use in pulling us apart. With the 2nd Amendment we all stand together on the same ground.

And that is why I don't support your COS. The 2nd Amendment is just too valuable to us to ever be put at risk.

We see a remarkable 180° about-face in your positions during the course of these exchanges.

In #16 you state:

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.

A reasonable man would infer from this and many other statements you have made that you feared that merely entering into a convention of states creates a grave risk of repealing the Second Amendment. It is now clear that you have abandoned that position when you state in your latest reply:

Nathan, that particular flaw I pointed out in your plan A was not the chance that it could go rogue and cause us to lose some very valuable parts of the Constitution.

You reaffirm that again in the same reply:

That is the flaw in your plan A, not that the COS could go rogue.

Since plan A is a convention of states, it is now clear that your position is that there is no danger to the Second Amendment arising out of An Article V convention to amend the Constitution.

What are the inescapable inferences from this about-face?

It is now clear that your position now is that there is no downside to an Article V proceeding. But we should not try because the same arithmetic tells us that there is no upside. This is not something that I have been blithely unaware of, indeed, I have long been posting on the reciprocal problem of rejection by 13. Here is just one reply along those lines published here on August 3, 2014:

One thing is crystal clear, Washington other cannot or will not reform itself. Article V is concededly a thin even a desperate hope but it at least it offers the promise, however remote, of reform because it is conducted outside of Washington.

The numbers are admittedly daunting, 34 states needed to propose amendments, a recalcitrant Congress to accede to the application and actually "call" a convention, and the legislatures or the conventions of 38 states agreeing to ratify the amendments. Indeed, except for Nebraska both the House and Senate of these 38 states must approve if Congress elects ratification to be conducted by the legislatures rather than state conventions.

So the bad news is also the good news. Even though Republicans control far more legislative houses than do Democrats, they do not have enough to make 34 and certainly not enough to ratify with 38. So the prospect of reform in view of these numbers is daunting.

But the good news is that the Democrats are even less able to persuade the legislatures to ratify any amendment they might propose -putting aside the likelihood that they would not be able to propose anything in a convention because the authorizing legislation from the states would not permit it. In any event, there is really no practical danger of a "runaway" convention producing an unpalatable result much less a result that would be ratified by 75 of 99 legislative bodies the great majority of whom are controlled by Republicans.

My view is that the danger of doing nothing clearly outweighs the remote danger of a "runaway convention" or the fanciful idea that Republican legislators in the in 75 legislative bodies would ratify such an amendment. I note the resistance on the right seems to be coming from gun rights groups, especially including the NRA, Phyllis Schaffly and the John Birch Society. I believe that the Second Amendment groups are exaggerating the danger beyond all proportion to reality.

If we do nothing we will continue on the path we are on which in my view is a path to destruction. In this sense the bad news, again, is also the good news. I believe it will require some sort of "Black Swan" event such as financial crisis, a war, or some utterly unforeseen situation which stirs the country to take action. We are losing our liberty and we are losing our solvency and we are doing so at an accelerating rate. The risks of doing nothing are unacceptable and events might well bring the people to see that.

So here we are, you advocate that we should not strive for the good even though that striving carries no downside but we should instead wait for the apocalypse even though that approach carries no upside. How do we know there is no upside to your previously bellicose assurances of the ability of trained men to fight with small arms? Because you now state in a remarkable about-face:

There was no need to tell me again how a revolt by men armed with rifles could never win against the US Military. I largely agree with you

So in my proposal there is no downside and in your proposal there is no upside - completely the reverse of what you unaccountably contend in your last reply.

More confusingly, after these abrupt about-faces you revert to your original position that somehow to pursue and Article V strategy is somehow to risk the Second Amendment:

And that is why I don't support your COS. The 2nd Amendment is just too valuable to us to ever be put at risk.

It seems that the NRA propaganda is just too thick a shell to crack.

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.