Posted on 02/15/2021 4:17:09 PM PST by Jacquerie
It’s easy to amend the Constitution. It’s been done dozens of times since WWII. Send the right case with the right litigants at the right time to an adequately Leftist-leaning Scotus and voila’, amend the Constitution. Pretty slick, eh? Through their silence, this is the end-run around the Constitution that Article V Opponents defend.
When did We The People, through Article V, ensconce abortion and homosexual marriage as rights? We The People never empowered the early Administrative State and later the Deep State which threaten our republican existence. Since the 1950s we’ve witnessed the detrimental effects of Christianity’s absence from the public square, especially in our schools.
Thank the Scotus for these outrages and much more. Instead of the Article V process, Leftists litigate through select federal courts and eventually get their social justice decisions. In amending the living and breathing Constitution we revert to the practice of our colonial times when similar courts established the limits of the British constitution. “If the Framers had wanted a constitution that evolved by judicial ruling,” said Clarence Thomas, “they could have stuck with the unwritten British constitution that governed the American colonists in just that way for 150 years before the Revolution.”1 Should we wake up one day in a fascist state, rest assured the Scotus facilitated our arrival.
Few of the Judges who champion the Left’s unwritten and pretend Constitution matured in surroundings favorable to Constitutional self-government. Instead, their perfect world is ruled by elites, people like themselves, rather than government through representatives of the people and States. Elena Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall, who summed his judicially philosophy as, “you do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Indeed. How very British of him.
So, thanks to a foolish 17th Amendment, of which I’ve blogged dozens of times, senators, like congressmen, are congruent with the passions of the people. Passion doesn’t recognize limits, and certainly not the limits of constitutions. I’m not aware of any pre-17th Senate that got anywhere close to confirming judges with anti-Constitutional Marxist backgrounds.
But that is where we are and it is what Article V Opponents prefer, where one degree separates the people from judges who amend the Constitution. Yes, Article V opponents perceive our existing system, in which judges amend the Constitution at-will, as less dangerous than the Framers’ filtered Article V process in which the entire nation participates. As opposed to Scotus’ secret workings behind closed doors on carefully crafted Leftist cases, the process under Article V is open.
Either two thirds of Congress or the States propose amendments or apply for a COS respectively. At a COS, the States send delegates, not representatives, to propose Amendments. Then, three-fourths of the States must consent to amending the Constitution. This is the way to amend the Constitution in our republic, with the approval of its component members, the people and the States. Assigning this duty to nine secretive lawyers is preposterous and tyrannical.
To say the people are too licentious to be trusted with an Article V COS is far too close to the view of our ruling elitists who disdain self-government. One difference between self-government and despotic rule is that the people can correct their mistakes. Banning alcohol under the Eighteenth Amendment was perhaps noble, but proved to be unrealistic; the people repealed it in only fourteen years. Outside of Article V, We the People have no recourse to overturn horrid Scotus decisions.
A regular objection from Article V COS opponents concerns the Second Amendment. Many are certain that the Second Amendment is a goner in a theoretical COS when Scotus is the real threat right now to our unalienable rights.
Article V Opponents are blind to the Supreme Court as the ultimate danger; it’s a permanent, sitting institution that can amend the Constitution any time its social justice mood directs. There is no sovereign authority in Scotus. Is it even deliberative? We don’t know. Making law isn’t a judicial function, yet these unchecked blackrobes fear no earthly or afterlife punishment for their high crimes. Leftists know their precious “values” don’t rest on the foundation of law, but on the rickety scaffolds of intellectually weak court decisions that only subsequent courts or Article V can reverse.
In contrast, an Article V COS is federal, temporary, and rests on the solid foundation of the sovereign people. Not only is it temporary, it is another degree removed from rash, radical, emotional outcomes. It is a purposeful and public process. Instead, Article V Opponents prefer to leave the power with Scotus.
An Article V COS isn’t a peril to avoid; it is a blessing to embrace. It is the proper and peaceful means to curb a Scotus that recognizes no limits, not Constitutional limits nor those of God. Just as a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so too will Scotus continue its anti-republican ways until it meets an opposing force, and that force is an Article V COS.
The Convention ends and SCOTUS remains.
Until you replace our current society with one where virtue is fostered, there is no saving the Republic.
Can you establish a virtue-fostering regime by a CoS? Perhaps, but not with a few reactionary amendments.
Had you bothered to read what you posted about:
<>To say the people are too licentious to be trusted with an Article V COS is far too close to the view of our ruling elitists who disdain self-government. One difference between self-government and despotic rule is that the people can correct their mistakes. Banning alcohol under the Eighteenth Amendment was perhaps noble, but proved to be unrealistic; the people repealed it in only fourteen years. Outside of Article V, We the People have no recourse to overturn horrid Scotus decisions<>
<>Can you establish a virtue-fostering regime by a CoS?<>
Yes. Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the Framers’ Congress.
As the populations became more liberal, this would be easier and easier to accomplish. With at least one major metro area in every state that could be swamped with immigrants it would be difficult for the GOP to keep up.
What might help more is the invalidation of the stupid ruling that essentially eliminated real bicameral representation at the state level. States should be able to have a body whose members are not chosen by equal population, but instead by common interest regions. This way farmers, ranchers, loggers, fishermen, etc. would get equal representation with urbanites. Those bodies would be easier for the GOP to hold onto.
Yes. A return to decentralized authority. Make the people powerful. Make the states powerful. Make the federal government weak. Very weak. We are NOT going to be conquered by armored divisions from China. The federal government does NOT need to be a Super Power. Let the people be free. We will be OK.
An Article V convention will be taken over by the very oligarchs we are already suffering from today.
DON’T MAKE IT WORSE by handing them a Constitutional chainsaw.
I think the SCOTUS can be morally and legally challenged on removing Biblical themes and values from public schools, after swearing in on Bibles. Along comes no values and school shootings. Are the dysfunctional teens the only ones guilty?
I think the SCOTUS can be morally and legally challenged on removing Biblical themes and values from public schools, after swearing in on Bibles. Along comes no values and school shootings. Are the dysfunctional teens the only ones guilty?
State legislatures choosing Senators and poof, all our problems are solved, eh?
Your problem is you don’t dream enough.
How so? Red states today would seat many more delegates than from blue states. The Progressives would be swamped. Get rid of the 17th amendment. Get rid of Judicial oversight of intent and law, and make them rule ONLY on if a law fits the Constitution. ALL previous rulings wiped away, only the US Constitution and the new situation or law in front to guide them. USSC Justices would be bored and boring.
Term
Limits
Please read my post.
Term limits would make it better, but there are other ways that would take care of more problems.
No lobbying by elected and regulatory officials and their families for 25 years after serving in office
All elected and regulatory officials and their families will put their investments in a blind trust that continues one year from leaving the job.
No retirement but the same as is afforded all employees, like a welder in a shipyard.
The same health insurance as the voters, but of course they can purchase better out of pocket.
Only precious metal or commodities backed money shall be printed or stamped.
What Congressman would serve but someone who cares more about SERVICE, than getting rich or powerful.
Definitely it was an important milestone on the road to Heck.
But the road to Heck is a one-way street. Once having sinned, one cannot simply go back to a temptation and say no, as if this would undo the sin.
Our nation needs stronger stuff than State-selected Senators. Much stronger stuff. We need to once again be a virtuous people.
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.