Posted on 09/17/2024 5:24:07 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Bump!
The result could just as easily be something worse, but by far the most likely result is no ratification because the country is too divided.
Interesting then and now. BUMP
<>by far the most likely result is no ratification because the country is too divided<>
Agree, and that would be a good thing. It would put the JBS irrational fear of a “runaway” convention to rest.
It only took "four score and seven years" for the thing to go off the rails.
personally, i’d like SOMEONE to enforce Article 2 Section 1 and have kamala explain how someone with foreign citizen parents at birth could possibly be a natural born citizen
if you need some reading material on the subject, the 39th congress (in 1866) discussed it as they pushed the 14th.
fyi, this article is suppressed by google. you have to use duckduckgo to find it:
https://www.tampafp.com/39th-congress-transcript-anchor-babies-not-u-s-citizens/
<>Meanwhile, we experience the rewriting of the Constitution on a piecemeal basis, every time the SCOTUS issues its rulings for the year.<>
Yes, from FDR until PDJT the Scotus was an almost annual amendments convention. Scotus inflicted enormous harm on a supposedly self-governing people.
Freepers have accused me of assuming only conservative oriented amendments will emerge from an A5 COS.
That just isn’t so. While I wish to return to pre-17th Amendment government, I would reluctantly settle for a non-tyrannical Scotus and elimination of the Deep State
At least with poor amendments like the 16th - 18th, we did them to ourselves and can repeal them, which we did with the 18th and which an informed people would do to the 16th and 17th.
Please, whatever you do, don’t read the article.
For the most part, yes. Here's why:
The Constitution at its core is a conservative document -- more conservative than the country is at this moment. If you had a convention, the result is likely to reflect the current political makeup of the country, which means any Amendments that resulted are likely to move the Constitution to the left. Again, that's because we are not now as conservative a people as were the Founders and the people of that time.
That's not saying whatever emerged from the Convention would be hard left. Just that whatever amendments did emerge are much more likely to move the Constitution to the left than to the right.
Then there is the issue of ratification. I think ratification of any amendments that moved the country in a more conservative direction than the original Constitution would be DOA. The media could easily rally enough sentiment in 13 states to kill any such amendments.
But given the mass media influence, propaganda, etc., and the fact that the country is further to the left than it was at the time of ratification, there is some chance that we could see the ratification of some Amendments that essentially codify some leftist positions. Of course, they'd be sold to the public as something much less significant than they actually are. A "privacy" Amendment. An "equal rights" Amendment. An Amendment on "corporate" free speech that essentially would overrule Citizens United and permit the feds to regulate election advertising. Are you confident those things wouldn't be ratified 5-7 years down the road? Because I'm not.
Polls show that support for regulating free political speech, including so-called "hate speech" and "disinformation", have increased massively, especially among younger people. The free speech absolutism that used to be a bipartisan consensus has collapsed. Could a cleverly-drafted Amendment that permitted regulation of free speech be sold to enough gullible people to be ratified? Perhaps.
Right now, we have a rather unholy alliance between populists on the right railing against "elites" and "big corporations", and the left's traditional siding with government versus private business. I could see a well-planned PR campaign uniting those two factions to restrict the speech of "evil corporations", which would of course end up being applied to conservative public interest groups, etc..
So...yeah. I worry a lot about the results of an Article V convention given where we are today as a people, and how gullible people are all across the political spectrum. Conning them into voting for wording that is sold to them as one thing but actually could mean something quite different is entirely possible.
A very well thought out post, sir.
I think the only way to truly solve the immigration problem is with a constitutional amendment. The problem with any legislative compromise is that the compromise can easily be reversed by a subsequent Congress/President, just as happened to Reagan with IRCA in 1986.
For something like that to work, it has to be a compromise that both parties are willing to accept, which means both parties have to get something out of it. I drafted one for fun awhile back. The basic premise was that Democrats get partial amnesty for some number/classifications of illegals, and Republicans get a bunch of other stuff that amounts to border-tightening and limits. But my limits were pretty tight, so I'm not sure there's any number of illegals getting partial amnesty that would induce the Democrats to agree.
And by the way, when I say "partial" amnesty, one of the parts of my Amendment was a provision saying that anyone entering the country illegally, including those being granted the right to stay in the Amendment itself, were permanently ineligible for citizenship, so they could never vote. They'd only get permanent resident status. And that status would include a provision saying that only citizens could use their status to sponsor family members, relatives, or others to come over. So the group being legalized in the amendment could not then import a bunch of their relatives.
There was other stuff, including a reversal of Phyler v. Doe, and a statement saying that nothing in the Constitution could be interpreted to compel a right to any federal or state benefits to people in the country illegally. States would still be free to provide benefits if they wanted. Oh, and states would have the constitutional right to bar entry to illegals at their own borders, except at designated federal border crossings.
Again, though, I don't think the Democrats would ever support it.
Thanks!
I did read the article. I thought it was well written. However, I am very much aware of the shortcomings of all the hand waving from the Federalists trying to ignore all the concerns of the anti-Federalists.
The anti-Federalists never get the respect they deserve, and pretty much the bad things they predicted would happen, did happen.
Yes, I know you want to focus on your Article V convention stuff, but *I* like to focus on how Federalism has failed.
Indeed, had it not gotten so bloated, and predictably so as the anti-Federalists had foretold, we would not now be needing to discuss the potential fix which might be had from an Article V convention.
States would be granted legal standing to challenge any grant of citizenship/immigration status and/or benefits to any individual residing within their jurisdiction. So if some future Administration tried some Executive Order crap to end-run around the Amendment, states could fight back without standing being an issue.
At least with poor amendments like the 16th - 18th, we did them to ourselves and can repeal them, which we did with the 18th and which an informed people would do to the 16th and 17th.
This is another thing I often find annoying. People focus on wrongheaded amendments like the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th amendments, but never seem to be bothered by three that I consider to be the worst.
The 14th, (Anchor babies, abortion, gay marriage, banning prayer in schools, rewriting "natural born citizen", expanding interstate "commerce" etc.)
The 24th, (Giving *NON* taxpayers the right to vote. Creating our welfare state, and bloating our federal bureaucracy.)
And the 26th. (Letting stupid 18 year olds vote when they haven't yet had to live in an adult economy.)
Yes, your's are bad, but mine are just as bad and in some cases, worse.
Can we agree that most of the amendments after the first 10, suck?
-PJ
I keep saying this. I say it almost every day. I've been saying it for over two decades, yet the message doesn't seem to sink in for most people.
Break the media-lie-system, and the nation heals itself. The media-liars exist for the sole purpose of ensuring "elite" control of mass communications. They are literally the voice of "elite" control of the government.
The media-lie-system works to elect liberals, because liberals open the purse strings of Washington DC, and so many "elite" make their riches through the exploitation of the government spending and policy, both legally, (through management of government programs and receiving government contracts), and illegally. (through the sale of influence, policy, regulations, etc, like Joe Biden does)
The media-liars are part of the corrupt industry of government, and they control the propaganda the public is allowed to hear, always with the intent to influence the public to support liberal causes and ideas, because liberals in power means wealth for the "elite" and their cronies.
It is a system to exploit government for private profit.
Break the media-lie-system, force the *OTHER SIDE* (us) to have the same air time as the liars, and the nation heals itself. Policies which are idiotic and destructive to the nation will not be supported by the people when they can see people on television talking about how these policies are idiotic and destructive to the nation.
The propaganda system is the lynchpin of politics. It is how people make their decisions to vote. If it feeds them liberal bullsh*t all day every day, the dumber portion of the population will buy into it and vote liberal.
We fix the media-lie-system, and we fix everything.
What does that mean in your understanding?
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.