Posted on 12/12/2013 5:30:22 AM PST by dontreadthis
What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.1
On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will. We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. This is how they “support” the Constitution!
We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.
We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right – and it is a duty.
We have read original writings of our Framers and know what our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies – not one of which is “amendment of the Constitution”. 3
(Excerpt) Read more at publiushuldah.wordpress.com ...
I hope you are right about the states nullifying the out-of-control federal mandates.
A “Con-Con” would be a total disaster, hijacked and run by the worst ‘Rats, “Move-On” etc.
No matter what Levin says while making arcane technical points, (and I agree with him 95% of the time), a Con-Con would be a nightmare in reality.
the author’s agenda is very obvious, and he is not a good writer.
What happens when they simply ignore any attempt to follow rules? Nullification, article 5, or whatever. What happens when they ignore all of it? That is the problem I have with all of this. If they simply ignore it, then what?
I support the article 5 convention. Again, problem is, with an unconstitutional administration and a party/parties, that are as equally unconstitutional, what happens when they ignore it. Keep in mind that there are more working for the government now than in the private sector.
so true. But has not South Carolina found a creative way to partially circumvent the Feds? ie. by refusing to use State resources to assist?
for later
So, I present to the group... Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Link from Mark Levin’s facebook...
http://queenofliberty.com/2013/12/11/amending-the-constitution-a-viable-solution/
that is a fear that many have that cannot be assuaged by legal arguments. The response I have so far is that that would be a powerful impetus to bring all of this to a head (for better or worse), rather than this slower deterioration
clear to me too, but that is my bias.
Read this for another point of view:
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/article-v-future.html
I think Schlafly is right on. She has been for many years - since I was a teen.....and I’m 68.......
It’s this kind of common sense math that rules out impeachment as well. Conservatives need to stop worrying about pie in the sky ideas that can’t happen, and put that energy into focusing on the elections in 2014 and 2016. We are, unfortunately, stuck with the buffoon in the White House for now.
Look most people haven’t read Levin’s book. He specifically lays out how to prevent a ‘run away’ convention of the states and how to guarantee that the convention will address appropriate things. Schlafly is trying to remain relevant and she is long past her prime
with you on that
don’t hold your breath waiting for the states to tell the federal teat to go away.
The one amendment that should be included in Art 5 then should be, if the constitution or any part thereof, are not followed as written, then the states shall and have a right to secession.
The people and the states reserved the power via our Constitution to set things right if the feral government got out of line. All we/they have to do is exercise that power. Nullification by the states on behalf of the people is a simple but effective way to show the federales where the line is. We just lack the will, or courage maybe...
while I agree with your intent, even if such an Amendment was ratified, the problem again becomes interpretation (”necessary and proper”, “general welfare”, “commerce clause”). Interpretation is always going to be the issue regardless of how well the Constitution defines ennumerated powers.
Therefore, IMO the only way around this is with “Penalty Amendments”:
1. fail to pass a budget->5% across-the-board cut
2. want to stay in office or on the bench for life?—>term limits
3. pass laws we don’t want-—>States can veto
4. want to fund an agency?-—>States decide
Levin calls these “Liberty Amendments”
IMO, the only thing intelligent that obama ever said was that our Constitution was a document of “negative rights”. I agree: liberty is the natural state, and the only way to preserve it is by putting restrictions on potential tyranny.
I agree... there simply is no “end around” of Congress, because AS WRITTEN, even if there are 37 states on board proposing ammendments, these proposals are then reviewed by Congress. I would call Mark and ask about this, but I should read his book first.
My solution... is not quite so “civil” or “polite”... but it does involve excercising every faculty afforded to us here “plebians” by the Bill of Rights.
there is no question that they are acting outside of their enumerated powers. As brazen as they are, they always try to use a legal justification through Constitutional interpretation of the necessary and proper, commerce, or general welfare clauses. And SCOTUS allows them to do so. I see no end to this process or tactic.
IMO, any Amendment generated by the States will need to stop this process.
Please see my comment to crz above.
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.