The Craziness of a ConCon [Constitutional Convention]

The Market-Ticker ^ | Sept. 21, 2014 | Karl Denninger

[nathanbedford]

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?

[dynachrome]

Enforce the one we have. (how to go about it, I dunno. A long slog)

[ctdonath2]

And those state legislators were elected by the same populace that put a raging Leftist Muslim in the White House.

[Perdogg]

You don't really understand the process. State legislators must have an agenda prior to a convention agreed by 2/3 of the states.

[nathanbedford]

Enforce the one we have. (how to go about it, I dunno. A long slog)

Although I think you should get points for rare candor on the subject, I nevertheless place you in category 4:

No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so don't try 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.

[Smokin' Joe]

5: None of the above.

Go for it, please repeal the 16th and 17th amendments!

Don't let it get hijacked, by the IslamoCommunistLiberal set.

Heck, I'll even chip in some gas money.

Realistically, it'd be nice to have some more charges to read off when the time comes.

[familyop]

Those who want a constitutional convention are state and local government employees, politicians and other government-linked crooks, who want to take over the federal government and shovel unlimited pork to themselves while intensifying their police state tactics. They aren't satisfied with having already outlawed most productive activities and freedoms with regulations, fees and outright robberies. They are public corruption.

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,949,129 [Democrat] 81% [Republican] 1%”

Leviathan (Uncle Sam employs more people than you think)
National Review ^ | 02/03/2011 | Iain Murray
"...nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government."

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An Article 5 convention of states is NOT a "con-con," to use the cool low-information type acronym.

An Article 5 convention is for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution.

No rewrite of the constitution is possible, but let's not let reality stand in the way of the hysterics.

[INVAR]

Everyone please re-read what Smokin' Joe posted here, because it contains wisdom and the entire crux of the argument.

For instance, what makes anyone think an administration accountable only to itself will heed any changes to a document it already ignores, even if the convention isn't hijacked and the Amendments are heeded.

What are you going to add to statements like "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated...", like "...shall not be infringed."

Aside from sprinkling it with a few expletives for emphasis, what are you going to do?

When the entire raison d'etre of the Government en masse has become that of subverting the constraining documents of Government and perverting the allocations of and restrictions on power, how do you make them pay attention to their duty?

Is there any peaceful way to do this within the system?

They ignored a million marchers from the TEA party, "non-event".

They laughed at those who questioned the credentials of the one in the White House.

They have used Federal Agencies and abused Federal Power to attack those who disagree with them.

They have, in violation of our laws, armed foreign insurgents who have for profit and in criminal enterprise turned those arms against our own people.

They have failed to secure our borders and the persons of our ambassadors overseas.

They have taken direct action to damage the morale and effectiveness of our fighting forces and given aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

What does it take to hold them to account?

The simpering mavens of Congress have also failed in their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

But do you seriously think any new Amendments to the Constitution are going to give them pause?

Truly.

How do the proponents of Article V propose to get a post-Constitutional oligarchy to abide by additions to a document it already ignores?

How do proponents of Article V propose to counter nullification of any ratified Amendments by an activist judiciary acting on behalf of the oligarchy?

How do they propose to counter executive actions or 'legislative' actions that make it policy to ignore and disregard amendments the oligarchy disagrees with?

Levin is correct - we are in a post-constitutional system. We are being ruled by the lawless who are a law unto themselves alone. How does even he expect such a perverted and lawless system to allow these proposed additional yokes be placed upon itself without the use or threat of brutal force?

A government in the process of destroying the civil society is NOT going to allow civil recourse to restrain their agenda. Fact of history and human nature.

How do the Amendment V proponents plan to address that issue so that we can believe their efforts will not be in vain?

[nathanbedford]

BRAVO!

[Art in Idaho]

The federal government is broken. Our only Constitutional redress is Article V and a Convention of States. Is it risky? Possibly, but to do nothing is derelict. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

Research links on the Article V process and the Liberty Amendments:

Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.

'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.

The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.

I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then:

Convention of States Lots of information here.

Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie

Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments

Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States

Citizens for Self Governance: Convention of States Project – a hub of 15 youtube videos on the Convention of States

Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub

Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin

Amendments Convention Links

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.

Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process

Friends of Article V Convention Links

Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!

Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance by Robert Berry

The Final Constitutional Option

Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.

State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!

Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.

Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.

Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie

Let’s all work together to get this going.

We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. Congress is not going to propose liberty amendments. If the Article V Convention of States doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.

[INVAR]

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?

Category 5 - HOW DO YOU PLAN TO GET YOUR AMENDMENTS TO WORK

That would be the category that says - If you are going to attempt it - explain to us how you are going to get a lawless post-Constitutional oligarchy to abide by new amendments to a document that has been already nullified, usurped, defied via precedent and rewritten by executive 'action'?

If you want to win support for the process and the cause, explain to us how you intend to get a lawless government to abide by them so the effort is not in vain.

[kvanbrunt2]

I agree. no law can bring the lawless to respect it. Nuke em.

[Lurker]

“but it is a way to control a strong central gov’t that isn’t obeying the Constitution.”

If they’re not obeying it now what makes anyone think that adding a few more words to it will make them change their behavior?

L

[kvanbrunt2]

nuke em Rico

[Lurker]

“What do you propose to ensure its implementation?”

Go read Amendment II.

[INVAR]

We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. Congress is not going to propose liberty amendments. If the Article V Convention of States doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.

Please explain to us, what is the plan to get an IRRATIONAL, lawless, post-Constitutional government to abide by the Liberty Amendments (and the existing Constitution for that matter) if ratified via civil means?

If we agree the current government system is lawless, destroying the civil society and is post-Constitutional - and if we agree that this Article V process is the last civil chance we have at restraining an out-of-control oligarchy, how do you propose to get that system to abide by further yokes, when it has dismantled and ignored the ones already codified in the Supreme Law of the Land?

What is the plan for that? Or are you just focused on the exercise for the sake of saying 'we tried'?

If you want to get more Americans on board for the effort and the cause, explain how you intend to get a neo-dictatorial tyranny that has ignored the rule of law to adhere to what is passed in new additions to the rule of law so our support of the effort is not in vain.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the effort at this stage will end up no different than the Olive Branch Petition if there is no plan to effect it's implementation upon the lawless who now rule us.

[jaydee770]

Given examples such as Wickard v. Filburn, we could argue that the constitution is not being followed — and even go further and claim it is being outright abused.

I think Wickard v. Filburn is downright bull-butter and the original intent would preclude that decision. But then the relevant section involved merely reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That simple wording apparently left the court with all the wiggle-room it needed.

I think we would need a constitution worded with the complexity of the fine print on a cell phone contract to remove any wiggle-room the courts could use to pervert original intent.

If not a Con-Con, then how do we “undo” the decades of federal over-reach? All of the federal code that is unconstitutional would need to be stricken; all of the federal offices, depts, etc that are unconstitutional would need to be eliminated.

Someone smarter than me would need to come up with a single amendment that serves as a reset button.

[nathanbedford]

I am understandably having problems grappling with your position. In another reply on another thread when flatly asked for your position on Article V you replied in capital letters:

DO IT

Which you followed with many of the concerns you expressed about the ability to have the new constitutional amendments honored in the teeth of a tyrannical government. You suggest that this is a new category but you are dealing with a new concept. My categories have to do with objections to attempting an Article V process. If you believe that it will not be honored then you need a new category which says "don't try it, it won't be honored" but you are on record as saying, "DO IT" but it won't be honored.

The degree to which it will be honored or dishonored depends on a variety of factors only one of which is the intransigence of the elites presently in power. Other factors include the degree and intensity of public support. We do not know and cannot know in advance how a post constitutional reform will play out in practical politics.

But we can "do it" and say to our children, "at least we tried."

[INVAR]

Go read Amendment II.

I expect that might be a foundational reason for the stockpiling of billions of rounds of ammunition and the 'gifting' of military hardware such as MRAPs strategically being placed around the country by the Oligarchy.

I do not believe those in power fear We The People. I think they despise and loathe us with utter contempt. They do not believe we have the resolve or stomach to do what would be needed to stop them.

Which is funny because I think that is the same thinking ISIS, Putin and the Chicoms have of America itself.