Posted on 08/05/2021 12:04:20 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Article V ping!
And the Anti-Federalists were right!
Anti-Federalists
George Mason
Patrick Henry
James Monroe
Samuel Adams
Richard Henry Lee
James Winthrop
Elbridge Gerry
George Clinton
Luther Martin
Melancton Smith
John Lansing
William Grayson
Abraham Yates
William Findley
Thomas Tredwell
John Smilie
William Paca
Rawlins Lowndes
Robert Yates
Robert Whitehill
IMHO, the problem is not the current U.S. Constitution. The problem is the men and women we elect to office who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then fail to do so.
Article V will not prevent ignorant constitutients from continuing to elect corrupt, amoral and criminal representatives.
Just keep voting. As if it matters.
We could end direct election of Senators, add in term limits for Congress perps. How about making elected officials subject to the same laws against insider trading? Donating campaign funds to other office seekers could be banned. Working in another government connected office for 10 years. An outright ban on elected officials becoming lobbyists after they retire or are voted out? Campaign dollars can only come from people, not corporations. Get rid of the Federal Reserve Banking system and build a system backed by valuable metals, on a 1 dollar for a denominated amount of silver, gold, unobtainium, lithium or other valuable things. Let the Federal Reserve print up 30 trillion dollars and give it back to them to erase the debt.
IMHO, the problem is not the current U.S. Constitution. The problem is the men and women we elect to office who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then fail to do so.Your point highlights a flaw in a constitution that allows for its own abuse. The Founders knew that unscrupulous actors would take office ("If men were angels..."), only they thought, following Madison's view and as referenced in the article here, that checks and balances and separation of powers across a large republic would protect against such abusers.
If any of y'all are interested, you can see the following links...
<>To my mind, the original flaw in the Constitution is its lack of protections against the judiciary.<>
Article III empowers Congress to limit federal courts.
Thanks to the 17th Amendment, which neutered the Senate, Scotus became the tyrannical branch. It wasn’t until the FDR era that Scotus found its social justice groove.
For those (not you) who gaff off the destructive nature of the 17th Amendment, I ask them to consider why the people need two popularly elected houses of Congress? Answer: We don’t.
SIX YEARS between elections? Really?
Most important, the Constitution acts on both the people and the states. Simple republican theory and the Declaration of Independence itself demand the states have a seat at the legislative table.
I agree with your excellent recommendations. The difficulty as I see it is the "we could".
"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... - Article V
One might argue that amendments put forth by the states under Article V could not possibly make things worse and that may be right. My fear would be that the states would propose amendments that would further erode our freedoms.
If the founders had anything right it was that concentrated, unchecked power is a formula for corruption.
John Adams observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” - re: https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/
I also used to think that the anti-Feds were spot on, but the more original source material I take up and read the harder I find it to keep that view intact.
Neither Hamilton nor Madison disclosed in their Federalist Papers of the effort to amend the Articles of Confederation "as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."
It is a shame that Patrick Henry turned down his appointment as Virginia delegate to the Federal Convention.
assorted villains and miscreants would find refuge in the federal city.
Prescient.
Yep. “Checks and balances” results in “cahoots,” every time. It’s them against us.
Who decides the power of the federal government? The federal government. Of course it expands its power by any and all means.
And there you have it, right there. The Article V movement is a Trojan Horse. Let it in and you won't like the results.
Want certainty? You’ll find certainty in death and taxes.
Outside of certainty, what do you recommend to turn back the Obama/Biden/Rat/Rino tyranny?
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.