Posted on 08/21/2021 5:46:39 AM PDT by Jacquerie
A common concern among Article V opponents is fear that a convention of the states to propose constitutional amendments will result in an oppressive constitution. Instead, all we need to do is enforce the constitution we have. Elect the right people to implement our written constitution and all will be well.
As logical and appealing as that approach appears to be, it ignores some horrible realities, and actually promotes our headlong dive into tyranny, for the anti-constitution, the unwritten constitution rules.
First, aside from the occasional heat politicians take from an outraged populace, our legislative, executive and judicial branches in the aggregate do not acknowledge any limitations on their power.
Second, and worst of all, the branch charged with adjudication of disputes arising under the constitution has rewritten our governing form such that instead of securing our freedoms, their constitution, the anti-constitution promotes tyranny.
The United States has two constitutions. Patriots read, study, and revere the brilliance of our Framers’ plan of government, and support like-minded politicians. Meanwhile, federal courts, when they adjudicate within any limits at all, are guided by the anti-constitution, the one they and their predecessors amended dozens of times these past eighty years.
There is no need to list all of the illegal judicial amendments that created today’s anti-constitution. Suffice to say that a counter-revolution to the American Revolution has occurred. A compact between We The People, via our states, and the government we created has gone wrong. Rather than secure our rights, the unwritten anti-constitution secures the power of our oppressors. When cases come before scotus, the starting points are previous, typically unconstitutional decisions, and not the supreme law they swore to uphold.
The executive branch has gleefully swept up powers discarded by congress. In fact, the very first clause of Article I, Section 1, the one in which a free people assigned all legislative authority therein granted to congress, has come to largely reside within the executive branch. This authority will pass on to the next president. Unless these powers are formally retrieved, ALL subsequent presidents will have Obama’s unwritten, unconstitutional and despotic powers. That is tyranny which no election alone can reverse.
When we ignore the reality of the unwritten anti-constitution that is the actual working framework of the ruling class, there is little hope for freedom’s restoration. It means we have turned a blind eye to our situation, for elections long ago stopped serving to choose who will faithfully perform their constitutional duties on our behalf. It means the ruling despots have a constitutionally free hand to aggrandize more power and wealth, to continue sapping our liberty. In order to possibly restore republican freedom, we must first come face to face with our enemy, admit the dominance of this anti-constitution and the increasing irrelevancy of the written constitution.
Only the very hard and fast provisions of the written constitution remain. Representatives still serve two years, senators six, and for the time being at least, presidents are limited to two four-year terms. Nearly every other “soft” clause that has gotten in the way of progressive goals is either gone, misapplied or turned upside down. Think commerce clause, equal protection, taxation, abortion, homosexual marriage, our Bill of Rights, Obamacare, Common Core . . .
An unwritten Frankenstein anti-constitution rules. If we are to kill this monster and return to free government, it is way past time, if time remains at all, to grasp a clause from Article V that George Mason demanded at the federal convention of 1787: the state amending authority of Article V. We must act while we still have the power to peacefully correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that no election alone can correct.
Article V ping!
This article is an undeniable factual description of where we are today. I also support his resolution much more than I do convening an Article V convention. You know why I think that way.
Thanks for posting this.
The executive branch has gleefully swept up powers discarded by congress.
You have correctly identified a great deal of the problem.
Article V is about as far from addressing that problem as anyone might imagine.
COS is a much larger problem.
...and now we have other problems exceeding even those.
I was in a rush, no pun intended, and did not see anything about abdication of responsibility, and high crimes and usurpation by our friends on the Supreme Court of the United States. We know they are also a major part of the problem.
The Constitution itself is NOT NOT NOT the problem. It is the three branches of Government ignoring the Constitution.
...and finally COS would have the American people believe absolutely nothing can go wrong with the exercise of Article V. Discerning folks will disagree.
From an FR post earlier today:
Conservatives have a tendency to play a mental game where they rationalize that the public is going to have an epiphany and that the latest display of ineptitude or malfeasance will be the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back and wakes up the herd. They overestimate the herd.
There is a concept in psychology called normalcy bias that explains why people have a tendency to downplay serious threats like natural disasters and creates a failure to act in the face of crisis. Those under the spell of normalcy bias will ignore the severity of a situation and justify to themselves that their circumstances are just another in a series of life challenges that will pass.
Those who attempt to sound the alarm in the face of these circumstances are merely overreacting. The inaction that results from normalcy bias leads to poor outcomes as appropriate preparation measures are ignored and responses are delayed. The incremental nature of our deteriorating circumstances is a potent but detrimental combination when paired with normalcy bias.
The soviets had a nice sounding Constitution, too.
bkmk
The most egregious change occurred when the Court give itself the power of the last word. The other two Branch's liked the change so much they've done nothing about it in over 200 years. They like it because controversial issues are handed off to lifetime unelected people. Notice how rare it is to get a judge removed?
In addition to removing those amendments which gave Congress more power taking away the final word from the Court of Supreme Whim is needed.
It will have to be a reset of government to the extreme.
The Congress can set the jurisdiction of the USSC, getting it to do so is the issue. As far as USSC having the last word on what’s Constitutional and what’s not. Someone has to, would you rather have a Pelosi\Schumer Congress do it?
The problem with the Court is who we’ve put on it. That points right back to the Senate. Too often too many Senators just roll over, and allow unserious unqualified people on it.
You mean Russians. USSR is no more.
One problem is that politicos lie.
We need to install all politicos on a probation basis. Stick to your campaign position for first six months and you can stay. Miss one, one, point and you are automatically recalled by the same voting tally that elected you. Next up, the guy/gal (yes, only 2) that was in 2nd place in original vote. That way, the 2nd place person will be gunning for you for that 6 month period. Even more so than original election as there is no worry about 3rd place — except for 6 months.
Oh, this might mean a never-ending round of new office holders as each in line is exposed as a liar? Umm, what is you objection?
I agree!
"Progressives" are masters in manipulating words and original intent. Regardless of what the document is, so-called progressives will manipulate its meaning and originality. The problem as I see it is that constitutional provisions for removing bad actors and anti-constitution individuals from positions of power are not applied. The framers intentionally made it difficult to remove elected representatives and justices from power.
Consider this example of a constitution ignored by a lawless governor and a state legislature that failed to defend it: PA state constitution places all election law authority in the hands of the legislature. For the 2020 election, Dem PA governor Wolf ignored PA election law and affected his own election rules, which essentially made it easy for Dems to cheat. The Republican PA legislature had good reason to charge, impeach and remove this lawless governor - but they did not. What's my point? Amendments brought about by Article V may change the federal Constitution but unless the resulting government applies it as intended and ACTS under its provisions to remove lawless, anti-constitution actors, it will be no different that what we have today.
I rather have the State Legislatures have the final say. I like the idea of different laws in different states . It lets people vote with their feet when a particular state goes bad.
I was talking about the old soviet constitution. It had a lot of nice language in it.
What if a state legislature creates law goes explicitly against the Bill of Rights or a state declares itself an absolute monarchy\authoritarian (Yes California, Illinois & New York are almost there !) Also have a state legislature created state law that says you can’t leave ?
The Constitution guarantees that the states will have a “republican form of government”. What does that mean ? Who defines that ? The devil is in the legal details, the USSC does that now
One other idea I like is to have 50 Circuit courts below the Supreme Court. One for each state. That court would determine Federal law for that state unless overruled by the Supreme Court. The Judges for those Federal Courts would be picked by the state itself by whatever laws they set up.
The Soviet Constitution shared more than a few similarities with the US constitution. The rights to home security, property, private correspondence, freedom of religion & conscience, equality before the law, and the right to earn/keep earnings and to leave inheritances were all there.
All considered, it wasn’t bad for peoples who had only known Mongol hordes and Czars for the past thousand years.
Despite these guarantees, the Soviet Union was a slave state from its inception. How could oppression live side-by-side recognized assurances of so many personal rights?
<>The problem with the Court is who we’ve put on it. That points right back to the Senate. Too often too many Senators just roll over, and allow unserious unqualified people on it.<>
Thank the 17th Amendment. As opposed to state-appointed senators, popularly elected senators are far more tolerant of anti-Tenth Amendment progressive judges.
Agree !
Completely!
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.