Posted on 07/04/2022 3:44:22 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Must revolution be violent? Must revolution upend an older society and replace it with a new one? Wouldn’t a 21st century restoration of free American government without resort to violence be revolutionary?
Pennsylvania’s Framer James Wilson thought so:
Sovereignty in the people was not a novel concept; the hundred years since the Glorious Revolution and eleven years since the Declaration of Independence reinforced in English minds the people’s natural right to govern themselves as they please. This is all well and good in Wilson’s “flattering theory,” but what, despite written Constitutional precautions, if the people’s government goes awry or governing forms ill-serve society? What was novel was that revolution need not instill “discord, rancor or war.”
Revolution need not be violent.
Man is fatally incapable of forming any enduring system free from corruption. The idea of incorporating a plan of reformation in the Constitution, which formalized peaceful means to return to first principles in a rational revolution, was a new contribution to political science. Our Framers discovered a constitutional cure wholly popular, and strictly republican for the ancient diseases of a republican polity. In rational revolution the people do not burn down cities or decapitate high government criminals in fits of rage. Well before society explodes, they act within the supreme law of the land to avoid destruction. Thanks to the Framers’ structure of government and especially Article V, the decay and death of the new American republic seemed far less likely.
Article V institutionalized and legitimated peaceful, ongoing, rational revolution. It tempered the historically and infrequently exercised natural right to violent revolution into, when needed, a non-violent amendment convention in which state delegates coolly and rationally consider antidotes to the fever of unconstitutional rule or simply wish to improve their governing forms. Within the American system of government are the means to eternal improvements without bloodshed.
People are not free under a Constitution closed to amendments. A frozen Constitution negates rational revolution and guarantees the opposite of our Framers’ gift; instead of “melioration, contentment, and peace,” a frozen Constitution invites “discord, rancor, and war.”
Contrary to the fear-mongering from Article V opponents, our Framers did not plant a bomb in the Constitution. No Constitution provides for its own destruction, and no people or their delegates ever gathered to enslave themselves.
The contest between Article V proponents and opponents revolves around their perceptions of the solution to the problem of un-free government. To opponents, all that need be done is to expel the corruptors of our existing system. Despite the lessons of history, they believe electing “better” men and women can restore free government. Without saying, they endorse a frozen Constitution and deny the benefits of rational revolution.
Article V supporters agree the self-serving politicians, rogues, and high criminals that infest Washington must go, but they also reason this is an insufficient and impossible remedy. It is a societal placebo in that voters feel good about themselves if they vote for the better of two candidates. Even if one of the candidates is “good,” experience teaches when we send such people to corrupt institutions, the good men and women do not reform the institutions; corrupt institutions corrupt the men and women.
To abandon the gift of Article V’s rational revolution is to abandon sovereignty. The evidence is all around. Consider the long train of abuses from a corrupt Supreme Court that amends the Constitution at-will.
Constitutions change, and they change through:
1.) Corruption.
2.) Article V rational revolution.
3.) Violent revolution.
The question is WHO, the people or those entrusted with political, not sovereign power, will make the changes. Sovereignty abandoned is sovereignty surrendered to others.
You sound like one of those who were so sure Obamacare would be found unconstitutional......
<>Not one Article V proponent can explain in specificity exactly how it cannot be hijacked once convened, period.<>
I’ve been explaining with specificity at FR for years.
States will not send schlubs off the street. Unlike congressmen who can vote as they wish, states will send delegates with detailed commissions that limit their authority. State legislatures retain authority to void any illegal actions by their delegates.
You are good at nonsensical straw man fallacies.
Oh please! THIS! is just what I've been arguing about for YEARS. Meaningless. Neither you, I or anyone else can control that. Neither you nor your fellow proponents can show otherwise with any certainty. Tell me, with complete accuracy, that the 'process' contains a fail-safe that ASSURES its convening purpose cannot be changed once convened and I might change my mind.. But, you cannot. Only more vagaries. You can keep on pushing this, but you haven't made a sale here.....
An Article V convention can only propose Constitutional Amendments that must be ratified by the states in the usual manner. How is that a “Trojan horse?”
I didn't realize you were sniping from deep cover.
As to your question: "Why do you think the communists, who do not follow the constitution, will follow the Article V rules?", my question to you is "Do you believe in the Constitution or not?"
If you have given up on the Constitution than why are you bothering to participate in a conversation about it?
You haven't been able to "determine" much, have ya? Have you even read Article V, since you've done so much "research?"
Article V of the Constitution says what it says, that its purpose is to propose amendments that must be ratified by the states in the usual manner.
Show me where it grants authority to "change the original charter/purpose/goal."
I dare you.
You either believe in the Constitution or you don't, and it appears that you don't.
You just keeping on with this nonsense... I’m done with you all.....
You have no idea exactly how the leftists have been itching for this to happen...
Goodbye....
So you admit you never even read Article V but know all about it.
I’ve read it plenty of times. YOUR problem is that you think your states legislatures, bodies and governing authorities will “look out for your interests.” They won’t.
I’ve seen this happen in my own state, Georgia, with a Governor and Secretary of State who have sold out and relinquished power for all intents and purposes to Democrats so they could have temporary power.....
You go do your thing and I’ll STFU....you just have not made a sale here in any way. Only someone who’d vote against it and what you foolishly want.
I won’t do your work for you.
Look up commissions from states that have approved a COS.
You won’t because you are comfortable in ignorance of the matter.
I’ll put my trust in James Wilson and the Federal Convention delegates and state ratifying conventions.
By your logic, We the People are incapable of self-government.
Just keep supporting the same habits and approaches to government in the expectation of different results.
There is a common term for your belief.
So instead of fighting the Georgia corruption you just give up?
Luckily for us there are people who haven’t given up, like the creators of 2000 Mules who have been working with law enforcement and appear to be on the verge of major indictments.
https://www.truethevote.org/police-raid-nonprofits-in-2000-mules-ballot-trafficking-investigation/
They haven’t given up, and I haven’t given up funding them.
You do you..... keep pushing this. I’ve seen it for over 20 years and none of you can convince me of anything other than you have very good intentions. But you still have no guarantees. You have no idea of the money, power and influence arrayed against you.
Put your ‘trust’ anywhere you want. At this point I don’t care anymore....
Show me one major MSM venue where 2000 M has been highlighted in any manner other than negative.
It is down to a battle of how they can weasel their way into changing our Constitution in a drastic and substantive manner and this mania about “the Convention” is misguidedly supporting it, IMO.
sheesh...
How is that different from any other conservative issue?
Why do you care what documented "RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!" liars say?
Why are you even patronizing them, helping fund them?
Just stop. I never said a damned thing about Russia - only that the truth gets subverted to the masses...you’re just diverting from a pitifully poor argument....
You gave me a movie as your ‘example.’ I gave you a response as to why your example is wanting and you demean me by implying ‘I help fund them?” just go screw off.....
Why do you care what documented liars say?
I’ve explained myself enough.
As I tell all the posters on the gun trader site I frequent, “Good Luck With Sale - GLWS for short.”
Done here.
You are naive. Yes, WE would abide by Article V as written....but the other side would not.
The other side has already perverted the constitution, the federal gov't, the courts, etc......but you think they would not be able to pervert an Article V.
Your childish innocence is not useful.
Sounds like you have surrendered and don’t have the guts to fight for anything.
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.