Posted on 01/01/2023 1:11:04 PM PST by Jacquerie
Like love of oneself and family, love of country is a natural emotion. From a rational standpoint, what is not to like and love about the greatest force for good in world history?
I find pride in American citizenship. I am not the subject of a king, nor a slave in an islamic or authoritarian hell-hole, nor a proletarian ruled through fear by communist party thugs. To be a citizen is to be equal before law of our own making, not through direct democracy, but by representatives, our agents who craft law on our behalf. We the People are still the sovereign, the source of all earthly law.
John Adams recognized the essential nature of law and that without law, republics cannot survive. The self-perception, the self-regard of the people must be that of sovereign lawmakers who bind themselves and later generations. Yet why are we bound by what Leftist’s deride as the “dead hand of the past?” Not because current or past generations of representatives were sages, but precisely because no matter when laws were passed, we can amend, repeal, or replace the law today. Until then, old law, ridiculous law, bad law, stupid law, etc., are in effect and deserve at least grudging respect because they’re the product of past citizens and weren’t decreed by a king, caliph, or party leader.
A truly republican system allows future citizens, posterity, to revise what their forebears had done, but only within the framework of known law, which institutionalizes popular will. Adams grasped that republicanism could only survive if the will of the people was channeled through law.
At the root of our Framers’ fear was the conviction that the new American republic wasn’t proof against the fate of the “cycle of corruption, discontent, decay, and dissolution that enlightenment thinkers regarded as the law of nature.” The question lingered whether a revolutionary people could make fundamental law that would restrain the disorder that had fueled the Revolution only a generation before.”
Republics put enormous responsibility on its members. Despite the risks, the ultimate guarantor of safety is the people’s authority to refashion the law. In recent generations, the law, both fundamental and statutory, has indeed been refashioned, but in large part not by the sovereign people or their agents. American law isn’t so much the output of Congress, but is instead the product of courts and the executive branch. In time, the will of the American people was largely cut off from the law.
Thanks to lawmaking by non-representatives, and as feared by Adams, the republic is in jeopardy. In response, some quietly advocate violence while others blame the people for not sending better men and women to corrupt institutions.
Since, in the eyes of Article V opponents, we are not virtuous enough to reform our government, they defend the status quo, a system whose corruption invites civil disorders and eventual anarchy. To deny an Article V COS to the sovereign people is to deny self-government itself. Rather than sentence posterity to the fate of other failed republics, we must implement the Framers’ gift, the law of Article V. Is a favorable outcome guaranteed? Of course not, and neither is an unfavorable outcome. But since love of country is natural, and no people ever knowingly sold themselves into slavery, reason informs us of either a beneficial outcome or no recommended changes at all from an Article V COS.
Article V ping!
Here’s hoping that this moves forward in 2023!
Let’s Roll!
Problem is, some red states are really pink states, and cannot be trusted.
So, we get a bunch of blue state liberals to sit down with a bunch of red state conservatives and they will agree on what’s wrong with the country and propose ammendments to fix those wrongs?
Do you really think that will work?
Sheesh. Read my short post.
Jacquerie wrote: “Sheesh. Read my short post.”
Your short post does not address the questions of how we get a bunch of blue state liberals to sit down with a bunch of red state conservatives and they will agree on what’s wrong with the country and propose ammendments to fix those wrongs?
Yes, I did. Last para.
So, you stand athwart of our Declaration of Independence that declares the Sovereign People’s right and duty to alter government that has become destructive of its ends.
Do believe our rulers in the Deep State, have the consent of the governed?
What is your solution to reverse our head-long dive into tyranny?
Problem is, some red states are really pink states, and cannot be trusted.
...and if that is true, then you must also believe the media is even less worthy of your trust. The media salivates at the opportunity to perform their “work” should a Constitutional convention reach the requisite number of States wanting a call.
Do you really think that will work?
The proof of that would be in the archives of The Assembly of State Legislatures. A group not unlike COS, with a bit more realistic view. Their view was exactly as you stated getting the two sides together to hash out the problems.
As you might imagine there were precious few blue State liberals involved to begin with and they ended up torpedoing the Assembly in the Utah State Capitol in their last meeting. The liberals spelled democrats, pulled out of the meeting leaving the organization without a quorum. The organization is defunct, dead, and good riddance. It did bring out of the background a few of the organizations willing to have a convention for the sole purpose of beating up on the Constitution.
As far as the media goes; I thought OAN was trustworthy, until they got yanked off of DirecTV and I don't see much of them other than what gets posted on here. Beyond them I can't think of any, can you? Lots of independent internet sites I like & trust.
You mean the one that contains this little tid-bit? “reason informs us of either a beneficial outcome or no recommended changes at all from an Article V COS”.
That is the typical “absolutely nothing can possible go wrong” says COS. Denying that our wonderful and trustworthy media is not waiting in the wings for the opportunity to get to the root of the problem might be ignoring reality. For the media it is the Constitution itself that is the problem and the circus will begin right after the call.
For clear headed thinkers, it should be obvious the Constitution is NOT the problem, so suggesting amendments as if it is, would be considered by many to be ignorant. Anyone with half a brain knows that all three branches of the Government refuse as a majority to adhere to the Constitution.
That is the problem!!! Amending the Constitution will not make the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court or the fourth branch of Government, unelected bureaucrats, conform to the Constitution.
In my opinion it is up to Governors and State Legislatures themselves to push back against the tyrannical Feds. That will be painful as they hold the purse strings as blackmail. States need to stop allowing their citizens to send cash money to Washington DC. before State government is funded.
Are you trying to say that Md. Gov. Hogan, Ar. Gov. Hutchinson, Ma. Charlie Baker, former Az. Gov. Ducey, Ga. Gov. Kemp, Tx. Gov. Abbott, Oh. Gov. DeWine are all conservative governors? I believe each & everyone of them hates the conservatives that got them into office.
Nope, didn’t mention one of them. I will mention the TX and FL Governors not by name, as those States need to be the first two on the list of pushbacks. Number three should be SD but you can add that Guv to your list of so called Conservatives who in reality hate the conservatives that voted for them.
As for the media, excuse me for leaving out the “main stream” words describing the media with the exact same feeling for Conservative that your Governors list has. As I see it, only States themselves, have the law and Constitution behind them should they reach the point where they might see the necessity of pushing back.
You think our Framers left behind a hand grenade in Article V to blow up their masterpiece?
Short?
On the other hand that could have been the intent on purpose, not to spin out of control, but to set hard & fast ground rules that are agreed upon by all. Which then raises the problem of getting such and agreement.
My statement was just one of caution as to the pitfalls associated with a Constitutional Convention. For there are many amongst the conservatives, who aren't conservative at all. More or less just a discussion starter. You are the only taker I had. 🙂
As for me naming all of the pink governors, as I will call them, in no way it meant to be a comprehensive list. It was just the list that I could think of off the top of my head, ans I assumed that I had mostly likely missed some who have escaped my notice. 🙂
acquerie wrote: “Yes, I did. Last para.”
No, you did not. Now explain how you’re going to get the blue states to agree with the red states on the problems and the solutions.
Take for example, gun control. How are you going to get the red and blue states to agree on gun control? Or, how are you going to get the red and blue states to agree on balancing the budget?
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.