Article V Saved the Constitution

Article V Blog ^ | May 7th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Repeal The 17th]

Let’s Roll!

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Article V is a Trojan. If successfully invoked it will put a permanent end to the Noble Experiment.

[nicollo]

Judicial review killed Article V. The courts will never give that power back, even under constitutional amendment. Seriously, I can see the lib justices ruling unconstitutional an amendment limiting their powers.

[Jacquerie]

Article V ping!

[Jacquerie]

Interesting.

You mean the Scotus assumed authority to amend (as it frequently did) the Constitution and thus nullified Article V?

[moovova]

[Jacquerie]

Yeah. It is called self-government. A foreign concept?

[rollo tomasi]

Amending the Constitution via the Article V process supersedes anything regarding Article III or to your point Marbury v. Madison. In fact Article V is the only vehicle to check/overrule opinions by the SCOTUS.

[C210N]

I used to think that Art5 was the way to go. No more, not for quite awhile now. In hindsight, I’d say it would do absolutely nothing.

The way to really go is to lift the Act of 1871 “constitution” overlay that was used to bury the Organic Constitution of 1789. Actually, this is what we are going thru right now, albeit in slow motion realtime. The overlay is bankrupt (it was always a corporation, run as such).

[Jim Noble]

The Noble Experiment is already over.

It’s time to reflect on what a new government would look like.

[BobL]

‘Seriously, I can see the lib justices ruling unconstitutional an amendment limiting their powers.”

Agree, which is why I think Levin his wasting his time. Considering that the courts consider anything the don’t like ‘unconstitutional’ today, why would they bother respecting a new or modified constitution?

[dadfly]

still the last, best hope for peaceful change.

[Mr. K]

what’s your problem?

An Article 5 convention of states is NOT the same as a Federal Constitutional Convention.

Article 5 is run by the states. Equally. And a large majority of states are republican.

Remember: if this would be beneficial to the liberals they would be the ones screaming for it, not trying to warn us how they would get everything they wanted.

That is true for the Federal version, but not the state version. Rush Limbaugh often warned about the federal version and he was right. He only erred in not differentiating between the federal and state versions.

[Jacquerie]

You think an amendment that, for instance, repealed the 17th Amendment is a waste of time?

[rollo tomasi]

If the Constitution was amended and SCOTUS actually took on an argument questioning the Division of Powers than the other two Branches along with the States would rain down hell upon them and impeach every judge or maybe jail them. That is pure fantasy that any SCOTUS would do that. It would be like a President ordering every member of the legislation branch to be executed to get an opinion expressed..

[nicollo]

You mean the Scotus assumed authority to amend (as it frequently did) the Constitution and thus nullified Article V?

That's exactly what I mean.

The much-hated 16th amendment is case in point: at the time, President Taft supported it only because it was a proper amendment as opposed to implementation via judicial maneuvering. In other words, he feared further degradation of the Constitution via judicial review more than an income tax.

While judicial review provides immediate conclusions to politically controversial issues, it also separates the people from their legislative representation and the overall republican governmental process. I'd love to re-write Federalist 10 with a couple paragraphs on the danger to republicanism posed by judicial rule.

Of course, leftists have the same opportunity to change the Constitution to fit their mold (say, an amendment to affirm judicial review), but a more vigorous and representative Constitution would result from amendment limited to Article V and not residing in the courts.

[nicollo]

In fact Article V is the only vehicle to check/overrule opinions by the SCOTUS.

Of course Marbury supersedes the Constitution. If it did not, Plessy, Roe, etc., etc. would never have become the law.

[nicollo]

Btw, I in no way oppose the Article V project. It’s our only hope to salvage the Constitution.

[Jacquerie]

<> I'd love to re-write Federalist 10 with a couple paragraphs on the danger to republicanism posed by judicial rule<>

The 17th Amendment made judicial rule a certainty. A pre-17th Senate of the States kept the federal government within its constitutional envelope.