November 04, 2013
Forget Secession or Other PlansPosted on 11/07/2013 8:09:05 AM PST by B4Ranch
Folks everywhere agree that the federal government has grown too large and too powerful. D.C. legislates on issues only the states should control, stealing decision-making power from the state and the people.
But folks do not agree how to solve this problem. One popular remedy is nullification. Using nullification, states refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Though it sounds straightforward, nullification poses legal and practical challenges that make it virtually unusable. In a recent article, Tim Baldwin of the Liberty Defense League explains why a Convention of States is a much more effective mea ns to limiting federal power:
“When States “nullify” a federal law, history shows us that it only leads to federal litigation. A nullifier could as easily call that remedy litigation. We know laws without force are no laws at all but are only resolutions or statements. Yes, statements are necessary to express political will and change public opinion, but these statements have no effect of limiting force. Looking at the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which explain nullification’s platform, nullification was never expressly a remedy of force but only of political expression.”
“Nowhere in the Constitution does state nullification or interposition exist, just as the right of secession is not expressed in the Constitution. Thus, the argument for the existence of such a state right derives from (deductive and inductive) arguments about the implied or inherent powers of the States relative to the federal government.”
“In sharp contrast, these nullifiers claim Article V is the biggest unknown constitutional factor in our system of government, despite its having an article all to itself (not an insignificant fact).”
“The truth is, Article V is more certain than state nullification, and it is a power that should be embraced by any society capable of self-government.”
You can read the full article here.
We think a Convention of States is a better strategy than nullification because it's safer, more legitimate, and more effective. State nullification is one short step away from secession and violent conflict; a Convention of States can propose amendments without the threat of war. Nullification does not appear in the Constitution; a Convention of States is described explicitly in Article V. And states would have to nullify thousands of laws to be effective; a Convention of States can amend the document that directly controls the federal government.
So, if you think the federal government should be limited, the choice is clear: join the Convention of States Project today!
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
With the rampant fraud, intimidation and trojan horses I don’t want anything convened that they can turn on us.
I would like to see each state petition the Fed Government for the return of their education tax dollars. Common Core is meant to create a compliant citizenry , devoid of the ideas of freedom and liberty left us by our Founding Fathers. DO IT NOW!
I recall reading a book, “Foreign Enemies and Traitors,” by Matthew Bracken, which specifically dramatized the extreme danger posed by such an Article V convention. Do not for one moment believe that such a convention would be attended exclusively by like-minded individuals. All of our hopes for restoring the republic would be weighed against all of the Left’s dreams for redistribution and reparations.
“With the rampant fraud, intimidation and trojan horses I don’t want anything convened that they can turn on us.”
Yeah, agree. Just to be sure that I understand Article 5 I went out to my workshop (man cave) got my handy dandy pocket version of the constitution and read Article 5. The danger with holding a constitutional convention is that, as I understand Article 5anyway, is that the convention would be open to numerous amendments. To me, that’s way to risky. I don’t trust either Democrats or Republicans with this sort of power.
As a side note; the last time I can personally recall massive nullification of a law by the people was with the 55 mph speed limit. It got to where virtually no one out here in flyover country was abiding this law. Most folks had CB’s and drove in convoys out on the interstates. In fact, not only did we not obey the 55 limit we tended to drive faster than the previous 70 mph limit. Convoys running 80+mph were common. It was kinda fun and the CB chatter helped pass the time while driving across Texas. But, congress finally got the message and rescinded the dumb law.
You are confusing a convention of states with a constitutional convention. Read here:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/news/constitutional-convention-vs-convention-states-0
Done right, there is almost zero risk of a runaway convention. Washington is gone. There is no hope there. Only the states can save our Republic now.
Article V. ping
Something better and more comprehensive:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/media/prof-rob-natelson-speaks-alec-full-speech
And what do you think is happening now. I keep thinking of how the people of Colorado dumper their two slimeballs back into the bucket with a recall.
Would you prefer a shooting convention?
Opening the door to various conflicting groups proposing constitutional amendments would likely result in mob rule and possibly a civil war. There would, at best, be unintended consequences which we would not appreciate. So it’s a false choice which you seem to present in your comment, to assume that an Article Five convention would preserve the rule of law and the republic, avoiding violence. It really is like taking arsenic to treat a stomach ache, as Bracken noted in his novel.
Everyone likes freedom, that is a starting point. If I had the immediate and optimal solution to the problems now facing these united States then I would lay it out. All I have is the ability to think critically, such as it is.
Watched the video. Agree with all that Meckler said. However, he did not address my concern which I’d how to limit Addendum’s to the constitution. Let’s say that a convention is indeed convened with the intent of ratifying a Balanced Budget. I see nothing in Article 5 that would prohibit other amendments from being proposed; such as placing restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, or speech, or the definition of marriage. There’s all sorts of mischief that could (would) be created by Liberals.
You limit the convention to a “SINGLE TOPIC”. Here’s the rationale: [You should give the site a look. It’s run by pros: Tea Party and Home Schooling]:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-why-convention-safe
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.
It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.
Here are the facts:
1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook/).
2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris at http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp).
American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.
We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.
>>Everyone likes freedom, that is a starting point.<<
No, some people actually like it when they don’t have to think for themselves. Life is easier when you are told when to get up, when to eat, when to stop work, when to turn the lights out. They obey without a fuss, never questioning if they could do better and be happier on their own.
"...nothing in Article 5 that would prohibit other amendments from being proposed; such as placing restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, or speech, or the definition of marriage..."Well, there is the requirement that whatever amendments are proposed, they must still be ratified by three-fourths of the states. I believe there are enough red-states to prevent liberal jack-assery.
Either way, doing nothing won't get us out of this mess. I just hope we don't get bogged down by analysis-paralysis.
I'm praying for smarter minds than mine and better leadership to get us going in one united direction.
Just imagine that! The base would be energized and a tsunami of opposition to the ruling class just might be the result.
What is needed at the national level is another Patrick Henry.
>>I’m praying for smarter minds than mine and better leadership to get us going in one united direction.<<
That’s not likely to happen unless all of us have one similar goal such as stop going to sleep hungry at night. Those who go to bed with full stomachs never have the same concerns as those who don’t. Those whose bank accounts are overflowing have different worries than those who wonder where their next dollar will come from.
How about praying for the wisdom to see what America best needs in these trying times. I think we need honest, ethical leaders whose only goal is to reduce the size of government and help people become self reliant.
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.