Posted on 03/17/2014 5:16:22 PM PDT by GraceG
Pinging Mark L.
If a State can make pot legal, why can a State make federal policy by say making voting to increase the federal debt illegal? Kind of difficult to come back home to campaign and doge an arrest warrant at same time.
We have been backed into a corner. Patriots have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
The disgusting leftists that rewrite history (Nazis are right-wing, republicans hate blacks, and Article V is a runaway convention), its amazing how much we buy in to this.
I’m really starting to think the so-called Freepers against Article V on here, no matter how much you pound in to their skull 3/4 still required for ratification, are in fact leftists. Why? They’re ignoring the facts. Duh. Its what they do.
[ If a State can make pot legal, why can a State make federal policy by say making voting to increase the federal debt illegal? Kind of difficult to come back home to campaign and doge an arrest warrant at same time. ]
Colorado’s Pot law is a Law that is “Allowed by the King” Obama.....
If Obama wanted to he could enforce all federal pot laws in Colorado....
So all we did by passing the pot law in Colorado is allow Obama to Selectively enforce MORE laws....
Selective Enforcement of Laws is simple Tyranny...
I don’t think I’ll be urging my own representatives to take this tack ... :-) ...
http://stoptheconcon.wordpress.com
Here, here!
[ We have been backed into a corner. Patriots have nothing to lose and everything to gain. ]
The way i see it An Article V “Neutering of the Federal Government by the States” is one of the last few exit ramps that we actually have left before a Balkanization occurs that could tear this country literally apart...
1. Article V reeling in of federal power
2. Nullification of Federal laws by States
3. Peaceful Secession of States
4. Civil War
In that order with “Civil War” obviously being the Cliff.....
[ I’m really starting to think the so-called Freepers against Article V on here, no matter how much you pound in to their skull 3/4 still required for ratification, are in fact leftists. Why? They’re ignoring the facts. Duh. Its what they do. ]
I am beginning to think they cannot take a look at a election maps of the last 14 years and count to 13....
If these amendments are worded to expressly forbid the federal government from interfering with things like marriage, "sodomy rights" (a legal oxymoron), and abortion, then these are repeats of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which Fabian Progressive Socialists have ignored. Why won't they ignore these? However, I would support that language and those amendments.
If, however, these amendments command the federal government to ENFORCE traditional marriage and the sanctity of life in forbidding abortions, that would be a disaster. Increasing the power of the monstrous federal government by handing it power to interfere with the states and individuals in these "social" areas is committing social and political suicide.
[ If, however, these amendments command the federal government to ENFORCE traditional marriage and the sanctity of life in forbidding abortions, that would be a disaster. Increasing the power of the monstrous federal government by handing it power to interfere with the states and individuals in these “social” areas is committing social and political suicide. ]
All progressive amendments tell the people what they can and cannot do...
All constitutional amendments tell the government what is can and cannot do to the citizens...
Prohibition was a failure because it told the citizens NOT to do something...
A prohibition would have worked a LOT better had it been worded as allowing states to ban alcohol, but it would be pointless because states have the power to do so already.
Article V ping.
---
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Yet another sign that government is just too big. Infinite money enables infinite government.
One of the few peaceful avenues left is to call a Convention to Consider Amendments and to redefine the role and powers of the federal government. Mark Levin’s book is just one roadmap for such a convention. Up until now, many people have worried that a Convention would endanger their rights. It is becoming more clear how many rights are endangered by the present trajectory not only of the political side of government, but by the entrenched bureaucracy like the NPS and EPA.
One thing that is certain to me is that a government that can print its own money is a government that doesn’t need to ask for the taxpayer’s permission for a new law or a new takeover of something else, like airboat operations or like health care.
If there are other ways to return the federal government to its proper role, then let us explore them too!
Who is this 'we' you speak of. Neither you nor I will be at that convention. That's the problem with such a convention, the means are in place (or would soon be) to pack the joint with Dem regulars and GOP-E regulars.
Like Carlin said, it's a big party and we aren't invited.
Our best bet is to stand on the constitution as it is. If we can't do that, we won't be able to stand on a revised constitution, even if is revised to our liking.
The “we” you speak of ARE THE STATES!
A convention simply PROPOSES amendments... They will be debated, ratified, defeated, etc....
Then and only then will they be sent to the states for ratification... You’ll have you chance for input in many ways but ultimately you’ll VOTE it up or down in your state...
Term Limits and fiscal responsibility amendments have BROAD support across party lines... Last poll I saw was 60+% in support...
Actually, there's only one thing in all the Constitution that allows the federal government to interfere with an individual: the 13th Amendment which forbids a person to own a slave.
Again, the wording of these proposed amendments are crucial. They must simply forbid the federal government from interefering with these area we call "social" issues (marriage, abortion, etc.). Giving them more legitimate power via an amendment (vs. Roe v. Wade which is simply an unconstitutional SCOTUS decision that should be nullified by the states), especially in these "social" areas would be a disastrous mistake. The government needs to be shrunk not made more powerful.
You may agree, but it was hard to tell from your answer.
Has Phyllis Schlafly stopped bad-mouthing a Convention of the States—an Article V Convention? When Mark Levin’s book came out, Schlafly dusted off one of her 1970s columns against a “Constitutional Convention.” It had nothing to do with a Convention of the States.
The mere process of passing new amendments would be educational. By the end of the process, millions of people would become aware of the issues involved.
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.