Posted on 12/10/2021 9:14:34 AM PST by RandFan
@RepThomasMassie
Show me a single state where Constitutionalists comprise a majority of the state legislature.
At this point in history, an Article V Convention of the States would be a disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
ME.
Why wouldn't the KY legislature select McConnell?
Seems you would have a better chance electing a good Senator than relying on the state's party establishment.
And don't kid yourself, that's what would happen.
State legislatures in theory are closer to the people so you can pressure your state politician and stop him from sending a Mitch McConnell or recall him.
At least that is my theory
It’s almost impossible to primary some of these RINOs because they have the war chest and name recognition. Not many lose
24th. I don't know why people keep focusing on those other amendments. The absolute worst one is the 24th, then the 26th, followed by the 14th, and perhaps then the 17th.
These other amendments have done far worse damage to the nation than the 17th.
What possible amendments can an Article V convention produce that 38 states would ratify?
There should be an Amendment to allow State Legislatures or the voters of a state to recall a Senator who is not doing what the state wants.
If I understand Massie's graphic, particularly "Follow the Existing Constitution," I agree that constitutional penalties, such as sections 2 & 3 of the 14th Amendment, including jail time in compliance with federal and state laws, should be implemented as a remedy for state and federal officials who violate the Constitution, instead of rushing to amend the Constitution.
Also, many people (including Massie?) seem to think that the product of a constitutional convention is a new amendment to the Constitution. The product of a constitutional convention is not a new amendment to the Constitution.
The product of a constitutional convention is a proposed amendment to the Constitution, each state then having the choice to either ratify it or ignore it.
And if enough states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then it doesn't go any further than the history books, the constitutional convention that drafted the proposed amendment arguably a waste of time, ultimately depending on what later generations want.
On the other hand...
Patriots are now being oppressed under the boots of unconstitutionally big, crisis-manufacturing federal and state governments imo.
That's why I've been posting that we need a constitutional convention, but only to amend the words "The 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution are hereby repealed" to it (see 21st Amendment), arguably no discussion needed in a constitutional convention. (Amend the Constitution and don't forget jail time for the crooks.)
In the meanwhile, patriots need to wake up their respective state lawmakers to the following situation imo. Probably most of the federal funding that state lawmakers regularly beg from Congress is arguably revenues that belongs to their state anyway, revenues that the post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR federal government has stolen from their state, and other states too, by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Again, yes to a constitutional convention, but strictly to repeal 16&17A to make things less complicated.
Insights welcome.
The establishment is afraid that there would be a term limits amendment for the House and a repeal of the 17th Amendment and eliminating the ability of Congress to create agencies and giving them regulation power with the weight of law.
The general public has no concept of what the state appointment of Senators was all about. Try explaining it to a college grad these days. Their eyes gloss over.
Late much?
There is no vestige of the original Republic remaining... It began disintegrating with TR and, for over 100 years, has eroded into oblivion...
We are now fighting just to resurrect a stupid Democracy...
It will require watering the tree to even begin to re-establish the former Republic...
The primary reason the 17th was adopted was the rise of urban populations and Democratic-controlled political centers that challenged rural/non-urban Republican domination of legislatures, and who then used progressive “reforms” (direct democracy, supposed anti-corruption, etc.) to administer the amendment.
DeBlasio is nothing new.
Idiot
Rep. Massie is one of the best, one of my favorites, and he does have a point. But how does he suggest that we force the politicians back towards constitutional government other than by an Article V convention?
Do as the Deep State tells you and just keep voting.
We’ll be pining for the halcyon days of Mitch when the 17th is repealed.
They’re not following the Constitution as it is. Article V won’t change that, and if anything, would likely be infinitely worse once the moonbats are done.
You just assume the lefties would control it. There is no basis for that assumption.
How do you propose that we bind our public officials to the Constitution?
Yes, there are potential dangers, but what alternative do we have?
The basis is that they lie, cheat, steal, gaslight and everything else under the sun to get into power. That includes the Demonrats and also many Republicans who do not have the country’s best interests in mind. We need to stick to enforcing the Constitution as is, which is NOT being done at the moment.
Assuming Conservatives managed to get a majority for this Article V and push through what they want, the left will no more choose to abide by that than they do now with the present Constitution.
So what do you suggest we do to bind our political leaders to the Constitution?
Do something radical. Enforce the Constitution. If elected officials refuse, indict, convict and imprison them. Same goes for judges, especially so.
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.