Posted on 03/27/2006 5:46:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/27/2006 8:53:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
You forgot the tar and feathers. LOL
When Congress determined in 1992 that the 27th Amendment, written by James Madison as part of the Bill of Rights, was now ratified and part of the Constitution, it also regularized the amendment proposal process. Only ratifications of amendments, or calls for a Constitutional Convention, that are "contemporaneous," meaning within a seven-year window, would count as valid.
The essay assumes that any such Convention would be a general one, at which the Delegates could propose whatever amendments they wanted to. This ignores the fact that the States control such a Convention. If the States call for a Convention limited to a particular subject, then Congress determines if 2/3rds of the States have also called on that subject. If so, Congress calls the Convention dedicated to that subject, and can refuse to submit for ratification anything which goes outside the legitimate subject matter of the Convention.
For decades now, some tin-foil hat folks have been using the lie that any Convention must be a general Convention to raise money from people fool enough to believe that. It is false, and I have now fought that false belief in hearings before committees of 26 state legislatures.
The fact that the same false belief has cropped up in this essay is unfortunate. If the subject is still live after the election, and I have more time, I'll join in this discussion again.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "2nd Report on the Campaign for the NC 11th District"
"After all, entire nations are paralyzed by parties which represent a mere 30-40% plurality of the nation. Is that what we really want? Or do we want for a party to be formed which will eventually replace one of the two existing parties,"
Who is "we"?
I think what Jim Robinson wants is for immigration to be addressed square on, and the border closed to illegal immigration.
Some FReepers want the Kelo decision thrown out and private property protected.
Others want abortion and euthanasia outlawed.
Still others want liberalized gun laws.
There is a strong contingent that wants the abolition of the income tax in favor of other forms of taxation.
I PERSONALLY agree with perhaps a third of that platform.
But neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties agree with more than a sliver of it. Republicans talk a good game, but do nothing substantial. Ever.
So, what I'd most suppose is that "we" want the issues actually ADDRESSED, and the problems FIXED. Now, if that could be done by just sounding the alarm, I think that Mr. Robinson and most others would do it that way.
But it can't be.
If it could be done by just forming a PAC and agitating, that might be a step. But those PACs already exist, and they haven't moved the football at all on any of those treasured issues.
If it can be done by just THREATENING to set up a third party, and going through the gestures - if that would provoke the Republicans to come to their senses - well, then I suspect that most people would do that. But I suspect that the Republicans will unleash the investigatory and regulatory power of government on anyone who seriously threatens their political dominance.
Which means that threatening politics doesn't work. You have to DO it.
Now, I would not get into a game except to win. I'd have a long term goal of replacing one of the parties. But along the way, a new party would pick up strength and become something of a power broker. And that is fine. There is no reason to eschew the use of power along the way to majority. Because, remember, the purpose is to get the policies enacted, and you wouldn't have gone to all of the headaches, bother and expense to actually form a party, run candidates and rule if the existing parties and officeholders had listened to your reasonable requests in the first place.
I think the answer is that once you say you are going to launch, you set up and launch NO MATTER WHAT the other parties say or do. And you strive to win politically, but you never forget that your PURPOSE is to get the policies in place, and if you can do that through power sharing, that's fine. It's not about the power but the policies. Unfortunately, the stubbornness of existing politicians forces you to drive them before you, but that's because they chose to resist you instead of doing the sensible thing.
They're taking our money hand over fist now to support, feed, clothe, house, and provide them medical care . I'd rather bleed like a stuck pig once and get it over with than to be slowly sucked dry, which is what they are doing now.
B)A new level of government intrusion into all businesses, particularly small businesses to check for undocumented workers. This could extend to home searches if there were "probable cause" of undocumented workers working as domestics.
I say, let the games begin. Fine employers who hire illegals out the ying yang. Ya gotta hit them in the wallet to get there attention.
Of course, some right here on FR knowingly hire illegal aliens.
Is your opinion widely shared by friends and those on FR?
They already trespass on private property and when I call the police they respond by saying have they committed any crime, and I explain I would like 50 guys shooed away from the corner and they laugh and proceed to tell me I am crazy - why should they do anything about hard working people just looking for work. An hour later they are out there picking up prostitutes and their johns. I fail to see the difference, but the Phoenix Police Chief certainly has his priorities straight! /sarcasm
This essay probably needs another iteration.
Now none of this secession talk, ST.
:-)
That's my take on it as well.
Aw, c'mon, roll the dice with the Constitution. It could get interesting. There might be fist fights.
To the contrary, the hundreds of state calls passed since then have ALL been restricted to specific subjects, and never have 2/3rds of the states agreed on a single subject. If your assumption were correct, such a general Convention would have occurred back in the 1980s, when there were 40 states on record as calling for a Convention -- but on a wide variety of non-matching subjects.
You're buying a tin-foil, fund-raising argument. The power on this issue belongs to the states. And if they want to use just part of their power, to call for a Convention limited to immigration, for instance, they have every right to do exactly that.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "2nd Report on the Campaign for the NC 11th Distrrict"
You know, when I was typing that, I meant "explicit" or "expressed" right to abortion, but I think my slip ("express") is pretty accurate too.
Thanks!
I was just reading about that. Not sure if this answers your question:
The new constitution could get corporate sponsorship. Ya know, class it up with company logos around the borders.
I appreciate that clarification. I wonder if the 38 states would be wise enough to properly limit a convention.
We'd be proposing a constitutional amendment, not a new constitution.
Ach! 38 states is 3/4ths.
I mean 34 states.
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.