The States Can Do It. They can restore the Constitution

The States still have the power and the means to bring the Federal Government into compliance with the intent of the Founders, but to do so they must be willing to kill the Sacred Cow of American politics - democracy.

Examination of Farrand's Records, (The minutes and journal of the 1787 convention) clearly reveals the Founders' intent. For instance:

Gerry, "The evils we experience (in the confederation) flow from an excess of democracy."

Madison describing Randolph: "the General Object (of the Convention) was to find a cure for the evils under which the U.S. laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

Writing in Humanitas, Vol IX, No 2, C. H. Hoebeke, correctly describes the attitude and objective of the delegates as, "Having in the short span of eleven years experienced the violent swing of the political pendulum from abusive monarchy to abusive majoritarianism, and in the process discovered that life, liberty, and property were no more secure under the latter than they had been under the former, the Constitution's framers saw the will of the people as a force to be restrained and refined, not unleashed and encouraged."

Their only concession to election by the people is the House of Representatives.

Election of the President would be by a slate of electors appointed by the State Legislatures, two steps removed from popular election.

The Senate was to be the lynchpin of our protection. The Senators, appointed by the State Legislatures would be a body of deliberative Statesmen, our guardians, immune to the whims of popular causes. In Farrand's Records, we find:

Madison: "It (the Senate) would keep up the balance and restrain, if possible, the fury of Democracy."

Randolph: "The object of this 2nd branch (Senate) is to control the democratic branch of the National Legislature."

In Federalist No. 63, (author unknown) believed to be Hamilton or Madison, in reference to the Senate, wrote, ". . . .there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?"

As perfect as the Constitution was, there was a weak link, the poison pill of democracy lurked in the future. All of the State Legislatures were and still are products of democracy, popular election. This would prove to be our undoing. When the Populists mounted a campaign to undo what the Founding Fathers had done, they exploited this point of vulnerability.

Starting in the 1820s, massive public campaigns convinced the State Legislators, dependent on the people for reelection, to delegate their power to appoint the Presidential electors to popular election by the people. This prompted Alexis de Tocqueville to remark that the "American republics will be obliged more frequently to introduce the plan of election by an elected body into their system of representation, or run the risk of perishing miserably on the shoals of democracy."

Later in the 19th Century, the Populists manipulated the appointment process of Senators into a state of near chaos. In 1913 a new batch of legislators dependent on the people for reelection bowed once again to popular demand and turned the selection of Senators over to popular election when they ratified the 17th Amendment.

It didn't happen instantly, but over the span of a few years the allegiance of the Senators shifted to the Washington power structure and there is where it resides to this day.

The transition was complete. The nation became and still is a democracy, exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent. What we have, the outward cause of the Tea Parties and Sovereignty Resolutions, is exactly what they wanted to thwart and should be proof enough of their wisdom,

The State Legislatures must do three things to turn this around and they are the only ones who can do it.

1. Take back the power to appoint the Presidential electors. A majority vote in the legislature is all it will take to cancel the popular presidential elections, primary and general. It should be done now but with a delayed effective date - no earlier than February 1, 2013 to show it is not directed at the incumbent.

2. The Legislatures must come together as a cohesive unit to draft the amendment necessary to repeal the 17th Amendment. As a united group they send it to Congress with a request to enact and return it to the States for ratification. If Congress fails to or refuses to act, go to court, contending that submittal of an identical amendment by more than three fourths of the States constitutes a de facto ratification. Therefore, the court should order the Archives to accept and process it as such. The Populist lawyers will say this is not possible, because the States will not have standing to support the action. This, however, will not be a problem. Standing is virtually assured.

3. Immediately do whatever is necessary within each State to restructure the Legislature to be in line with the original configuration of Congress. House of Representatives? Popular election. The Senates? Each County will have one Senator who is appointed by the County Commission. The purpose of this is three fold.

First: It demonstrates their willingness to do for themselves what they demand of Congress.

Second: It affords their citizens a higher degree of protection from them. Congress does not have an exclusive on legislative tyranny.

This will do it if the State Legislatures have the backbone and determination to see it through. Otherwise, the rocky "shoals of democracy" await us.

A claim from two-thirds of the states that a request for a particular amendment is the same of a normal proposal of an amendment, is defeated by the express language of the Fifth Amendment.

As best I can tell, this proposal follows the process laid out in Article 5. Why is it not a normal process, and how does the Fifth Amendment defeat it?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

_____________________________________

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.

CC: Jim Robinson & Kristinn — Apologies for the ping, I just don’t know who would be best to forward some of these ideas to here at FR, and if you DO happen to think them to be good ideas feel free to forward them or something! :)

*****

The argument that the Tea Party Movement is all about Taxes, Healthcare, and Social Security is Obama, his minions, and the “agenda-ized” media’s attempt at defining the issues (common political strategy to minimize opponents strength and steer the debate).

We need to somehow get out in front of that attempt, and QUICKLY, and IMHO the best way to do that would be to start supporting all various laws and such that use the Constitution as the backbone of its arguments. {Like the 10th Amendment Efforts, Montana’s New Gun “Repeal/Reinstatement”-like law, Texas’ and Oklahoma’s efforts as well as other state efforts to assert their rights, and draw that line in the stand.

Because truly that IS the backbone of our anger, frustration, and complaints with our governments (yes, states included!) — they have ignored the Chains of the Constitution, and seek more power on a daily basis using the “claimed” power of the Federal Government as the basis of their actions. These actions are NOT sanctioned by our Constitution.

The people in charge of the Federal Government (Obama and his peeps) are completely against the concept of states’ rights — something our forefathers found CRITICAL to address in the framing of this Republic. They will use every excuse to limit the power of the people and the States, however, within the states is where we can still assert our rights as a group of people, and several states as an even stronger base of support.

I don’t know how to go about getting out in “front” of the issue definers given our present state of dealing with a totally biased media, but somehow it must be done, ASAP. The planned tea parties on July 4th may definitely underscore the issue, but there needs to be some type of media presence between now and then. We need to somehow be recognized in nearly EVERY news cycle at least SOMEWHERE within the country...

Whether this means small groups organizing locally on their own in the meantime perhaps underscoring that “we’re still here”, and better define the “movement” so to speak. Or maybe, letters to the editor and such, will help to keep this subject in the “citizens’ conscience” so to speak... Some more conservative or more ethical papers may even award a page on the issue or more coverage if they receive a lot of letters on a given issue.

Another idea would be to write to your state representatives, and see which ones are on “our side” regarding these issues. Support them and help them get the support they need to feel strong enough to introduce these types of laws in YOUR states. Start talking about issues like the agriculture issue I mentioned, or gun rights... You can still mention the other three issues, but these things, IMHO, should be spoken of in a Constitutional framework so as to minimize the left’s ability to counter-attack our positions.

Individuals need to study the Constitution, and also learn how the Federal Government has used certain clauses to claim power it really doesn’t have in many areas. If we establish our States’ Rights, it will severely limit the Federal Government’s power to go ahead with its planned Fascist/Authoritarian plans. And it will also put us in a great position to field candidates (even INDEPENDENT Conservatives — like the farmers, and “regular folk” who our forefathers believed in — who could have name recognition in their communities) to replace our leaders in DC come 2010...

Taking back the House of Representatives would be something that would fit well with this plan as Representatives are from smaller geographic areas, and it would be easier to support a contender in that way...

If there is one thing I’m pretty sure ALL Tea Party supporters can support and agree completely on, it’s that our Constitution is the HIGHEST law in the land, provides us the basis for knowing we have that leg to stand on, so to speak. It is what guarantees us the RIGHT, and responsibility to throw off the chains of oppression and kick out of office anyone who doesn’t follow our Constitutionally based laws, period.

If we all followed that line of unified voice — it’s short enough, easiest to understand, and easiest to impart in the era of sound-bites as well. That is my heartfelt opinion on how best the TEA party participants can come together to show a united front against tyranny of government. Adherence to the Constitution will address ALL issues they will attempt to throw at us, and as the Highest law in the land, again we will ALWAYS have the “upper-hand” in public discourse so to speak.

When we start speaking as our forefathers spoke to some extent (though modernized, but not complicated), people will know the truth of what they hear. Our educational system isn’t COMPLETELY overrun yet. AND, the Communists/Fascist/Dictators haven’t been “clean” of transgression long enough, and indeed there are still examples today that the majority of the world’s society does remember the oppression and evil.

An entire generation of kids like myself grew up at the end of the USSR, we saw it at its worst, and we saw what happened when people gained freedom. And our numbers are great. And, more and more younger generation members are waking up to what a joke Obama is as well...

I don’t truly believe the Democrats have support among the people as they think. They may be in DC, but they are totally out of touch with the “mood on the street” against DC’s actions, IMHO.

Just my opinion...

You are not reading the language of Article V, which you printed in your response. It is quite clear that there are only two sources of proposed amendments. They are: 1) proposal by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, 2) proposal by vote of a new Constitutional Convention, but that required a call for a Convention by two-thirds pf the states.

That's it. There is no power for states to propose directly a particular amendment. What you are thinking of is the two-rail shot that the states used concerning the 17th Amendment itself. The states said to Congress, "Please pass an amendment to make the Senate elective. But if you refuse to do that, you MUST give us a new Convention to write that amendment."

That tactic worked, when enough states had acted to force a new Convention, the Senate relented and the amendment came out of Congress by the normal route.

But, what this thread is talking about, direct proposal of amendments by the states, does not exist and therefore cannot be used.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Homeland Security's Unsecure Secretary"

Latest article, "Ben Franklin (Congressman Billybob) at Knoxville Tea Party"

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.