Posted on 03/22/2010 6:49:38 PM PDT by Irisshlass
38 States have legislation drawn up, a couple States have already passed it to block the forced healthcare upon their states. It takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional Ammendment. And it seems that this is the key to stop these socialist communists from taking over our country once and for all.
You’re just saying, you’re not saying how.
When someone says IT TAKES 38 STATES TO RATIFY AN AMENDMENT, that’s not an “opinion”. That’s a Constitutional fact.
So when you hear people give the “opinion” that it will be a free-for-all, did you bother to ask how 38 states are going to conduct a “free-for-all”? Or are you just a lemming follower?
Sounds like you should revisit the issue.
I would infinitely trust state delegates to a Constitutional Convention than I would trust Congress, especially this Congress.
And once again here is the fact, the delegates at a Constitutional Convention PROPOSE AMENDMENTS, they DO NOT PASS AMENDMENTS.
For an amendment to pass it must be ratified by 3/4s of the states or their conventions, that is 38 states or 38 state conventions!
38 States! Is that an “opinion”?
Have you posted your analysis that I can read somewhere?
An amendment is not a prohabition to those that already ignore the plain text. If we can’t manage a majority to stop the violation of the revered document, how would we manage to stop running over anything?
Lwe’s figure out how to get our countrymen to elect representatives with our position. It is a representative government elected by democratic processes to opeerate our reepublic within Constitutional limits.
We can explain it if we try.
I think you would be opening Pandora's box.
The following from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, giving his opinion about a Constitutional Convention.
I think I'll take his opinion... thank you! LOL ...
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
June 22, 1983
Chambers of
Chief Justice Burger
Retired
Dear Phyllis:
I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
Cordially,
(Signature)
Warren Burger
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly
68 Fairmont
Alton, IL 62002
Let me give the legal answer, and I'll yield to Hostage on the political answer.
If two-thirds of the states request a Convention for Proposing Amendments to "discuss the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments," that is the legal scope of the convention, both by the principle of agency and by the 1992 law. A convention could write an amendment to execute a total repeal, a partial repeal -- or it could come to no agreement and adjourn without writing any amendment at all. That's it. If the convention were to attempt to go out of the bounds of the language within the state petitions, it would be illegal and unconstitutional. This is why the 1992 law requires the Supreme Court to be in session during a convention -- to take questions and cases directly without any delay to the process.
Is that an “opinion”?
You'll excuse me if I take Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion (of the Supreme Court of the United States) and not yours... LOL ...
See Post #106
By the way, Sandra Day O'Connor referred to Burger as "the dummy" behind his back. Things have changed since that letter.
Let me give the legal answer, and I'll yield to Hostage on the political answer.
Chief Justice Warren Burger of the United States Supreme Court disagrees with both of you... on the matter.
I think I'll take his opinion as more valued than yours... if you don't mind... :-)
See Post #106
Your protestations to the contrary don’t carry much weight with me, when I hear statements like that from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court... sorry...
My analysis was done PDQ. I googled the Bush over Kerry states. Then I looked at the remainder, and looked at REALCLEARPOLITICS to find their “leaning left/leaning right” to pick out the “Kerry’s” that are considering conservatives for GOV or Senate. I pulled out the impossibles... and pretty much winged it.
I’ll take Chief Justice Warren Burger’s letter as the determining factor for me... I don’t need anything else to confirm what I already knew in the first place. Having Chief Justice Warren Burger weigh in on it simply confirms what I already knew.
Enslaved by Democracy
Rights never enslave. There is no right to food because that would enslave a farmer. My right to free speech imposes no obligation on anyone, not even to listen. Rights are inalienable. Our primary rights include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Additional rights never conflict with these primary rights.
Legal contracts often require consenting parties to take certain actions. In conversation these requirements may be called “rights” but this is not in the political or governmental sense – such as those enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill Of Rights. My right to bears arms requires no one to those arms for me. Note how Constitutional Rights protect citizens from an abusive government.
A Right to health care would enslave physicians, tax payers, or both. Not all citizens pay taxes, and taxing selected groups is unjust. In 2004, forty percent of US households owed no net federal income taxes(1). In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns earned almost 23 percent of adjusted gross income and paid more than 40 percent of all federal individual income taxes, and the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent (2). While this clearly appeals to many people, does the clause “equal protection under the law” come to mind?
As James Bovard said in 1994: “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”(3) The Constitution was created to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of the majority. For those who are unclear or who feel pulled by the arguments of politicians and professors, please refer to the Federalist papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in 1787 and 1788 explaining and advocating for the ratification of the US Constitution. Our educational system has de-emphasized covering material such as this from the tenth paper:
“The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.(4)”
Of course a majority would like to establish contracts between our government and our residents to have the tax payers provide food, heat, education, advanced education, employment, health care, and, given human nature, the list will never end. But such obligations require unwilling labor from a minority. These are not Rights as understood by the Founders. Quite the contrary, we are talking about a form of slavery: slavery by democracy.
When our government requires only certain people provide for obligation not specified in our Constitution, it violates those people’s Rights to their Pursuit of Happiness, and we have abandoned the vision that created our country which was founded on a love for justice. How can a base desire to “share the wealth” and take, without consent, from a minority – how can this co-exist with justice? The judicial activism and its theories of an evolving constitution may be popular, but when enacted without proper Constitutional Amendments, this is also illegal and profoundly un-American. This is theft by democracy.
People may have voted for most of this. Our courts and legislatures may have ignored their sworn oaths to protect the Constitution, but it never the less remains theft, and, at a higher level, it remains illegal and a violation of citizens’ Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
And so, as some suggest that health care is a right: I reject the premise behind that narrative. This nation was founded on a different and opposing set of values that have led us to a great prosperity and moral clarity that allowed us to lead the way in defeating Hitler and Fascism and the Soviet Union and many other evils, great and small. The Primary Rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence were never about forcing one person to pay the way of another. The Bill of Rights did not require progressive taxes, or any taxes whatsoever.
Forcing citizens to pay for social programs or for foreign nation building was never part of the US agenda as spelled out in our Constitution. Our Founders established limits on the Federal Government, not obligations to provide for much more that secure borders and domestic tranquility.
I reject the notion that the USA owes anything to the United Nations. I reject the Welfare State. Honor requires us to maintain Social Security until we can replace it with something better, but it’s current state underscores the folly, the absolute folly of entrusting our government with enacting a social agenda. The founders knew the government would be a terrible vehicle for transforming society. Those who flaunt the Founder’s example fail to understand how corrupt and foolish politicians have been in all societies and governments throughout history.
Ironically, the most trustworthy and capable governmental leaders ever known, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al went to great lengths to limit the power of the government they were creating. Even as they created something more noble and limited than the kingdoms of Europe and Asia, they knew and feared their own creation. They knew with certitude that power corrupts.
Over the many decades the US has progressively thrown off those wise limits, as new generations of politicians sought ever more power. Always in the name of progress, these politicians either believed themselves to be more wise and capable than our Founders, perhaps they just had different goals, or perhaps they were simply blinded by a lust for power.
I reject the modern notion that any Federal Government is a trustworthy and competent guardian who can oversee my life. The Founders feared a government that could entangle us in foreign wars, create fragile economic systems prone to collapse, take our rights away, and even force us to purchase things we do not want. Today our government does all of these things!
It is time to create new laws and amendments that re-impose limits on our government and empowers the individual – not the other way around.
In the latter half of the 1700’s King George of England had the legal right to tax the colonies. The Empire had just spent enormous sums to protect the colonists in wars, and the crown and parliament had, by law and precedent, a clear right to impose whatever taxes they desired.
Many colonists, however, recognized a higher authority and began to demand representation in that government. They had minimal support in law to support this demand, nor to resist paying taxes, nor to rebel against their government. So, as they began, they called out to mankind, both living and to those not yet born, in a Declaration that all men possess unalienable rights which, regardless of the current man-made laws, they claimed these rights transcended the laws of the Empire and empowered them to illegally sever political ties with their King and parliament.
Have the words and concepts from this Declaration of Independence somehow expired?
Today their descendant countrymen have a sacred Constitution, a government to protect it, and even a Supreme Court to protect it against the other two branches of government. Over time, sadly, assorted leaders have weakened these protections and usurped powers reserved for individuals and the States. Even though all three branches were complicit as they broke their oaths, we still have a problem. Taking prohibited powers while technically following the proscribed checks and balances may skirt the borders of legality, but when such actions also interfere with our primary rights of Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then the questions of legality are less relevant just as they were in 1776.
When our government forgets its responsibilities and not only fails to protect our rights but even takes a lead role in persecuting a minority by confiscating from them without permission and thereby interfering with their pursuit of happiness, then We the People are obligated to take action. Following Thomas Jefferson’s example, I celebrate a higher source for my inalienable rights.
Even though my government has followed due process in respect to the checks and balances of the three branches as it commandeered powers denied to it by the Constitution, it has done so without making the requisite changes to the Constitution, and thus all three branches have broken their collectively sworn oaths.
I hereby declare my government has transgressed its authority and has illegally usurped powers denied it by the Constitution of the United States of America.
I petition my government to correct this with all due haste, by either granting itself these powers via the proscribed amendment process, or by returning those powers to the individuals and States from which they were illegally seized.
I petition all three branches of government to review their laws, decisions, and policies and to enumerate the applicable Constitutional origin. For each power taken with inadequate sourcing, I ask Congress take speedy action to redress the situation.
Most urgently, I call out to my countrymen to assist me it bringing this matter to the attention of our fellow citizens. To begin, find and attend a local Tea Party. Visit a like-minded group each month, and bring a friend. Also, commit to reading weekly about our history and our Constitution.
May God Bless America
1 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
2 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
3 http://www.giraffe.com/gr_wolves.html
4 http://federali.st/10
I actually think a constitutional convention would be a good idea. The constitution does not spell out how delegates would be chosen but presumably it would be up to each state which means delegates could be appointed by the legislature or selected by a state convention or even elected. My guess is that most state legislatures are most concerned about both the erosion of the 10th amendment and the incredibly broad latitude the courts have allowed the Feds under the commerce clause and I believe at the state level these concerns cross party lines. If I am correct about that then the states could appoint delegates and send them with specific language in hand.
As the Feds would never limit their own power the only salvation for the rest of us is if the states will assert their own rights and if they don’t this cold be the beginning of the end of the Republic. The congress will not listen to the people. The federal courts will not restrain the executive or the legislature and the states seem powerless to assert their prerogatives.
I see much more truthfulness and consistency among conservatives than liberals. In fact I see the opposite with liberals.
Because conservatives are powerful in red states which comprise many more states in number than liberal states, I am not at all concerned that the Constitution will be damaged or subverted by calling a Convention.
The agency agreement between states and a Convention wold not allow for amendments that have no broad support to be PROPOSED. A Convention can only PROPOSE amendments, NOT PASS them. Even in the impossible event that an outrageous amendment proposal was produced, it would be impossible still to have it ratified by 38 states or their state conventions.
So it really boils down to which philosophy does one subscribe to, conservative or liberal? If one subscribes to conservatism, they will have no problem supporting the calling of a Constitutional Convention. If one subscribes to liberalism, a Constitutional Convention would be a horror because of the shear number of red states.
And given the country is piping mad right now especially at liberals who have outed themselves to reveal what they really are, an alliance of conservatives with Tea Party independents could with reasonable probability turn more than 40 states red in the years ahead.
The 1992 law states that the states must hold special elections for the position of convention delegate. The model is similar to the Electoral College, where each congressional district would elect one delegate, and each state would elect two delegates at large.
What’s your point? That delegates will not be orderly? Will not follow rules? Who cares? Other than expense accounts who cares? All that matters is what amendments they propose.
They are only there to produce PROPOSALS. That’s not an opinion. That’s a constitutional fact.
Do you think delegates are going to be given carte blanche to camp out and make a career out of being a delegate? Who will pay for their time, meals, per diem, lodging and transportation?
Again that is not an opinion, that is a fact based question of reality.
When Warren Burger wrote that letter in 1983, conservatives did not hold the number advantage in states as they have in the past decade. Although Reagan won in 1984 with 49 states, the states themselves were divided between parties with independents and Reagan Democrats swinging the balance to Reagan. There was no impetus for conservatives to push to call a convention. What would they propose? A flag burning prohibition? A school prayer right? Again this is not an opinion, it is a summary of facts of the era.
Socialism within the United States and the progressive caucus were relatively mute compared to today. Again that is fact.
The FairTax as a thoroughly reseached replacement for the tax code was nonexistent in 1983, the role of the 17th amendment and its correlation with state subordination to the federal government was not clearly seen. Once again these are facts.
I would guess Warren Burger was referring to a time when the Constitution was not under attack as it is now. That is an opinion. Granted that now there is a tenth amendment that should be tested. That is also an opinion. But neither of these opinions are relevant to calling for a convention.
But what of the 64,000 page tax code and its strangulation of American industry and its global competitiveness? If in 1983 when Burger wrote his opinion, Reagan was cutting marginal tax rates by more than half. These are facts.
Had Reagan had the FairTax ready for launch, I am sure he would have pushed to repeal the 16th so that we would not ever be subjected to two systems of taxation. This is an opinion.
In sum, you are basing your ‘free-for-all’ fear on an outdated document with handwaving and flippant imprecise remarks. The letter is more an off-the-cuff set of short comments than a full analysis. This is an opinion of an opinion.
Today we have real needs to repeal amendments. This is an opinion. We have a severely weakened global competitive position that would be reversed almost overnight by enacting the FairTax and repealing the 16th. This is a fact (and not a projection but a real lowering of costs by tax elimination on exports). We have states that are bankrupt and are begging for bailouts from the federal government, meanwhile dependent on stimulus funds. This is a fact. The repeal of the 17th would steer states back to economic independence. This is an opinion but a well reasoned one.
We also have an out-of-control Central Bank in the Federal Reserve. This is a fact. We could engineer a new role of a central bank and ensure it endures for generations by amendment. This is a well supported opinion.
In 1983 we had been off the gold standard for a decade and had not yet seen the egregious leverage abuses by the Federal Reserve and their member banks in the credit markets. This is a fact.
In short the facts are that the 16th amd 17th amendments have clearly burdened and interfered with commerce and state economies. The fact is clear that the monetary system of the United States has failed and fallen under abuse. There are no constitutional safeguards in place to regulate the value of money. That’s a fact.
In sum we have an opportunity to implement fair, simple and effective taxation, protections for sound money and empowerment of states, all of which are impeded either by existing flawed amendments or require a new amendment.
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.