Posted on 03/30/2013 10:54:33 AM PDT by Bob Ireland
Loren J. Ems, author of "Sword of Liberty" has organized an Article V Constitutional conference at the University of Central Florida. The event, to be held the weekend of April 26-27, has enlisted a number of 'experts' to participate.
Such an 'Article V' convention can be held by various states, bypassing Washington altogether. This current effort would be a beginning.
Citizens are encouraged to participate, and can enroll at the conference web site. Any FReeper including those from Florida are welcome to participate in the weekend meetings.
Attendance is FREE
So just how full of full of raw naivete and naked ignorance is it to believe YOU can control the agenda once such a convention is called?
::sigh:: and you want to insult me...... wow
bttt
Will try to make it, if possible.
Quentin plans to attend if possible. If you wish to coordinate with him e-mail moi... He claims some pull at UCF; do I want to know what kind? hee hee
Will do, if I see I can make it!
Bump
“Go for it! Restore the tenth amendment!”
I’m confused. How would that work? It, or rather the idea behind it—given that it’s really more of an exposition on the mechanics of the federal system than a law itself—is already in force. Why would Washingtonians pay any more attention to a “restored” tenth amendment than the good, old, original tenth amendment? Are you going to tack on a “no, seriously, guys” to the end of it?
It’s up to the states to put teeth in it. Perhaps this would be a place to start if we could get enough states on board.
“Amendment convention”/”constitutional convention,” what’s the difference? You do know, don’t you, that the convention which gave us the Constitution we all pretend still has the force of law was merely supposed to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Not only didn’t it do that, it invented a whole new system of gubmint. If that wasn’t enough, it provided an illegal ratification process. In other words it was a coup, a coup which, surprise, aggrandized central authorities.
I imagine that’s the sort of thing any “amendment convention” would get up to these days, as well.
King George didn’t treat us as badly as we treated ourselves almost immediately after, maybe firing, the revolution. As you know, the tyranny has grown more onerous by a factor of, I can only imagine, a billion or so since.
The tea party was not about taxes. It was more like industrial sabotage. A crown chartered company “dumped” a surplus of tea on our market, thereby driving down the domestic price and hurting the bottom line of smugglers like Hancock.
If that happens, and it’ll never happen, what do you imagine Washingtonians will do? Say it’s been fun, boys, pack up whatever swag is lying around, and retire to their farms like Cincinnatus? They fought our bloodiest war to keep states under their thumb. Imagine what they’d do faced with the prospect of their own elimination, as they only pretended the Civil War was about, for instance in the Gettysburg address (government blah, blah, blah the people shall not perish from the earth? Wha?)
Why wouldn’t the feds ignore new teeth, just like they ignore the tenth amendment as is? Washington will never be cowed by legalistic teeth when it has the Civil War Card in its back pocket.
The states have the ability to not be ignored if they wish.
“The states have the ability to not be ignored if they wish”
They have the ability to be carpet bombed, invaded, reconstructed, and put in receivership for 150+ years, too. Oh, and the privilege of being denegrated by remaining bootlicker stated, too.
FR stands for Liberty. Thanks!
At first the Confederation Congress thought that the Philadelphia Convention would be no more successful than the Annapolis convention had been a year earlier. (It had adjourned without ever possessing a quorum.) But when Washington indicated he would be willing to be part of the Virginia delegation, the political calculus changed. The Confederation Congress realized this stagecoach was going to leave the way station without them, so they passed a resolution stating that the Convention must restrict itself to amending the Articles of Confederation and not go beyond that. However, the Confederation Congress had no authority to make such a resolution. Why? Because the Convention was called by the authority of the states, not Congress, and Congress by that resolution was interfering with the sovereignty of the states. Thus the Convention, free to act by the Principle of State Sovereignty and the Principle of Agency, was within its rights to act within the strictures set by the states, which it did. Madison made this point in the Federalist Papers.
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had the power to decide whether to pass the fruits of a convention on to the states for ratification or not. (George Mason made sure that this provision was left out of the Constitution.) Congress could have thanked Washington for his work, stated that the Convention had gone too far and refused to pass the Constitution on to the states for ratification. But the situation was grim, with an interstate trade war, Spain, France and England hovering overhead like vultures, Shays' Rebellion only recently put down, and no coin of the realm. Congress swallowed its pride and let the Constitution go forward to the states for ratification. It didn't have to, but it did.
Article V states clearly that an Amendments Convention can only propose amendments "as part of this Constitution". There is an implied ban on a convention issuing a new constitution unless the words of Article V are amended first. By the way, when it comes to proposing amendments to the states for ratification, Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same right of proposal, no more and no less. Congress cannot propose a new constitution, and neither can the states through an Amendments Convention. The purpose of an Amendments Convention is to bypass an intransigent Congress and to permit the states to take control of the proposal process themselves.
How well do you think Schumer will do in a general’s uniform, leading a bunch of 70 IQ liberals who hold their glocks sideways?
I have said this exact phrase a number of times to my son the past few years.
Despite the whiskey tax / rebellion that got George Washington back on his horse momentarily, I don't think our history is generally one of tyranny; IMHO that horror is attributed solely to the Marxist [mostly] Democrap Party who have dedicated the past 50+ years to overthrowing the Constitution bit by bit - until today there is very little left of that wondrous historic document.
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.