Posted on 10/27/2013 3:07:35 AM PDT by Jacquerie
In early September, the Convention of States Project began searching the country for citizens who recognized the brokenness of D.C. and were ready to be a part of the solution. Since the release of its Volunteer Leadership Application, the Grassroots Team has reviewed hundreds of names. Each application highlights a common desire to serve the nation and defend its freedoms for future generations.
We are excited to announce that twenty-six states now have active leadership in place.
One recently-appointed leader explained, “I don’t want to take the chance of sitting aside thinking that perhaps someone else will jump in and do it – and then not have it happen. So I am putting myself out there and am offering my time and my talents to help get this going.” Every day, citizens, no longer willing to sit on the sidelines, stand up and take tangible steps to return rightful power back to the states.
State Directors are now active in: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, IA, KS, MD, MA, MN, NJ, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV.
Legislative Liaisons are working in: AZ, DE, IA, NH, NC, TX, and VA.
Coalitions Directors are looking for organizations who will partner with COS in: AL, AK, AZ, CO, GA, IA, KS, MD, MT, NY, OH, SC, and TX.
It’s not too late to join the growing ranks of citizens who are taking their place amongst the great leaders in American history. United we will stand. Undivided we will be successful. Together we will save the future of our homeland.
Join us.
36 states right now do not have obamaumaocare exchanges run by them— only the screwed up federal ones. Match up those with the ones listed here. Similar. States Rights!! Deo Vindice.
Do you have a list of the state coordinators?
I have an argument based on the wisdom of the founding fathers, who realized that written changes to the constitution or the law immediately result in efforts to ignore, avoid or evade them. So the solution must be for independent bodies of people with competing interests, who will continually vie with each other to prevent out of control government.
They set up the constitution to be filled with these balances. The one most people are familiar with is the balance of the three federal branches. But there are many others, including the balance between the federal government, the state governments, and the people.
The House of Representatives was meant to be the sole democratic body in the government. The Senate was to represent the interests of the states. The POTUS was to be selected by a college of electors, and the justices of the Supreme Court were to be nominated by the POTUS and approved by the Senate (and thus indirectly the states.)
The 16th Amendment terribly imbalanced this equation, by making US senators effectively “free agents”, who do not have to be responsive to their states. However, the senators themselves adore this amendment, because it gives them power without responsibility. So they would fight to the death any effort to repeal it.
This imbalance, however, is out of control and causing tremendous harm, so it must be restored in some way.
The way to do this is to create a new body, composed much like the original senate, except strictly tailored to be responsive to the state legislatures, *not* the people, and *not* the federal government.
The place to put this new body is not in congress, or the executive branch, but in the judiciary.
Right now, each year, the federal circuit courts send some 8,000 appeals to the Supreme Court, which can only hear a few dozen cases. It is a tremendous bottleneck in justice.
So the idea is to create a “Second Court of the United States”, superior to the federal circuit courts, but inferior to the Supreme Court. But while it hears cases from the federal courts, *it* is *not* a federal court.
It is composed of 100 appointed state judges, 2 from each state, appointed by a majority vote of their state legislature, which cannot be bound to vote in any way.
It is *not* a constitutional court, though it reviews the decisions about the constitutionality of appealed cases. It is a *jurisdictional* court, that after hearing the constitutional arguments, decides if the case rises to the level of a federal case, or if it should be returned to the states for a decision by their courts. That it is *not* federal business.
This means that this court can short circuit any number of federal judges efforts to enact new laws on their own. That the states can overrule these federal judges, if enough states agree to do so, and say “It is not your business.”
Importantly, cases *can* be appealed to the Supreme Court from the Second Court of the United States, but if a majority of Second Court judges, as representatives of their states, find against it, the Supreme Court can only overturn with exact constitutional text, *not* interpolations, extrapolations, or the decisions of other courts, judicial precedent, aka ‘stare decisis’.
If two thirds of the Second Court of the United States decide something, it is in effect saying that it has the authority of a called constitutional convention. And if three-fourths of the judges find in one way, it is a de facto constitutional change.
The other purpose of the Second Court of the United States would be as having original jurisdiction to all lawsuits between the federal government and the states. As it is now, such lawsuits must tediously go through a half dozen *federal* courts before making it to the Supreme Court. But the Second Court would mean that the *states* hear the case first, and decide who is in the right, that state or the federal government.
The bottom line to all of this is that the Second Court of the United States acts like a continual federal government pruning mechanism. Slowly, deliberately, and methodically trimming the federal government down to size, and forcing them back into their constitutional mold.
Interesting idea...
Something to study...
The only thing I have at this time is why does anyone think anyone in elected office is going to listen, much less alter their approach to the political operations (shinanigans) being perpetrated by both sides (political parties) in D.C. today???
This is going after everyone, not just the democrats...
Now, don’t get me wrong there are a TON of republicans that need to be replaced...And telling them these neat littel details about the Constitution, is all well and good, very few will gove more than lip service to your efforts...
The only thing we really have is to keep everyone engaged and ready to strike in November of 2014...Nothing done until those polls open/close that day will matter...
I’m not throwing rocks at the organization, some of these people (leaders) I have heard of,and know their works...They will have NO allies in D.C. when they really turn up the heat...Not that that really matters...
So what really is their endgame???
What will really be a product of their efforts that November 2014 cannot produce, IF WE KEEP THE CONSERVATIVE VOTING PUBLIC ENGAGED!!!
I do not see that as anywhere near a practical focus, or implied jeopardy to what is sitting in those kush offices right now...They do not feel threatened at all, their longevity is secure, as long as they keep the politically atuned voters in the dark as long as possible...
Just my initial opinion, and it doesn’t mean I will not get involved...I just involve myself in things I know will put pressure on where it needs to be applied...If we have enough people doing that...There is nothing that cannot be accomplished...
Just my opinion...
bump
Ping List me, I’m all about the 17th.
If Congress can’t control the ‘convention of states’, they will try to co-opt the effort in order to corrupt it.
We all know how it should go, this convention of States, but is it really defined enough in the USCON that the States can do it exclusively on their own without the Congress going along with it?
How do we limit the convention to the single issue at hand, the problems caused by the 17th? What’s to stop a stealth candidate trying to overload the convention and mire it down by piling on other controversial ideas?
No, but that sure is a logical question.
I asked the director of communications, Jordan Sillars (jordansillars@selfgovern.com) about that last week and was told he would be putting out that info soon.
Don't hesitate to contact him. He answered my emails promptly.
Thanks for the Ping!
I’ll add you to the ping list.
Please visit the website. Mark’s latest book is also a great resource to answer your questions.
Without attempting to shortchange your idea, wouldn't a senate of the states prevent anti-10th Amendment lawyers from becoming judges in the first place? The outrageous court decisions we've had to live under began with FDR, when his popularity steamrolled the elected senate of the 1930s. State appointed senators could politically flip off presidents without fear.
Concur.
That is very interesting. The repeal of the 17th is one of the keys to protecting our freedom. We would have to be ready for the debate as the dims would say we are against democracy but...we would catch them flat footed and would be able to control the narrative at least for a while. Do you think any of our conservatives would have the guts to broach the subject?
Senator Mike Lee on Levin’s show last week said a return to federalism is our only hope. I don’t put it beyond possibility that a few Tea Party senators on the floor of the senate might call for repeal of the 17th.
The national media could not ignore it. Wouldn’t it be great for the good guys to direct the debate for once?
Thats what concerns me...
Levin certainly understands the risk of conviening a Constitutional Convention could bring to the process...I believe we are seeing the end of Levin’s patience on the nonsense of DC...And thats not necessarily a bad thing...Lots of people are there already...He is in good company, and I say to him, “Welcome to the party”...
So even though my confidence in the elected caste of nincompoops is very low...Leaving an option for the states to load up a convention of this importance, at this time is extremely dangerous...
Like you, I will be monitoring the progress with extreme scrutiny...
The scope of the CC cannot and should not be limited. The check on foolish amendments is the state ratification process after the CC passes and sends the amsnement to the states for ratification. The 17th repeal is only a part of the problem. You could argue that the constitution properly amended would not require repeal of the 17th.
It sure would!
I am glad too that Mark came to the party. IMHO we are forty years too late.
Mark's suggested amendments are structural. They cannot be ignored. Check 'em out.
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.