I dont like the idea of an Article V in this environment. I am confident there will be many good folks along to gently explain to me why Im wrong, and Im willing to listen.My problem with it is that even it was a sound conservative out come it would be adhered to anymore than the constitution we already have.
I do support the idea of states banding together to tell the feds to stuff it.
Until I spoke with my FL state rep early last year, I had a neutral at best opinion of our legislature.
I suspect my legislature is typical of the other 56, minus CA, IL, NY(?). It is a part time gig, in session for three months. Most reps are independent business people and know very well of the heavy DC hand. My rep is a nurseryman, 1,000 acres under cultivation and 150 employees. He doesn't need the added time burden required to be a rep.
I'm saying we shouldn't equate state pubbies and democrats with their pompous, tyrannical cousins in DC.
Article V is the only peaceful means we have. Let's use it.
My problem with it is that even it was a sound conservative out come it would be adhered to anymore than the constitution we already have. What's needed are some more explicit statements:
- Actions contrary to the Constitution are illegitimate.
- Illegitimately breaking into a dwelling is burglary.
- Illegitimately accosting someone therein is robbery.
- Illegitimately killing someone is murder.
- Persons who instruct others to commit burglary, robbery, or murder are conspirators.
- Citizens have a right and duty to protect themselves and society from burglars, robbers, murderers, and their conspirators, by any such means as the criminals make necessary.
Such statements would make things safer for legitimate government personnel and citizens alike. Government agents couldn't safely carry on as they do now, but those who want honest governance shouldn't want them to be able to safely carry on as they do now, and should thus view that as a good thing.