Posted on 02/18/2014 1:39:08 PM PST by Jacquerie
The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.
George Mason demanded that this provision be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.
Current conservative solutions to the problems of federal abuse of power fall into one of two general strategies: (1) try to elect more conservatives to federal office; or (2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.
Our plan is to use the Constitution’s own formula—a Convention of States under Article V—to give us real solutions that are as big as the problems.
Here are our answers to the sixteen JBS questions:
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.
The subject is a Michael Farris pdf that should be read, understood and promoted by all freepers to their state delegations.
I think the John Birchers are jealous that everyone is not jumping on board their nullification bandwagon.
I think they see the Article V advocates as competition for their ideals.
The link leads to the general site, not to an individual article. Which article should we read?
There are COS efforts now in most states, from red to blue. Click on the "volunteer" button on the website . Minimally, scroll down to "Non-Leadership Positions" and get in contact with your state COS folks.
There are state-specific COS websites, and state-specific invite-based facebook pages.
It is important to get this ramping up...
An early action item to get involved with is petitioning - getting signatures of voters in your state in favor of COS. As the COS in your state contacts your state Reps/Senators, they will greatly be aided by having these petitions in their tool-bag, with lots of sigs from their districts.
I don’t get this at all. We’re going to propose and enact new amendments to the Constitution that the dimmos already ignore, and the repubs are too cowardly to hold them accountable for?
My point is, the Constitution as it’s currently written is fine, if the American people elected decent legislators and presidents. But with a depraved electorate, I just don’t see how this will help.
But it would be great to make the Supremes elected positions, as well as the appellate and district judges, so they’d be subject to the will of the people again. It would also be great to have a balanced budget and term limits for all elective offices. And maybe make all elective offices impeachable via simple majorities in both houses. But I think we’re too far gone for such common sense to happen. “Common sense” has become profoundly uncommon.
What we need is wholesale repentance and turning back to obedience to God. That’s the ONLY cure for our national ills.
Michael Farris' paper is an embedded pdf at the source link. On the right hand side you'll find the Citizen's Toolkit. At the bottom is the subject pdf, "Answers to JBS Questions."
It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.
(good lord this was a pain to put together, pdf files suck.)
Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V
-
1. What ails America?
Is it our Constitution or our Congressional, Presidential, and bureaucratic non compliance with the Constitution?
-
2. If our Constitution is the problem, what exactly do we need to change in it and why can’t that be done by the method that all 27 amendments have undergone to change the Constitution?
-
3. If the problem isn’t the Constitution, but rather unfaithfulness to the Constitution, how will changing the Constitution remedy the problem?
-
4. Who is in charge of calling the convention according to Article V?
If Congress calls the convention, as Article V says it does, who decides how many delegates each state gets?
Will the number of voting delegates be population based or will each state get one vote or will another method be used?
Are these questions thats tate legislatures are charged with deciding or does Article V say that Congress decides?
-
5. At the convention how many amendments can be proposed?
-
6. Where are the amendments proposed according to Article V?
Are the amendments proposed before the convention of the states or are they drafted and deliberated upon at the convention by the delegates?
Are those who support the convention under the assurance that it won’t be a runaway convention contradicted by their own statements (not to mention Article V) which support the idea that the amendments are proposed, deliberated, and drafted at the convention itself?
-
7. If we aren’t following the Constitution now, would it be logical to assume that once we pass amendments to the Constitution, then the new amendments and the Constitution will be followed?
-
8. Do the proponents of the Article V Convention assume that the progressives, globalists, socialists, and liberal Democrats will sit out this convention?
Or will they vie and struggle for the delegate seats?
What political theories will dominate the Article V Convention?
-
9. Do the proponents of an Article V Convention truly consider the risks associated with the congressional right to decide upon the method of ratification of the proposed amendments?
What if Congress chooses the state ratification conventions as the method of ratification, won’t the legislatures then be cut out of the ratification process altogether?
-
10. If this is just a “convention of states” and not a constitutional convention are you content with the political atmosphere and morality of the current representatives in your state government?
Does it give you comfort to know that those public servants at your state level of government will be able to make changes to the Constitution?
-
11. One proposed “Liberty Amendment” allows 3/5 of the U.S. House and Senate to overturn any Supreme Court ruling.
But Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 grants Congress the power, with only a simple majority of both houses of Congress, to overturn Supreme Court rulings by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Does the proposed “Liberty Amendment” strengthen or weaken this congressional check on the Supreme Court?
-
12. One proposed “Liberty Amendment” requires 30 states to agree in order for the states to overturn federal law.
As written, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution clearly allows any one state to nullify federal law that exceeds its enumerated powers.
Does this “Liberty Amendment strengthen or weaken the position of the states?
-
13. Proponents of the convention say that one great security against a runaway convention is that only thirteen states have to choose not to ratify, thus guaranteeing that bad amendments won’t be ratified.
Can you name those thirteen states you can count on to oppose such bad amendments?
The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were passed with similar safeguards in place.
Why didn’t enough states stand up against those amendments to prevent their
ratification?
-
14. Proponents of a convention say that the Constitution can’t be destroyed because Article V only authorizes amendments to “this” constitution.
By definition, amending the Constitution is changing the Constitution, and in Article V there is no limit to the number of amendments.
So is there any assurance that certain amendments will be off the table?
Doesn’t amending the Constitution create a new Constitution?
-
15. Could the method of ratification for these proposed amendments from the convention be changed?
Didn’t the original Constitutional Convention of 1787 create its own rules for ratification in contradiction to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation?
-
16. Is our federal government out of control? That is to ask, has it escaped the boundaries of the Constitution?
Is Congress operating outside of the powers delegated to it under Article I?
Has the concept of federalism been overthrown to a large degree by an oppressive central government?
Of course, but what is the proper remedy?
Do we have a constitutional problem or a problem following the Constitution?
-
I read the whole thing; it is indeed worthwhile. This is something that all who care about Liberty should read and share with others.
Thanks for collating the questions. I would still be fiddling around with html and messing it up.
bfl8r
George Mason attended the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the Constitution. He predicted that the government would end either in monarchy or a tyrannical aristocracy. It would be difficult to say that he was wrong, even if it took longer than he might have thought to materialize.
Most of their answers make sense to me, but I am not nearly as certain as they are that the votes at the Convention will be one state-one vote. The ABA study on Article V, which has been linked to on many of these threads, predicted that votes at the Convention would be proportional to state population. And even if Congress votes to call a Convention with a one state-one vote rule, that will be challenged in court before the Convention ever meets.
I’ve been soundly convince against an Article V route.
It would be a disaster, and wholly ineffective.
Michael Farris’ paper is an embedded pdf at the source link. On the right hand side you'll find the Citizen's Toolkit. At the bottom is the subject pdf, “Answers to JBS Questions.”
It is a very long twenty-three pages, requiring atypical freeper attention to finish. I assure all it is a worthwhile read.
SCOTUS is not supposed to be subject to the will of the people. We already made that mistake with the 17th Amendment, which made senators subject to the will of the people in a State, rather than the State itself.
Repealing the 17th would do more to address the imbalance of power than anything else, IMO. It is the one amendment that couldn't be cheated on.
I’ll have to print it off and add it to my three-ring binder along with the ALEC and ABA documents.
Maybe so, but it's the one amendment almost guaranteed not to pass. Can you imagine people anywhere in the U.S. voting to eliminate their right to vote?
Ah, but the people don't vote on amending the Constitution.
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.