Posted on 03/14/2014 5:46:08 AM PDT by bestintxas
e've talked endlessly about using a Constitutional convention to wrest the reins of government from entrenched interests and put them back in the hands of the people. Enough talk: It's time to put the theory into action.
To recap, the Constitution may be amended in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of Congress, or by a convention called by two-thirds (34) of the (50) state legislatures. All amendments to date have arisen through the first mechanism, although conservatives and libertarians increasingly are calling for state lawmakers to pursue the second. If 34 states pass convention measures, Congress must convene a convention to discuss amending the constitution. In the words of James Madison, who was instrumental to the drafting of Article V, "If two thirds of the States make application, Congress cannot refuse to call one." Even the centralizer Alexander Hamilton conceded that the wording of Article V leaves "nothing...to the discretion of Congress."
The publication of Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments seems to have brought this simmering talk to a boil. In his book, Levin suggests several amendments: to establish term limits for members of Congress, to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and provide a legislative override of their opinions, to limit federal taxing and spending, to restrict the federal bureaucracy, to promote free enterprise, to protect private property, to grant the states more direct power to amend the Constitution and check Congress, and to ensure that voting is open to citizens only. A non-profit called Citizens for Self-Government, run by Tea Party leader Mark Meckler, is organizing grassroots support for a convention. Lawmakers in Georgia have even come to taking votes on the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Wise advice. The GOP may control a majority of the state houses at the moment, but that can certainly change. Plus remember most Republicans in office are not conservatives. Those unintended consequences can be nasty you know.
Once the Convention is called, there are no limits on how much change can be done. That being said I am all for a Convention of States because no matter how many amendments they propose, the amendments still have to be ratified by the states.
There is precedent in past COS where a delegation went outside the bounds of the call topic. I don’t have the exact reference handy of the date and topic, but I’m recollecting the gist of things: The other delegations recognized the breech of protocol of the errant delegation, and voted them down.
In this case, a 2014 COS (2015 COS?), the call topic is ‘Reigning-in a run-away federal government’. An errant delegation trying to ram thru a statist-like amendment won’t get far, IMHO. And, even if some kook amendment got thru, as you point out it would still have the major hurdle of getting ratification by 38 states.
“...Congress must convene a convention to discuss amending the constitution.”
Aaaaaaand, who says they will. What if they will not do it?
Endless debt and infinite money enables endless and infinite government. For a variety of reasons we must remove from government the power to create money out of thin air by which it:
1) puts us all in debt serfdom to pay the interest;
2) diminishes the purchasing power of the money we have saved;
3) buys votes with constituency groups that become dependent upon “benefits” that become a form of “in-kind income” that competes against paying jobs at the lower skill levels;
4)is able to finance going to war even when citizens would not vote to pay additional taxes to support it;
5) expands bureaucracies, the things they regulate and the number of armed people they employ to find and arrest people who violate regulations they didn’t even know existed, or even violating foreign laws. Recall that Gibson Guitar was raided for importing wood that lacked the proper label. Excess bureaucracy sent Abbie Schoenwetter to federal prison for shipping lobster in plastic instead of cardboard. Excess bureaucracy defines the drainage ditch in your back yard as a federally protected “navigable waterway” that you are forbidden to “disturb”.
A government that can create its own money does not have to ask taxpayers for permission to spend more to feed its self-serving spending. When states start calling for a Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, the first topic must be to restrain federal spending. A government that must live within its means is a government that must focus on the important things rather than imposing evermore intrusive laws and regulations having the weight of law.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
What could go wrong?
Find these writings elsewhere.
Very true. The Philadelphia Convention acted illegally by moving beyond its mandate to revise the genteel Articles of Confederation:
http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government/dp/1888766131/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394808890&sr=8-1&keywords=hologram+of+liberty
The takeaway from the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation is that the AofC had a mechanism for amendment that the Constitution completely ignored. The Constitution declared its own and separate validation method.
Supporters of the Art V Con-Con (calling it a COS is the misnomer) rely on the fact that the Constitution would require a proofing mechanism that wouldn’t necessarily be followed. After all, there is precedent to NOT follow it in the event of a total rewrite (and a total rewrite is what you’d get).
You won’t get the liberty amendments with a Con-Con; you’ll only get the liberal ones. More to the point, when the Constitution is bastardized by this process (and it will be), what you’ll get, almost immediately, is a civil war.
If you have any doubt, consider this: liberals have tried for decades to erase the import of the 2nd amendment so that they can remove an individual right to bear arms. For liberals, the single biggest opportunity to do what they have not been able to do in the Courts would be a re-write or outright elimination of the 2nd amendment. If you don’t think they wouldn’t resort to outright illegal tactics to make sure that is one result of the Con-Con, then I refer you to Obamacare for what the left is willing to do to the process in order to get what they want.
So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?
“We don’t need a Constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. We need people in positions of authority who adhere to the document we have.”
And since that ain’t happening lo these many years, your fix is exactly ........ what?
“So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?”
Instruct my State delegation to vote no if inserted.
Next Question.
BTW, your moniker needs changing, as we were unsuccessful and it is another 6 years for the next primary. (That it, unless you are advocating that we elect a Dem as Texas Senator in the fall?)
Your state delegation, if chosen today, would be picked by Joe Straus. Do you really think they’d listen to you?
Zactly. So the Libs could pass an amendment that says government provided healthcare is a right, but when 17 (or more) states vote "no", it is over.
We don’t need a Constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. We need people in positions of authority who adhere to the document we have.
We need several more clear and concise amendments that term limit polticians and federal judges and to double down on the chains we placed upon politicians to prevent them from screwing with our lives any more than they already have.
The “Liberty amendments” are a re-affirmation of the Original bill of rights, unlike the “progressive amendments” that tell the people what they can and cannot do... The “Liberty Amendments” tell the polticians not to tread on us...
Article V ping.
Roger that. Article V ping!
There are no Washingtons or Madisons or Franklins or Rutledges or Randolphs or Masons or Gerrys around today to send to a constitutional convention. I’m not sure I would like a document created by the Pelosis and Reeds and McConnells and McCains of the world.
If you feel that amendments will be ignored, then no harm can come of them.
Why do you assume Pelosis and Reeds and McConnells and McCains will attend a convention of the states?
I've seen what the circus in Jeff City do. You may be perfectly content to put yourself in the hands of politicians at any level but I have my worries.
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.