Posted on 04/21/2014 2:46:24 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Momentum for the Convention of States Project has spread from the peach trees of Georgia to the mountains of Alaska to the beaches of Florida.
The Alaska Senate passed the Convention of States application (HJR 22) on Saturday by a vote of 12-8, and the Florida House passed the Convention of States application (SM 476) today by a voice vote.
Congratulations to our teams in Alaska and Florida! They’ve done a fantastic job and deserve all the credit for this important victory. Thanks to everyone who made a call or wrote an email–your voice was heard, and we’re two steps closer to holding the first ever Article V Convention of States.
In both states, the House and the Senate passed identical versions of the bill, so no reconciliation will be necessary.
Once we receive final confirmation from the state legislature, Alaska and Florida will join Georgia in their call for a Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
Can’t happen.
Stop posting disinformation.
The Federal Government doesn’t follow the Constitution as written, and you think they’ll follow amendments to it?
They’ll do as they darn well please. If they like the amendment they’ll follow it, and if they don’t they’ll ignore it.
The real question is when, how, and who is going to make them follow the constitution. Get that process done, and you won’t need any amendments.
Yes. The Constitution does not authorize a "Constitutional Convention". This is a Convention of the States to Propose Amendments as specified in Article V of the Constitution. In effect, it takes the place of Congress for this purpose. Amendments then have to be ratified as normal (by 3/4's of the states).
The convention cannot "pass" amendments. It can only submit them to the states.
So what's the harm?
"They’ll do as they darn well please."
They're doing that now. So again, what's the harm?
"Get that process done, and you won’t need any amendments."
We've been trying to do that for at least the last 50 years and we have arrived where we have arrived. Do you really expect Washington to reform Washington? Do you have a plan? If so, let's see it.
I agree. The result also will not be nice. Avoiding that, if possible, is worth a risk (which I believe is minimal anyway).
You apparently missed the point I was making. Apparently no one knows or has a plan to enforce the current law, so how do you intend on enforcing new laws/amendments?
Well, that's not entirely true. So far, the term limit for the president has not been ignored, for instance. That's the key: the amendments proposed by Mark Levin are similarly structural and would be much more difficult to ignore.
“no one knows or has a plan to enforce the current law,”,
Well, that’s not entirely true. So far, the term limit for the president has not been ignored, for instance. That’s the key: the amendments proposed by Mark Levin are similarly structural and would be much more difficult to ignore.
*********************************************************
Way to dodge a question, and ignore the main point. So far the enemies of the constitution haven’t tried to have a third term, big deal.
They sure as heck have trampled all over the constitutions and many laws picking and choosing not only which laws they will enforce, but also who they will take action against.
So tell me your plan for enforcement of current law and proposed new amendments.
You will find a double post by me on the linked thread, because I failed to go back enough pages to get back to this thread before posting. Sigh, nevertheless I repost here.
To: Jacquerie
I don’t think it matters that it took a year to get some engaged in the problems and intended consequences of the unconstitutional in principle seventeenth amendment. The fact that it changed the most important part of the Founder’s vision enumerated in the tenth amendment doesn’t seem to get much traction, but any interest in it’s dangers I appreciate.
The part of the amendment that gets my attention is those proposing it failed to take into account the term limits imposed on “REPRESEMTATIVES” by the Founding Fathers of two years, and allowed the six year term for a Senator chosen by State Legislatures to remain as a fixture. Categorically making the seventeenth amendment unconstitutional before it was ever ratified.
9 posted on Friday, April 25, 2014 7:23:51 AM by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Do you believe he will ignore his term limit? Who enforces that?
The alternative is violence. Is it not worth the attempt to avoid that?
The feds violate the laws and Constitution every day, just because they have not yet got around to violating a law doesn't mean they won't when they decide to. And the mere fact that one law is followed while many more are not, is totally irrelevant to the question of how to make the Feds stay within the constitution.
What's to be done about an out of control, overreaching, illegal acting government? Figure that out, and you might be able to enforce any new rules that are needed, or you may find that the new rules aren't even necessary.
Rememeber Al Capone? Do you think passing a bunch of laws would have made him any less violent or willing to obey laws? Well we are dealing with a bunch of people in the Government that are just as entrenched in their illegalities as was he and his ilk.
Still he was taken down, had his day in court, and died in prison. There should be a way to accomplish it without violence, we just haven't figured it out yet.
So when you figure out how to make sure laws are obeyed, let me know, till then it's useless to be adding in yet more laws to be ignored and broken.
If we implement changes like a state repeal amendment, then the states will have to enforce it.
Anything is better than violence because it will achieve nothing but despotism anyway. Likewise, doing nothing - or doing the same old thing - will accomplish nothing. If an Article V convention accomplishes nothing then at least we have lost nothing. At least we tried.
***********************************************************
The state and local governments are already responsible for Interposition to ensure that the Feds don't overstep their authority. Unfortunately, they have ducked this responsibility.
For them to do this, they need no further amendments. This was the action the founders intended to keep their sovereignty. If the states band together, and fulfill their responsibility, then violence may yet be avoided.
A convention for further amendments at this point, does nothing but put off the day for the states to do their duty, and gives the Feds even more time to abuse and consolidate their power.
When the states call for an Article V convention, it is the very act of banding together to fulfill their responsibility. Why do you suppose the framers included this in the Constitution?
Like I said, I don't think we need additional rules, we just need to enforce the constitution. If new amendments were needed, then I would say go ahead with Article V, but we don't.
Passing new laws without a plan for enforcement is a waste of time that could be put to better use enforcing what we have now.
An Article V convention is equivalent to forming a committee of state representatives to study what the 2cnd Amendment means.
We all know what it means, and efforts should be toward states refusing to honor unconstitutional abridgment of the right to bear arms.
So I just don't see an Article V as being necessary. And you still haven't answered my question - What's your plan to make sure that the new laws are followed instead of being ignored or twisted like the current laws are?
Other than electing more RINOs, what would you suggest?
"you still haven't answered my question"
I've answered it several times. Structural changes would be enforced the same way the President's term limit is now.
******************************************************
No you haven't answered the question. You have merely asserted that it would work like term limits.
So when some Hitler type wanna be decides to declare Martial law, postpone elections indefinitely and continue serving past the 2 term limit, and the congress acquiesces, and the Supreme Court says it's ok - what then?
How would the 2 term limit be enforced should someone violate it? That question has not been answered, and that is the crux of what I am asking.
For most of the last 50 years, similar situations have arisen related to other laws, and the constitution has been undermined. The last President we had that truly supported the constitution and vetoed bills that were unconstitutional was Grover Cleveland.
Feds do what they want, Congress helps and/or acquiesces. Supreme Court says ok. It leads to more unconstitutional Federal intrusion.
The constitutional remedy is interposition. State and local governments and citizens push back and refuse unconstitutional laws. Other than the occasional dust up like the Bundy/BLM episode, this just hasn't happened.
It's a long road back from where we are now. The local committee chairman is another good starting point. Get honest, conservative constitutional supporting candidates to run and win those positions. It costs about ten bucks to register, and about half of the positions are not filled.
The elected neighborhood chairmen get to vote on the leadership of the GOP in their state. Get enough conservatives in this position, and you'll have the votes to kick the GOPe Rinos out of your state.
Get enough states with the conservatives in power, and you can tackle the Rinos at a national level. Go to Phyllis Schafley’s Eagle Forum and read what she has to say about the neighbor hood chairman's position.
Don't waste time proposing additional constitutional amendments that can't be enforced. Instead figure out how to enforce the laws we have, because you will surely need a plan to enforce any future amendments anyway.
Then the shooting starts, I guess.
"Don't waste time"
I'll waste my time my way and you waste your time your way.
"Instead figure out how to enforce the laws we have"
When you figure that out, let me know. I've been working on that most of my life and guess what the result was? It's time to try something else. This is not an either/or proposition. Why can't we do both?
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.