MARK LEVIN WOWS STATE LEGISLATORS: 'TAKE YOUR POWER BACK' [excellent video at source]

There’s a minor precedent, called the civil war, that makes those passages in the constitution toothless.

I disgree. The outcome of the Civil War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 codified what the Civil War was all about (ex post facto notwithstanding). But unlike what some like to believe, the Civil War did not legally amend or destroy the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or states' rights, nor was it legal precedent for such. Again, the post-war amendments codified whatever "precedent" the Civil War represented.

At some point, after this proposed convention is all said and done, if the feds find ways to avoid or "nullify" the ratified amendments (if, in fact they are the right amendments), then the states must begin independent action. After all, independence from wrongful, tyrannical government is what America is all about. We don't need the permission of a rogue, unconstitutional federal government to do that. The Constitution at that point is on our side, not the side of the unconstitutional federal government.

Yes, the effort by We the People via the states to save our Constitutional Republic by attempting to force the feds to abide by well-written amendments that hit the bullseye of cutting big government and putting it back in its constitutional cage is a worthwhile effort.

But just as the colonists against an obstinate King George government, the states must have in their back pocket, the willingness to be financially independent of the feds if the feds find ways to avoid or “nullify” the ratified amendments (if, in fact they are the right amendments). After all, independence from wrongful, tyrannical government is what America is all about.

The size of the federal government is around $4 trillion. An entire ONE-FOURTH of that is ONE bureaucratic agency, the unconstitutional Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) with a budget of around $1 Trillion. Since 1970, the size of the federal government has increased 1000% ($350 billion to $4 trillion).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2010USm_16s1li0181366_657cs_F0f
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1970USrn

To remain a free constitutional republic, it is mandatory to cut by at least 80% the size of this unconstitutional federal government which would leave it at about $800 billion. This would mean the dismantling of most of the unconstitutional “Administrative State” bureaucracy, the unconstitutional “fourth branch” of government which is where all these “regulations” come from.

This could mean the loss of jobs to hundreds of thousands of federal employees including officials, bureaucratic mangers, and department heads. This could also mean the loss of income to hundreds of thousands of people dependent on federal government. Of course, there would be phase-out, phase-in periods, hopefully allowing time for the states and free market to replace these jobs and dependencies. There would be howling, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Nobody wants to lose their job and officials and bureaucratic heads would use everything in their power to stop it. It is hard to imagine it would happen.

Yet, if we are serious about putting the feds back into their constitutional cage, that is about what it will take. If the output of the proposed convention is ratified amendments that come even close to mandating a large portion of this rogue government, one has to ask, what mechanisms are in place to enforce such radical change and results?

it’s the $$$

the federales pass various legislation and they get the
states to comply by only providing federal funding if they
do

ie, if the states don’t comply with legislation about (say)
“disparate outcomes” in school suspensions or some such
ridiculousness, then the feds will stop funneling tax monies
from gasoline etc

quite slimey but thats politics

I’ve been thinking about this exact thing.

They are “Federal Mandates”, some are funded and some are unfunded.

The States, have become addicted to the Federal monies that come with these mandates/laws etc.

The affect of 3/4 of the states rejecting the mandates and the money would be profound. The Feds would soon be drowning in cash looking for something to spend it on. Most of these Government agencies measure success by how much they spend or grow their spending on these programs. Their budgets are set for the next year based on how much they spent the previous year.

Consider this, instead of cutting off the purse strings, flood them with their own/(tax payer) money that virtually no State will accept. They would have no choice but to reduce their budgets going forward and would likely result in a balanced federal budget and possibly start to reduce the Nat’l debt.

There’s more. The reduction in funds transferred to the States would or should allow for a substantial reduction in the number Government bureaucrats that administer those programs.

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.