Posted on 01/04/2015 5:31:40 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The 2014 midterm elections gave state Republicans their largest political majorities of the modern political era. In Governor races, the GOP picked up a net 2 states, against expectations of a 2-seat loss. The party also holds 68 of the nation’s 98 partisan legislative chambers, a grip on state government not seen since the 1920s. In only seven deeply blue states do Democrats control both the legislature and the Governor’s mansion. Republicans hold or share control in every other state.
Conservatives rightfully worry that Republicans in Washington will pursue a modest agenda with their Congressional majorities, but the states provide fertile ground for a broad reform legislation. In recent years, Republicans and conservatives have won public sector reforms in Wisconsin, broad tax reform in a number of states, and have led three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina—out of the Common Core education regime.
A number of other states will likely also take aim at Common Core and the creeping federal involvement in education. Common Core is, in many respects, an outgrowth of Bush’s No Child Left Behind Law. Budget pressures may fuel states’ natural tendency to limit federal encroachment of a function traditionally reserved for state and local governments.
While political fights over Common Core and new laws to apply stricter safety standards on abortion clinics will capture the most headlines, moves on state budgets and taxes could have the most lasting consequences. At least a dozen states, including Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas, and North Carolina, will push income tax cuts and reform. Illinois’ new Republican Governor’s top priority is reforming the state’s nearly bankrupt public pension system.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I hope you’re right.
I just don’t see it happening.
I’m not disagreeing.
I’m saying the problem with Obamaland is that the Federal Government no longer feels constrained by the Constitution.
I don’t know how new amendments are going to force them to comply.
The only thing that can make politicians comply is an active electorate that votes out anyone who violates the Constitution and ...well, look at some of the people who keep getting elected.
It’s an option available to the states. The feds can’t stop it if three quarters of the states ratify.
The Constitution requires all federal officers to swear an oath to the Constitution. A congressman or senator is in violation of his oath if he votes for something that is unconstitutional, and so is a president if he signs it. But who determines its constitutionality?
The final judge, the umpire if you will, is the Supreme Court, which came out of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. But even Marbury opened the door a crack to the states being a party to that determination. That crack closed in 1958 with a decision of the Warren Court arrogating exclusive power to the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality. As of a result of that decision, there is a de facto policy that everything is constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise. That's not how the Framers saw it, and there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution that redresses the balance and prevents the Court from taking liberties with the Constitution. This can be giving Congress, or even the states, the power to overthrow Supreme Court decisions that are an insult to the Constitution.
Take the time to educate yourself about the Convention of the States movement.
I will pray.
***
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Article V baby! Bring it on!
states could take themselves out of the federal regime for most of this crap. Just stop taking the fake money and then there is no control. The HCR might be a precedent for the states that did not create the exchanges and therefore should not get any money and are not subject the insurance rules. Problem is that in these states the incos all folded and complied, i’m not sure they had to.
Let’s hope we’re talking about conservatives, because I wouldn’t trust the GOP to walk my dog.
i do agree with you and i have stated as much before. Once you have a lawless government, the solution seems to look more like 1776. However the states can exempt themselves from much of the federal crap by not taking the money for a lot of programs. Collect all federal taxes at the state level and only give the feds what the states say is constitutional.
That is what I thought also. They were not conscripted, they voluntarily formed a union. the should be able to voluntarily withdraw or dissolve the union.
Ironic aint it? Your buddy kindly ‘educates’ us about writing law. You ask what is the point in writing more laws that will only be ignored? And your point is ignored.
Oh well. Waddayagonnadoo?
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Upon a majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures, federal statutes and federal court decisions shall be overridden.
Section 3.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by majority votes in their respective state legislatures.
_______________________________________________
The above draft incorporates a good deal portion of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. Mark has said that his Liberty Amendments are ‘suggestions’ but he wisely counseled that whatever amendments are taken up, that as a set they must address the full scale of the problem. For example, it would not be wise for state legislators to focus only on budgetary matters.
In the above draft, an attempt is made to focus on benefits to state legislators. At this stage of asserting Article V, state legislators must inject themselves ‘back into the game’. The above amendment provides a restoration of State Rights in relation to federal government and gets the States back in the game.
Note that the above draft avoids placing before the voters a suggestion, expected to create conflict and hyperbole regarding the taking away of voting rights by repealing the 17th Amendment. The People retain their right to vote for their Senator in Congress, yet the state legislatures are greatly empowered and restored to their Pre-17th Amendment influence in the US Senate.
There is one issue that is still under contemplation and that is how to impede or prevent the ‘buying’ of state legislators which history records was in existence during the Pre-17th Amendment Era. Campaign finance was a hot debate in the 19th century as well as the 20th century. I fear that it would open a can of worms to include for example restrictions on outside funding of state legislators. Such conditions would bog down the process of getting an Article V amendment all the way through. It would be in any case best to leave such issues for states to resolve locally.
What we should attempt to do is to view a first State Sponsored Article V Amendment as being in the domain of the State Legislatures, being in their interest, in their perceived role and jurisdiction. To convince state legislators to take up an Article V process means to give them power ‘appropriately’. An Article V Convention would then be ‘natural’ to State Legislators and completely within their desires, boundaries and responsibilities. Perception here is key.
We should also insist that state legislators carry ***at least one amendment all the way across the finish line*** without distraction from Congress which can be expected to persuade state legislatures to give up the process and turn the issues over to them which ironically was done in the history of the 17th Amendment.
At least one Article V amendment carried by state legislatures will set a precedent and put Congress on notice that power has shifted and rebalanced. This is crucially important.
Lastly, respecting Mark Levin’s wise counsel that State Legislators participating under Article V must get their hands around the “Whole Problem”, the completion and achievement of one State Sponsored Article V Amendment sets the stage for further such amendments to address restrictions on federal spending, bureaucracy, commerce clause abuses and voting reform (voter ID).
So the above Amendment 28 aims to ‘grease the skids’ for more of what Mark Levin suggested and by first addressing an amendment that gets the States back in the game.
Please watch or watch again Mark Levin’s Tour de Force of a speech given before ALEC last month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
Power Corrupts, Washington Now absolute power corrupts absolutely, and John is just a puppet in Washington’s corrupt political machine.
I won’t argue that the States are substantially better, Ill just point out that among the states there are competition not only for our pre-prepositionally strong vote, but most importantly of all for our presence.
A leftist State Like California and New York can pass all the oppressive market corrning legislation they want, but as long as you the individual can simply move across the boarder, they will in the end be far more accountable.
That simple inherit check on their oppressive power over the individual by way of voting with their feet is what we need to restore or at least hold on to our economic and political freedom. The other very useful thing in our states in their inability to print money thus inherit monetary accountability that comes with that leads to more imeadent and recognizable political consequences for spending, particularity vote buying spending.
Our States created Washington not the other way around and thus the political center of power has always rightly been theirs. An article V convention will prove that. But i think the anther is right, Congress won’t let it come to that, they will try to appease our State legislators by passing some of the more important amendments.
If State legislator call a Constitutional Convention, Ability to spend endlessly is not the only corrupt power of Washington they will be bring to an end.
As Conservatives we need the States to be the center of political life in America again, Not Washington. The Shift in Media to the Internet will make this not only possible but desirable as people will soon have directed to them based upon where they live political news. Which inherently means they can follow state politics. The more our State legislators make noise like Arizona the more people will push for that sort of information.
Randy Barnett would agree with you but he drew an important distinction between ‘original intent’ and ‘original meaning’. The latter approach bears much more fruit because ‘intent’ is ephemeral (fad or fashion) whereas settled ‘meaning’ is worthy of precedent.
I agree with Sections VII - IX wholeheartedly. It’s time to take away their self designed exemptions and selective enforcement for their fellow ogliarchs. They need to live according to their own laws.
I think the civil war resolved that issue.
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.