Posted on 01/06/2015 11:16:23 AM PST by Jacquerie
Today’s reelection of John Boehner proves there is but one party, the Uniparty.
Political parties represent the common interests of their members, and to this end the two wings of the Uniparty have far more in common than differences. Their rhetoric often contrasts, but their mutual interests are on display. Witness the fifth year of Obamacare, out of control spending, executive and judicial tyranny. Both wings despise the Tea Party more than each other.
The framers’ constitution wisely divided power and provided checks that reached across the branches. Congress can deny appropriations, congress can override presidential vetoes, the senate can refuse consent to presidential nominees, high political appointees and president can be impeached, and so forth. Unfortunately, these important checks have dissolved into practical uselessness. Gone are the contesting institutional interests between the branches which the framers relied upon to prevent tyranny. They are one.
The common interests of the Uniparty are avarice and ambition, money and power. All else, even at the cost of the destruction of our economy, civil institutions, cities . . . everything else plays a minor role if any in their deliberations.
This is precisely the form of tyranny warned of by James Madison, in which all power resides in the hands of a backslapping few.
Freeepers have variously called for a real opposition party. Well, one exists. It is right in front of us. Its members have interests distinct from Washington, DC. They have sovereign powers, generally those which they did not grant to the government they created in 1788. They are fully capable of policing their environment, dealing with labor unions, taking care of their poor, etc. without the heavy hand of a distant, detached, and hostile Rome like city-state.
There is nothing radical in returning the states to the senate. To do so means reversing the tyranny and restoration of republican freedom. There is no substitute.
Article V.
How can you still underestimate the power and insidiousness of the federal government? They can say, “This is unconstitutional.” That would be the end of it. Would they by correct? Of course not. Would they have the raw power to enforce their error? Yes, as they’ve done over and over.
1) Nothing will come of the COS movement.
2) If something does come, it will be ignored.
3) We will have wasted time and effort while a chance at real revolution slips away (those of us old enough to remember a decent America and young enough to hold a rifle age and die.)
Nullification should be the first step, but nothing will come of that either. My plan is to live out my life here while making preparations for my children to ditch this country, if God doesn’t send a revival or return.
There is no other
What is it that prevents smart people for understanding this?
Go ahead and continue fighting for the fantasy Article V convention that’ll never happen. In the meantime, I’ll ramp up my purchases of ammo. The GOP is dead. The tree of liberty awaits its watering.
It could happen. Convention of states could actually pass and the states could ratify the well-worded amendments necessary to cut back our grossly unconstitutional federal government, and somehow enforce its dismantling. But I believe it would be a miracle. That's OK, because I think America itself and its founding was also a miracle.
But failing that kind of miracle, States, Our Natural Second Party should also be thought about in terms of nullifying unconstitutional federal law. Arizona has just passed such a law, allowing the state to ignore a federal law if the state finds it to be unconstitutional. But a state that does this needs to be prepared for financial independence from the federal government which will almost certainly cut such a state off from federal funding. However, if that state kept its government and taxes small and allowed the free market economy to thrive, it could soon be more financially healthy than the bankrupt feds. If tiny, resource-poor Hong Kong could do it, any state can do it. It only takes bravery and willingness to fight for freedom.
Fed gov would just say, “No, you states can’t do that.” Would that be the first time? “But the states would rise up and demand that...” yeah, just like they’re doing now. You show me what the COS does to defend against arbitrary power that already ignores every one of the Bill of Rights.
The republic thing didn’t work Mr. Franklin. We COULDN’T keep it. Fixed.
The 17th Amendment took away a huge chunk of the power of the states a century ago.
How many state legislators are there?
Answer: 7,383
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/number-of-legislators-and-length-of-terms.aspx
From a population of 325,000,000 people, there are on average 607477 people per each of Congress’ 535 Members and 44020 per each of the 7,383 state legislators.
Counting only State Representatives (5,411) and Congressional Representatives (435), the respective populations they cover on average are 59,139 and 735,632.
A broad and thorough study by the AFFT concluded that it takes about 3,000 activists on average per each district of Congress to turn the Congressional district’s Member to an issue of concern.
As a percentage of constituents averaging 735,632 persons per Congressional District (CD), 3,000 activists make up 0.4% (less than 1 out of every 20 persons) of the people in the CD.
Projecting this percentage (0.4%) onto the average number of constituents (59,139) per each of the 5,411 State Representatives makes 241 activists needed on average per State Representative.
Get that? Between 200 and 300 activists can get a State Representative on the same page with a Conservative Agenda.
BUT ....
Can Leftist Activists do the same?
The answer is no, why?
Because Leftist Activists concentrate in the urban areas whereas Conservative Activists concentrate in smaller towns, cities and rural areas.
Conservatives therefore have the home field advantage when teaming with their State Legislators.
The problem is that State Legislators are powerless until they self-organize to assert Article V. The first business of Article V that State Legislators will naturally warm to is amending the US Constitution to bring back State Legislator power in balance with Federal Government. An Amendment to “Redress the Balance of Powers and Restore Effective Sufferage of States With Respect to all Branches of the Federal Government”.
A must-see video regarding this subject is given by Mark Levin to a gathering of state legislators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
Nullification is a palliative response. It doesn’t deal with the problem of concentrated power in DC.
Like you, I am not all that confident we’ll dig ourselves out of the mess it took a hundred years to get into, but I see no other option.
History will not look kindly on a people who gaffed off their duty to peacefully restore freedom.
It is the Constitution that allowed us to get to this point. Should have stuck with the articles,
My rat US senator, Bill Nelson, doesn't answer my polite emails.
I get form responses from my representative and US Senator Marco Rubio.
Last summer, I spent almost an hour with my FL state Assemblyman discussing Article V.
There is no reason not to petition our state reps and senators.
Is it time to shoot the b@$t@rd$ yet?
It did that and much more.
Simple republican theory known to all since ancient times is that the people are represented in a government that acts upon them. If the constitution acted only on the people, and ignored the states, a congress composed of reps of the people would be consistent with republican theory. Dangerous, but consistent.
However, our constitution acts on both the people and the states, and until 1913, both were represented, as they should be in the law-giving body, congress.
It makes as much sense under our system to deny congressional representation to the people as it does to deny it to the states.
It is amazing that this internal contradiction, of government without consent of the states, took so long to destroy our nation.
The 17th left in its wake a federal constitution without a federal government.
>> Beginning to think this is the only way left to go, outside of armed rebellion.
It could work. Wouldn’t a few well-placed constitutional amendments rock the Uniparty’s little world. As would some carefully chosen “state nullification” of federal regulations. If Obola can thumb his nose at the Constitution, states can thumb their nose at Fedgov. Why not? Same principle.
Posted again with minor changes:
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 vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years.
_______________________________________________
The above draft incorporates a good deal of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. Mark Levin said that his Liberty Amendments are ‘suggestions’ but 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.
The above draft first focuses on restoring federal powers to state legislators which at this stage of Article V must seem natural and appropriate for them to take up.
The first State Sponsored Article V Amendment must be perceived as in the domain of the State Legislatures, in their interest, in their role and jurisdiction. State legislators taking up an Article V process means giving themselves power ‘appropriately’, perceived as ‘natural’and within their desires, boundaries and responsibilities. Perception here is key.
State legislators must 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.
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
Math type from post # 30:
As a percentage of constituents averaging 735,632 persons per Congressional District (CD), 3,000 activists make up 0.4% (less than 1 out of every ***200*** persons) of the people in the CD.
Numbers are important as it drives funding and planning.
Fine, repeal the 17th, but watch the repeal be nullified by DC or be prepared to fight a Cold or Hot Civil War. It will be one or the other.
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.