This is a perfect example of misinformation. Whoever told you that the Supreme Court can throw out a ratified Amendment, arbitrarily or otherwise, did you a great disservice.
If you are a young product of today's public school system, I suppose I should give you a pass. If, on the other hand, you are simply one of the willingly uneducated regurgitators of ignorance fed to you by the JBS, then you need to be told how embarrassingly wrong you are.
Begun last year by Citizens for Self-Governance, this Convention of States Project is expected to take at least five years to reach the 32-state threshold. The greatest hurdle is re-educating our elected officials, disabusing them of the false notions they hold, many of whom are victims themselves of the liars and fear-mongers of the John Birch Society.
And we beg at no one's feet. Article V was deliberately written into the Constitution by the Framers as an Article, not added as an amendment after the fact. George Mason (and others) stated that its specific purpose was to give the people in the states the method and the authority to circumvent the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial should the need arise, and that need arose a long time ago. Article V is only 143 words, and I suggest that you take two minutes and read them... it's a whole lot shorter than Patrick Henry's beautiful monologue, and it makes his point precisely. We adhere to the notions of The Founders, not the JBS.
Lastly, although I am a supporter of certain, limited applications of nullification at the state level, I laughed out loud when I read your frivolous invitation for me to join you "in simply nullifying unconstitutional rulings." Besides being unconstitutional and an engraved invitation for violent federal intervention, if it's really that "simple," I challenge you to provide one instance where it has been upheld in any court of competent jurisdiction or even minimally effective on a national scale, for that is what we're talking about here... the nation. You let me know when Publius Huldah or anyone else at the John Birch Society figures out how we can nullify our way out of undeclared wars or invasive United Nations treaties, or a way to nullify us into a balanced budget or mandatory term limits for all federal officials.
When I spoke in person with my state assemblyman almost two years ago, I was a bit surprised at HIS surprise regarding Article V. Fortunately, he was very receptive. As a businessman with 150 employees, he was well aware of the heavy hand of government on free enterprise.
So, FWIW my little experience with a state politician comports with your point.
Also, it is a mistake to equate state pols with the pols in DC. Most state legislatures are part time gigs. For many of these men and women to participate in state government is a burden, for every day in the state capital is a day away from their families and livelihoods.
There is a building groundswell of resistance. Obamacare has NEVER polled a majority. Dozens of states opposed it in the Scotus K-Court. All rat senators up for reelection in 2014 were defeated, and the GOP added to its majority in the House.
Obama largely rules by decree. These next 22 months may be our last chance to exercise peaceful means to restore the American Republic.
Article V. If not now, when?
I know this is a thread about the JBS, but I think we can leave it out of the discussion because their complaint has nothing to do with mine. It’s a strawman often used to avoid the glaring flaw in COS. I believe COS is obviously constitutional. But I also believe the Bill of Rights is constitutional. I know you think of cases where lower courts and SCOTUS have ignored those and ruled on personal preference or the zeitgeist.
As far as no court upholding nullification, there’s never been a time of overt, government lawlessness like we have now, so I don’t think the question is relevant because we’re in a crisis. And nullification is implicit in the supremacy clause through the language “pursuant to the constitution.” Who decides what’s pursuant to the constitution? Federal judges? That language has no meaning if the federal government can pass unconstitutional laws and the federal government can then declare them constitutional. States decide what’s pursuant to the constitution. The Feds were wrong to enforce the fugitive slave act on Wisconsin because Wisconsin’s nullification was constitutional. Nullifying Obamacare, ATF rules, EPA regulations, Roe v Wade, marriage for Sodomites, and other fed overreaches would absolutely be constitutional.
The framers were sending an engraved invitation for violent intervention from the King when they signed the Declaration. That’s not the issue.
And besides all this, the framers pretty much all said that you can wad that document up and burn it once we have an immoral, idiotic, selfish electorate. At least some states still have sanity. I don’t feel like waiting on Virginia (who made a piece of crap their governor) to see if my kids will inherit a free country. Most of the people in my state want liberty, it’s their God-given right, they should have it.