I thought I saw it all, until I read that a Republican appointed Chief Justice said that government can force citizens to buy something because a penalty was actually a tax even though the authors of the bill consistently claimed it wasn’t. Or that “shall not be infringed” means forced to pay 100.00 for training, another 150.00 to be brought into a police station, photographed, finger printed, and put on a list that the governor can make public anytime he wants.
In all seriousness, I truly can’t imagine why you guys think SCOTUS will honor these amendments. You admit they’re lawless right?
The meme that the Federal government does not follow the Constitution is demonstrably false. I submit to you that even our current "lawless" government adheres to virtually every modern day amendment to the Constitution. It's more the Articles that they've raped and plundered. On average, amendments to the Constitution are followed VERY closely for about 100 years after they are ratified by the states and made part of the Constitution. Some have endured even longer. When an amendment has been debated, drafted, proposed and ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures, the federal government has little choice but to sit up and pay attention. For example, it’s been almost 225 years since the First Amendment was ratified, and only recently have the federal courts dared to trespass on religious freedom, and even at that, only on the margins and in the service of a small but influential political special interest group.
Similar things can be said of the government’s nipping at the edges of the Second Amendment… private ownership of firearms went virtually unchallenged until New York passed the first “gun control” law in 1911… that’s 120 years. And even though the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Search & Seizure, Privacy, Due Process, etc.) have been held virtually sacrosanct since the nation’s inception, no serious discussion about loss of liberty can avoid acknowledging the impact that September 11, 2001 and consequent federal legislation has had on them, but that’s only over the last decade.
Although these are all liberties that are currently under attack, we have enjoyed most of them for almost 2¼ centuries, and all were achieved by AMENDING the Constitution.
The problem is that these liberties are being changed by legislative fiat without benefit of the amendment process, and when challenged, the Supreme Court has enabled the infringement.
So, in response to your charge that the government doesn’t follow the Constitution now, it’s more than fair to say that the Constitution as a whole is, by and large, followed by government at all levels, all the time, and fairly closely… but here I need to clarify that I’m not talking about the Constitution as it was written, but as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
It's the "Interpreted Constitution" that brings us to what many believe is the crux of the matter, and the single-most important reason to support an amendment convention - it's the beautifully written but vague and ambiguous language of the Founders that allows "constitutional scholars" like our current president (and liberal justices) to find the wiggle room that they need to subvert the original intent of the Founders.
If we were to close the loopholes that civil rights lawyers, activist judges and an enabling U.S. Supreme Court have used to “create” new powers and authority for the federal government that the framers never anticipated nor intended, if those loosely written phrases were amended to reflect the narrow scope intended by the authors of that great document, it’s completely conceivable that the legacy we could leave to the next several generations of Americans would be living free of the overwhelming burdens, constraints and regulations of hundreds and hundreds of ever-expanding federal bureaucracies.
IMHO
Then I'd like you to read Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal, which brings the story to the present and offers a look into the future. This one is much shorter.