Posted on 04/12/2015 7:21:25 AM PDT by cotton1706
Are you aware of the grave and serious problem that is threatening your liberty and the security of the United States? The current Congress gives Washington, D.C., including the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, more and more power to "legislate" and enforce laws that illegally circumvent the Constitution.
Our political process has been corrupted and the federal bureaucracy has produced severe regulatory burdens that have caused our national debt to grow to $19 trillion.
And there is another $100 trillion coming due in vested Social Security benefits and other programs. We are in a financial crisis that is unsustainable.
Congress has turned state legislatures into their regional agencies rather than respecting them as truly independent sovereign governments.
If we "citizens" do not intervene, then the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers were prepared for what is happening today, and provided us with Article V of the Constitution, which empowers individual states to propose amendments.
It was George Mason who wanted this option for "application of the legislatures" for "proposing amendments" because he believed that Congress and the individual states should have equal authority in this matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
***
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
Yes, it goes without saying that the posts that you and Jacquerie supply are also very informative (and have been bookmarked already!!). I also salute your patience!!
There is no one, not a single person among the three branches who was put there outside the bounds of the constitution.
so then there is no tyranny? Hurray! No need for a convention then.
“Fine. You oppose free government. Why do you bother posting to FR?”
Are you on drugs? Or just stupid?
All states that have legalized pot did so by voter referendum - so how was the will of the people overcome?
A hard fact for many Freepers to get their head around.
RE:
By the very term, con-con you tag yourself as someone not worth listening to.
How disappointingly limited of you to squelch arguing against the peril of a constitutional convention, just because I used a term repeated by radical conservatives, such as Phyllis Schaffly, and Beverly LaHaye in similar cautioning about amending the constitution during the “Equal Rights” Era 30 years ago.
Hope you broaden your point of view, and language.
Quinnipiac poll says otherwise =>
Poll: Colorado residents still back legal marijuana (58%-38%)
Feb 24, 2015
-snip-
Voters ages 18 to 34 favored it overwhelmingly, 82-16 percent, while 50 percent of those ages 55 and older were against it, with only 46 percent in support.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/poll-colorado-marijuana-115457.html
Exactly! It can't be ignored or cheated.
Wrong - "voters support legalized recreational marijuana 58 - 38 percent." February 24, 2015 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2166
The wording on the referendum made it sound like they were only going to tax medical pot.
Wrong again - the ballot title and submission clause began "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana" and the full text's first clause was "In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of the state of colorado find and declare that the use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty-one years of age or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol." http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2012.html
I believe you are mistaken. See this related thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275941/posts
<>See this related thread.<>
Read it yourself. I posted to it several times.
“Those amendments will still need to be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4s of the states to become part of the Constitution. Do you really think the left could get over that hurdle?”
Yes, I think the left could. I’ve met a LOT of folks who would gladly eliminate all religious freedom protections, calling it “tolerance”. I’ve met many who would gladly eliminate the right to bear arms.
Think of what is tolerated in the NFL & NBA, and is pushed on TV. 50 years ago, the county would have revolted at “gay marriage”. I think a majority now want it without ever thinking about what it means. Look at what has happened in Indiana recently. Do you really think Americans today would create a document as supportive of limited government power as those in the 1780s did?
And if they did, would the courts or Congress pay any more attention to them than they have to the 9th and 10th Amendments?
You’re welcome zzeeman.
They couldn’t cheat on the selection of senators per Article II if the 17th were repealed.
Make that ‘Article I’.
True but the vast majority are owned by persons with multiple weapons. Its been my experience that if you own one you own many. It would be interesting to see stats on how many guns a person owns vs. those who don’t any.
Depending upon what amendment(s) is proposed and ratified, the states could be given the legal ability to overrule federal law and federal court dictates for example. Personally I believe the first COS should be a prototype and send the repeal of the 17th amendment to the states for ratification. After that one CoS per year until we get the d@mn federal government under control.
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.