Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Support a Convention of States to end the tyranny of the federal government
cleveland.com ^ | 4/12/15 | Jim Petsche

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conventionofstates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: zzeeman
Here's another one.

***

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

41 posted on 04/12/2015 12:48:42 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Publius; Jacquerie

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!!


42 posted on 04/12/2015 12:52:25 PM PDT by zzeeman ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

There is no one, not a single person among the three branches who was put there outside the bounds of the constitution.


43 posted on 04/12/2015 12:55:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
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.

44 posted on 04/12/2015 1:01:47 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Fine. You oppose free government. Why do you bother posting to FR?”

Are you on drugs? Or just stupid?


45 posted on 04/12/2015 1:35:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
George Soros would donate $Bs to overcome the will of the people like he did to get legalized pot

All states that have legalized pot did so by voter referendum - so how was the will of the people overcome?

46 posted on 04/12/2015 2:25:48 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now. The wording on the referendum made it sound like they were only going to tax medical pot. Soros types put in lots of money for adds making claims that were not true.
47 posted on 04/12/2015 2:29:06 PM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Besides, the anti-Constitutionalists were right - words on paper never limit the power grab of a government that exists in reality. The courts and legislatures will ALWAYS redefine things until black means white and they have power. If you create the structure that supports power, then no words will stop it from taking power.

A hard fact for many Freepers to get their head around.

48 posted on 04/12/2015 2:45:00 PM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

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.


49 posted on 04/12/2015 2:50:12 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009 (When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now.

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

50 posted on 04/12/2015 2:51:33 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th Amendment, which cannot be ignored.

Exactly! It can't be ignored or cheated.

51 posted on 04/12/2015 2:54:33 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now.

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

52 posted on 04/12/2015 3:06:13 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I believe you are mistaken. See this related thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275941/posts


53 posted on 04/12/2015 4:30:46 PM PDT by NRx (An unrepentant champion of the old order and determined foe of damnable Whiggery in all its forms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NRx

<>See this related thread.<>

Read it yourself. I posted to it several times.


54 posted on 04/12/2015 4:46:29 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss

“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?


55 posted on 04/12/2015 5:08:53 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: zzeeman

You’re welcome zzeeman.


56 posted on 04/12/2015 5:27:27 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

They couldn’t cheat on the selection of senators per Article II if the 17th were repealed.


57 posted on 04/12/2015 5:30:49 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Make that ‘Article I’.


58 posted on 04/12/2015 5:32:36 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

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.


59 posted on 04/12/2015 6:33:06 PM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

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.


60 posted on 04/12/2015 8:00:18 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson