Posted on 05/07/2015 4:50:55 AM PDT by cotton1706
There is a growing effort among the states to call an Article V convention that would craft new constitutional amendments in order to limit the federal government. Some presidential candidates are getting behind one or more of these efforts while others have yet to be asked.
Under Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds (34) of the states have to pass similar resolutions in order for a convention to be called. This effort has reached a historic level as 27 states have now called for a balanced budget amendment convention.
Additionally, Convention of States Project is calling for a convention that would impose fiscal limits, term limits, and other limits on the federal government. We have endorsed their resolution, which has been passed by three states, is being considered by 36 more states, and has the largest grassroots infrastructure.
Let’s take a look at where the various presidential candidates stand on this historic effort that would change how DC does business.
(Excerpt) Read more at redmillennial.com ...
ping
thanks to the great one Mark Levin.
“27 states have now called for a balanced budget amendment convention”
****
A recipe for increased taxes to cover runaway socialist spending. A balanced budget amendment is meaningless without draconian cuts in the welfare state.
Article V ping!
While I’m behind the convention of states, I can’t help but feel as if we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to restrict government and prevent them from doing all the BS they’re doing now. Calling a convention to codify that is going to fix the problem? It just strikes me as redundant. We already have the rules on the books. Why not follow them?
RIDING A WILD HORSE
Dude to Rancher: “For me to ride that horse, it’s got to be tamed.”
Rancher to Dude: “To tame that horse, you need to get on it and stay on it until it gets comfortable with you on its back.”
The American welfare state will never cut its spending until there’s a fight over the money pot.
If there’s plenty of money in the pot for everyone, then there’s no fight; so there’s no cut in spending.
No one wants a fight. So the question is how best to fill the money pot? By economic growth? Or by artificial injections of digitized money-like notes? What balance is optimal?
Well of course there may be tax increases but there will also be spending cuts! Taxpayers will not tolerate taxes as high as they’d have to be to cover everything.
They’ll try to hide taxes in prices and wages using the income tax. Best to just repeal the 16th at the same convention and implement a flat retail sales tax.
Bump.
> “Calling a convention to codify that is going to fix the problem? It just strikes me as redundant. We already have the rules on the books. Why not follow them?”
“rarestia” is a newbie that is expressing a concern that is shared by many many other newbies.
“rarestia” needs to understand that the reason the federal government does not follow existing rules on the books is because of the 17th Amendment that was passed in 1913 and that extinguished any power states had over the federal government. In effect, all newbies need to understand that the reason the federal government is so out of control is because there is nothing to stop it; the states have no say at all in any of the decisions and rulings of the federal government.
What “rarestia” needs in order to understand how the Convention of States can change the course that is set by progressives in federal government is AN ILLUSTRATION of how the Constitution can be STRUCTURALLY amended.
Now let’s make clear the ‘Main Reality’:
THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Here is an illustration that shows us how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note that this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and also has incorporated valuable input from concerned Freepers. This is an illustration only.
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
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:
************************************************
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.
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 nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
The reason this kind of amendment can work is because it DOES NOT REQUIRE COOPERATION from the federal government. The States can simply tell the federal government that what they are doing is not lawful and that is that. For example, if the EPA tells small businesses that they must have X, and the States void the requirement for X, then the EPA can try to go to court to enforce X but the courts will have no clear authority to do much about it. Same with Congress.
WHAT CAN WE DO TODAY?
We should strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
And we should strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.
Most people today don’t even know who their state legislators are. Is this surprising in light of the 17th Amendment?
Start with a simple task today. Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.
And lastly, sign up here as soon as possible:
http://www.conventionofstates.com
"You guys go get a job." ;)
There’s no need to be condescending. Your message would’ve been well received had you not chosen to call me out as a newbie and act like a pompous tart.
Your response reveals you to be not only an ignorant heckler, but a name-calling impudent ingrate as well.
A simple thank-you would have sufficed. But that would take a person with class.
Anyways, the post was not for you but for those who have the same question.
Bye-Bye!
I asked a simple question and YOU, sir, proceeded to put me down. How am I the impudent party here? Get over yourself, you simpleton!
Your question showed you to be a newbie.
There is nothing wrong with being a newbie except when a newbie claims to not be a newbie or acts insulted when called a newbie.
Your response revealed you to be not only a newbie but something more.
There are plenty of situations in life where we are confronted with new things. Those situations render us as newbies. For example, flying a plane. I have no qualms with anyone calling me a newbie when it comes to flying a plane.
If I tell a pilot instructor I object to being called a newbie or student, then I reveal a character flaw about me.
But I will thank anyone who shows me how to graduate from newbie to neophyte to student to graduate.
It’s called gratitude.
Prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation was the national governing document for the United States. In the 1780s nationally-minded Americans became increasingly disturbed by the Articles’ failure to provide the central government with authority to raise revenue, regulate commerce, or enforce treaties. Representatives of Maryland and Virginia met at Mt. Vernon to discuss trade problems between the two States and agreed to invite delegates from all States to discuss trade at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in September, 1786.
Delegates from only five States attended the Annapolis Convention and issued a call for a meeting of all States to discuss necessary revisions of the Articles of Confederation. Delegates convened at the Federal Convention on May 25, 1787, Philadelphia, PA. Thirty-nine delegates from Twelve States signed the US Constitution on September 17, 1787. Ratification by the States began soon thereafter.
A Convention for a new national governing document is wide open. Term limits, balanced budget amendment, and the number of States required ratify the new governing document. Article VII of the US Constitution states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” There is no reason a a new proposed national governing document couldn’t set the numbers of States to ratify at 26 States.
Why would you proceed to call me out by name instead of just responding directly to my post? Is it necessary to call out my name in quotes and condescend to me as if I’m some sort of neophyte?
I GET why we want the ConCon. My question was more a statement that we’re trying to reign in something that shouldn’t have gotten out of control in the first place. You immediately jumped to me being completely uninitiated in the discussion of American politics, but if you read some of my posts over time, I’ve been an outspoken proponent of a ConCon but also the repeal of the 17th amendment and the ratification of Article the First. I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I get it moreso than the average American. You don’t need to put me down as some sort of inhuman gutter rat.
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.