Posted on 06/13/2015 5:43:51 AM PDT by cotton1706
"The Congress, the courts, and the president ignore the Constitution we have today and our Founders knew we would eventually get to that point, and they gave us a method… to amend it to keep the federal government limited in its scope and its jurisdiction,"
The method he is referring to is Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
As conservatives have grown increasingly frustrated with the ability of judges and politicians to limit the power of Washington, the idea of convincing states to exercise this power has gained appeal. A project known as the Convention of the States has gained prominent backers, including talk show host and author Mark Levin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
"Most people don't think about this, but the states created the federal government -- the federal government didn't create the states," Coburn said. "And the supremacy, if you read the enumerated powers, written in the Constitution, it was very limited what the federal government was supposed to have, but everything else was supposed to be left to the states and to the people."
To accomplish their goal, organizers must get 34 states to pass a petition to the federal government proposing a convention to ratify essentially the same amendment. Currently, Coburn said, four states have passed such a petition, he predicted 15 to 16 would do so in the next year, and then another 10 to 12 would do so in the year after that. "Probably in two to three years we'll have the requirements met by the Constitution for an Article V convention," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Why don’t we enforce the Ninth Amendment as our freedoms are stripped away. There never seems to be discussion of this one.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Actually, 28 states have passed a Balanced Budget petition.
I actually think a single-issue convention might be the way to go. It can show the way, set the rules, etc. And then the states can get together and meet one issue at a time if need be. It will also shove aside all the “runaway convention” fears.
Either way, the people through the states need to take the lead.
You can read the first chapter at Amazon. He explains it all.
Thanks, looks like my source was not current.
Congress, Courts, President ignore The Constitution, so how are more amendments going to make them adhere to The Constitution?
Every one of them already took an oath to uphold The Constitution.
By the time any new amendment meanders through the process, a decade or more will have passed. We have no idea what state the nation will be in by then.
GW Bush [REPUBLICAN] was selling us out to the NAU, and Obama [DEMOCRAT] is selling out out to the Pacific Rim union.
We can’t trust either party to do what they ran on or gave an oath to. THEY LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE. But, hey, talkshow hosts get to write another book to hawk.
You can read the first chapter at Amazon. He explains it all.
Your assertion applies even more precisely to the Republican Party.
Because we could eliminate the federal govenment and return to the states. Just make an amendment that zaps the feds! I like the sound of that!!!!! :)
The fact is that most people do not understand basic civics or history. To quote one highly esteemed history expert:
"Did the Japanese go and sit down and have dinner with Pearl Harbor before they bombed em?"
Good points!
Agree
And as I understand it, a Concon opens ALL amendments to be changed, not just the ones we want changed. Is that true? If so, do we really want that?
Your question is based on the premise that our trusted servants in the federal government practice an "all or nothing" philosophy, where they either follow all of the constitution, or none of it. But that is not the case--your premise is false to begin with. Actually, only certain parts are ignored by certain limbs of branches of fedgov, and we all are frustrated with that.
The new amendments proposed are such that they would not be able to ignore them. Term limits, for example--our fed overlords would not be able to ignore or screw with. Not without bloodshed. That, for me, would be the point where the tree of liberty gets watered well, and I suspect I am not alone.
But are those the kinds of amendments the state legislatures are presenting for the Article V?
Levin read about one he/his group proposed. It was something about banking/financial concerns. It did not seem to address the ‘real’ problems we have with DC.
If/when those pushing for an Article V publish a list of their ‘demands’, the interest may turn. Until then, it seems each state can propose whatever they want.
If they obeyed the Constitution in the first place, we wouldn’t be having these problems.
Amending it is silly if they ignore it anyway
“But are those the kinds of amendments the state legislatures are presenting for the Article V?”
Other than the Balanced Budget Amendment, very few states are being specific (Maryland and New Jersey have been).
The states must submit identical (or near identical) petitions to the Congress to call for a convention. So the states must all be on the same page. Other than the Balanced Budget amendment petition, four states so far have passed identical petitions (though nine legislative houses have passed the same petition, and it’s pending in some 20+ others).
In the old days, the changes can go through the grass roots. Unfortunately we can’t go that way any more. We have to go and cut the head of the snake, before we can change the rest of the body. This is why we must hit these Washington snake, before we can change the state, cities and counties. We have judges making laws, instead of interpreting the current laws. That has to stop, but before we can attack these city and county judges, we must first attack the head, and that means changing Washington.
That's the con in ConCon. Once it starts, there's no telling what it will lead to.
The simple question pro-ConCons won't answer is this: If our elected representatives refuse to abide by the current Constitution, why would they abide by a new Constitution?
Unless, the new Constitution is worded in such a way that codifies violating it.
They may very well exempt themselves from abiding by the new Constitution the way they exempt themselves laws they pass for the rest of us.
Not a dumb question, IMO.
I was thinking of another question: If a regime such as the one in power today does not follow the Constitution, why would adding more proscriptions to the Constitution change such a regime’s behavior?
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.