I was 100% on the Article V bandwagon, but I’m starting to feel as many on here do, and don’t mind admitting, I’m beginning to lean toward the #2 group. Even if we pass some of the great amendments suggested, why would SCOTUS not just “interpret” them to mean something that they don’t? It only takes a few “oppressed” people to bring a challenge up before the SCOTUS and they can “make the constitution mean whatever they say it means”.
Until we have state legislators and governors who have the spine to challenge these ungodly, unholy and unconstitutioional SCOTUS prounouncements and interpretations, and who will REFUSE TO COMPLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, and threaten to arrest any federal agent who tries to enforce otherwise, it is all meaningless!!!
Do we have state legislators and governors who are godly, fearless men and who are ready to actually go to war if necessary? I don’t know! I know we have a few in Texas but I certainly don’t claim that the state as a whole is there. I have no idea about other states. And if we have state governments who are willing to do that, then why aren’t they already challenging some of the other garbage that has been laid on us?
As you may know, I was one of the original supporters of Article V on Jacquerie’s threads, and think the idea has merit if there is still enough support at the local/individual and state level (I mean a moral, godly contingent in this nation and fearless state level leaders.)
I’m just no longer confident that we do.
It makes no difference how much support exists at the local/individual level - we JUST SAW that the Oligarchy will do what it pleases to strike down, rule invalid or ignore what the People want at the local and individual level.
That the proponents are so insistent that Article V is going to magically stop tyrants in D.C. from doing what they have been doing to the current supreme law of the land is abject lunacy.
Tyrants cannot be persuaded by civil means, and a government that holds it's people in contempt and no longer fears them is a government that will do as it pleases while eradicating those who dare oppose them.
Article V can be used as a Cassus Belli for justified resistance to the Tyranny now ruling us. But it must be done with the full understanding that it will not arrest, slow or impede tyrants from imposing more tyranny upon us.
> “Even if we pass some of the great amendments suggested, why would SCOTUS not just “interpret” them to mean something that they don’t? “
The example 28th Amendment of this thread is a game changer and is like no other amendment that has ever existed.
The answer to your fear is in Section 3 where the States are allowed to void any specific Supreme Court ruling. The term ‘void’ in legal definitions means to be treated as if it never existed.
SCOTUS won’t have any interpretation opportunity for Amendment 28 Section 3. If 30 or more states declare according to Amendment 28 that the same-sex ruling of today is void, the state statutes and policies are free to remain intact and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. No reliance is placed on any part of federal government to interpret or enforce. All power from the example 28 falls to the States. That’s why it’s like nothing seen before; why it’s a game changer.