Posted on 07/01/2015 3:56:31 PM PDT by betty boop
I think it's quite clear that we are definitely there right now...
Obergefell mightn’t even be the most ominous decision. The Housing decision gives the Federal government universal zoning power and the right and duty to transform ALL neighborhoods to be racially representative in the appropriate percentages to the population. The inferences are truly breathtaking. It is far more than just putting Cabrinigreens in the middle of all the middle and upper middle class neighborhoods.
States must interpose themselves between the People and the Federal government, Congress & SCOTUS have no say. They and the Executive have worked in combination to expand their power beyond their authority.
yes...absolutely...
I don’t see any reason why the States could not go nuclear, and dump the entire government, starting over from scratch and at the same time reconfirming the constitutional protections that have been usurped.
That would be my preferred route....lol...which would eliminate all the judicial precedents or what they call the body of law. However everything then would be subject to new interpretations and the danger is and is now, that the Constitutional language can be made to mean very different things.
I think to clarify original intent would be a worthy and effective change to the Constitution..
Pretty much like restating ones marriage vows.
I do not support “dumping the government”, I want only that the Federal government remain within the bounds of its authority.
OK...so the question still remains on the table:
How do you do that effectively??
Considering that they have never done that, nor has Congress ever used it's authority to accomplish this simple task.
In fact they have seeded their authority to the administrative branch at one time or another on nearly every authority they have, save for setting their own salaries and perks.
Only recently, they allowed themselves to let the administration set their perks as well.
For example, how do you go back to the 1930s and set aside the Hugo Black decision, which along with it's body of law, is used today to create a wall of separation between church and state.
That decision by the way was made for anti-Semitic reasoning.
Thanks for asking.
Thanks.....I missed the post during my “speed read”....:-)
Congress is complicit in what is now established oligarchical rule. The Convention is only useful if the several States can get off their butts and call it in the next few months and if it can put amendments out for ratification and get them ratified before, say, next July. The consolidation of Government by Executive is rapidly accelerating and will reach a point, probably next summer, where the transformation is operationally complete and the direct coercion will begin.
The CC is working it’s way through various state legislatures as we speak, but unfortunately some states have balked on the idea..
Only recently, Louisiana which had issues with it, passed it after the recent SCOTUS decisions...
Last I heard, Texas had issues with it, and others..The limited scope of action has been a amendment for a balanced budget.
It’s wait and see thing, but few people in the public are aware of it or they don’t seem to care.
But we need a couple more....The more the merrier.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
Thanks for the heads up.
Asked and answered.
Here's one example taken from page 29:
§ 3.3. Why the Founders Adopted the Proposal Convention in Article V.
An early draft of the Constitution permitted amendments to be proposed and adopted only by interstate convention. Then the Framers added provisions allowing Congress to propose amendments and requiring state ratification. Congress received the power to propose because the Framers believed that Congress’s position would enable it readily to see defects in the system.
However, some delegates—notably George Mason of Virginia—pointed out that Congress might become abusive or exceed its powers. It might therefore refuse to adopt a necessary or desirable amendment, particularly one designed to curb its own authority. Accordingly, the Framers added the convention for proposing amendments as a vehicle for the states to present corrective amendments for ratification while bypassing Congress.40
The superscript "40" above is an important element of the manuscript because it grounds the sources of the summary above to historical records, case law or other publications that are also sourced. Therefore, the manuscript becomes a document that grounds discussions in historical precedent.
After skimming over the document I am not seeing sentiment wildly different than my own but the legwork for referencing and sourcing saves countless hours of research. Also the organization and 'mind's eye' of the author makes it valuable to have as a reference.
I am not surprised at the focus on a single topic convention but I am not persuaded to that which the COS group has stipulated to be curbing the overreach and jurisdiction of federal government power even though it seems logical, necessary and 'natural' that this topic should be the order of the day. I think we need to peel the onion layers back a little more to the crux issue which is States Rights and Control of States Rights. The difference in framing may be subtle but of enormous consequence.
We have to use psychology here. Framing the single topic as curbing federal overreach, jurisdiction we 'invite' the neighborhood and the legal community of courts to participate in an unremitting debate that saps energy of the originators and risks a 'fizzling out'. Changing the terms of the single topic to States Rights and Control of States Rights we focus on amending the Constitution in a way that we retain title to the amendment.
In lay terms, an example that most can understand is one where a Peeping Tom neighbor is constructing a monstrous elevation addition to his property that is completely out of character with the original neighborhood and that has structures that look right into the rooms of our homes invading our privacy forcing us to shutter our windows or place curtains all of which rob us of much needed sunlight.
The first reaction would be for neighbors to take it up with City Hall and petition for a work stoppage and redesign of the Peeping Tom home but the building codes may very well be ambiguous as to a legal basis to stop the Peeping Tom neighbor not to mention that neighbors (think MSM) in other enclaves might possibly skew council discussion that such blanket interpretations of codes would lead to whatever monsters in the attic they saw fit to dream up. In any event prepare for a long drawn out a fight over public opinion and a litigating war of attrition.
A better approach would be for a property owner to fall back on existing code that allows for a property owner to plant a hedge of Leyland Cypress trees (they grow fast and tall) to block the Peeping Tom from his privacy encroachment. Now the property owner is solving his problem on his turf in a way that he controls. That's the way we need to be ... in the beginning. We must control the argument from the vantage point that "it's not about them, it's about us and our comfort level". The neighborhood enclaves (MSM, public) will not object to our approach and the onus is put on the Peeping Tom (Federal Government) to figure a legal way around our hedge which he won't be able to do as long as we are in control.
These matters of how we frame the issue are important. Professor Natelson and others of the COS Project need only a little adjustment of view and the COS template will be much stronger tactically. Battles fought defensively rather than offensively sway public opinion greater to support a cause.
The second point where we must use psychology is to limit the single topic to one and only one amendment at the beginning. This is a single shot opportunity. We miss and we lose the war. We hit and we get to shoot again. The one amendment can have several sections closely related to each other. For example, related sections of "term limits, state/voter recall, state quash" would be related to States Rights and Control of States Rights whereas amendments to repeal the 17th, to balance the budget, to curb abuses of the Commerce Clause would be waiting in the wings, why?
This is a 'new thing'. If we hit the target and life is better as a result, then we are trusted to bring in other amendments. We build trust with one great and symbolic amendment, then we have a track record that gives us license to bring in more amendments.
Will an amendment focused on States Rights and Control of States Rights weaken the federal government? Yes, it will. With the proposal of this one amendment I will point my finger direct at the 'Washington Cartel' and tell them straight to their faces that the Progressive Era in the history of the United States is on its way out; it's going to be over. The question is not what makes the Federal Government stronger, the question is what makes the United States of America stronger.
He will not refute your post 145, I’m pretty sure of that.
Saying that Congress MUST call a convention upon application of 34 states is a great point that is well-supported. But ‘saying’ it does not make it so.
As a lawyer he is merely drawing attention to the fact that Congress may object that the core language of the applications is not uniform. ‘Saying’ that Congress cannot do that does not make it so. Every good fighter does not go into the ring expecting that his opponent adversary will hit above the belt at all times. Every good lawyer does not prepare a brief that expects the arguments of the adversary to be truthful and candid.
What you have to show (which you can’t; sorry) is that Congress won’t be able to throw a monkey wrench into the fight without matters ending up in Court.
Say Natelson agrees with you and applications on whatever are filed by 34 states. Suppose Congress says these are not all on the same subject (that’s very probable you know). Regardless of what you ‘say’ or what you point out that the Constitution says, just think now what? Congress just went against you and declared no convention will be called because the amendments are not uniform.
What are you going to do about it? You going to go shoot at them?
No, you are going to watch courts get involved and that means serious time gets wasted.
What did Obama do when the House would not vote for the Gang of 8 immigration reform? He went around them with Executive Amnesty.
But but but Obama can’t do that! The Constitution says yada yada! Well, he just did it. What you going to do about it? So the States took him to court and got a temporary stop on him. It’s now in court.
That’s where you’ll end up; in court.
Natelson’s plan is to sail through court by eliminating any points of objection or debate. That’s standard lawyering. He’s right. Where’s he wrong is in framing the issue from the federal side of the coin rather than the state side of the same coin.
What should happen is at least 34 states should convene NOW, without waiting forever for a corrupt congress that will never call them to it. Let the DC denizens and media howl. Like good statists, they will all denounce the exercise of sovereignty.
The right to alter our government long precedes Article V.
There is little time.
“No federal court or Scotus has legitimate purview over either a state or congressionally initiated Article V process.”
Ok so what?
They go against your statement above, what you going to do? You going to shoot them?
"This is just a meeting, not a valid Convention of the States, because we didn't call it. It's illegitimate. Any amendment proposals generated by this meeting will be invalid and ignored by Congress. We will refuse to send these invalid amendment proposals to the states for ratification, and if states attempt to ratify these invalid amendment proposals, we will refuse to accept the letters of ratification. Proper constitutional procedure has not been followed."
Hostage, you're the lawyer. Do I have this right?
Not quite. Congress could be taken to court and force to call the convention if the court’s interpretation went against them, but then they could appeal, Then is gets tied up for a long time. Maybe the Feds would want it that way.
It would boil down to public sentiment. If there were not a single topic, rather a plethora of amendments, especially from the left that even though having no chance of progressing would create a negative reaction via media reports so that the public would develop a negative view of such a convention ***overall***, then the Article V movement loses.
The public would be left with a memory of chaos and some really crazy amendments.
This is why it’s important to forge ahead with a single topic, one amendment only, convention with the pre-selected amendment making lots of sense and resonating greatly with public opinion.
The "Phyllis" in the conversation was, of course, Schlafly.
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.