[mistfree]

“Before changing the Constitution ENFORCE it”

Perhaps we need to change it IN ORDER to enforce it.

[MarchonDC09122009]

I understand the intention to strengthen constitutional protection of state’s rights and limit federal abuses of power.
However, knowing how untrustworthy and compromised nearly all legislators are, we would be better advised to not open up the Article V Pandora ‘ s box.
I have the strongest hunch that it will ultimately be co-opted by the left, and render opposite of desired results.
Protests and non violent civil disobedience would likely scare politicians into better behavior.
When they feel the heat, they see the light.
Remember Clinton being chased by FREEPERS embarrassing the hell out of him?
Remember the Tea Party protests that gave us the 2010 victories?
We still have a voice. We must be organized, in great numbers, and Loud!

[Repeal 16-17]

Perhaps we need to change it IN ORDER to enforce it.

That could be the motto for the Convention. Right now, the Constitution is primarily enforced by the Supreme Court, secondarily by the Congress and the President. That's the problem. Enforcement of the Constitution is done at the federal level, so the Constitution is usually NOT enforced against federal power outside of violations of the Bill of Rights.

An amendment or amendments need to be adopted providing for a way to enforce the Constitution that does not rely on any of the federal branches of government.

[Phlyer]

“Before changing the Constitution ENFORCE it”

Perhaps we need to change it IN ORDER to enforce it.

It always seems strange to me that right after the Supremes demonstrate that the written words don't matter, a lot of people shout that we need to change the written words. WTF??!!

There is nothing wrong with what's going on in Washington now that wouldn't be improved enormously if they just abided by the currently written - and very clear - words. Instead, we get 'shadows and penumbras' of what's written . . . which has the sole effect of rendering what is written meaningless. How does writing down some other words - that will also be ignored - improve that?

On the other hand, if 'we' lost control of an Article V convention . . . which I think is very likely - these guys are career politicians who live for that sort of forum - then say good-bye to whatever shreds of the Constitution still have meaning. And say hello to basic 'rights' like 'freedom from want' (which means the end of private property), and 'freedom from fear' (which means the end of the 2nd Amendment, or the 1st).

No thanks.

[Political Junkie Too]

The states are the natural enforcers, and they were booted from the Senate. We have to change the Constitution to restore state control over the selection of Senators if we expect the Senate to be the enforcers of the Constitution.

-PJ

[dware]

Perhaps we need to change it IN ORDER to enforce it.

Lol. Seriously? That's just crazy talk. If you can't enforce what you have, don't expect to enforce whatever it is you add or change.