Posted on 12/21/2015 3:12:07 PM PST by cotton1706
Even hundred-year tides peak and turn, as all political tides must. The red tide that we are now riding is strong enough, if properly channeled, to permanently alter the political landscape. In our system of government, and in our situation, that means amendment of the Constitution, something not achieved by the previous Republican hundred-year tide of 1920.
The Ryan-McConnell Congress, with its omnibus spending capitulation, has conclusively demonstrated that it lacks the stomach for the types of constitutional reform that will be possible after the 2016 election. It's not the leadership so much as the members. The Chamber of Commerce didn't elevate these two to leadership; Republican congressmen did. The House Freedom caucus is a small minority, and there are only a handful of senators willing to back them.
Fortunately, the Framers foresaw this and provided for it. Article V allows the states, and the people, to amend the Constitution without congressional involvement, aside from a ministerial function. If this tide is to leave a permanent mark, it will be through Article V.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
ping
Careful what you wish for!
Pro- Convention of the States article.
Not going to happen. Takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify any amendment regardless of how it is proposed. Do you honestly think 3/4ths of the states will agree on imposing a balanced budget amendment? You think any state ruled by liberals will vote for that? Vermont? California? You need 38.
“Do you honestly think 3/4ths of the states will agree on imposing a balanced budget amendment?”
This is the last venue short of all out war to restore the ‘republic’.
When there were 13 states, changes through an Article V might have been viable.
Now, results would have to pass by a minimum of 37 state legislatures and that could take YEARS. Thus, such changes would have little impact on the current situation. Obama, for example, would be gone. Several of the SC Justices would probably have died and been replaced. Many old senators would have died off or finally retired.
An Article V might attempt be prescient and look for upcoming problems, but it is not the solution to current problems.
Sorry.
The courts/chief executive/legislators who ignore the current laws would just a likely ignore any new laws imposed on them.
Good column. Fritz is right. It will probably take the prodding of President Cruz to focus the nation on Article V.
Actually, would need 38 legislatures.
Gotta admit, California wouldn’t, because that would lessen their chances of a bailout.
Most of the states wouldn’t vote for it once they learn all the federal grants and matching funds will have to be replaced by state funds obtained by state taxes.
I’m all in favor of a balanced budget but this is a hare-brained idea that won’t go anywhere. You want a balanced budget, vote for the right representatives and senators.
“This is the last venue short of all out war to restore the ‘republic’.”
Best start looking for Plan B. This dog won’t hunt.
So are we to give up? Surrender before the fight? You sound like the Colonist that stood back and let the 1/3 od the Colonist fight the War with Britain which was said couldn’t be won!!!!
Every amendment form the 16th on was passed with 48 states.
California and Vermont? Never. Texas, Georgia, S. Carolina or Utah? Definitely.
1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.
2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.
3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.
4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.
I think that sums it up nicely. The same people who don't want it to work are the ones saying it can't work.
God bless you guys. This is the most important long-term solution.
Merry Christmas and FRegards ....
“So are we to give up? Surrender before the fight? “
Of course we continue to fight. But, we need to choose battles we can win rather than wasting our strength on futile efforts.
“So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:”
My objection hinges upon my objection to futile, hopeless charges. IMO, perhaps the dumbest military blunder was Pickett’s charge. You just waste your strength to no gain. There is simply no way you’ll get the necessary 38 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment. There are a number of states (Vermont, California, perhaps others) that are so liberal, they would vote against free beer if conservatives are in favor. Then there is a much larger number of states who would have serious reservations once they see how much a balanced budget amendment would affect their own finances.
A balanced budget would require major budget cuts (name your figure here). Some cuts are simply out of the question. You won’t cut social security for example since that would result in a massacre of all those who voted for it. Most of the viable cuts would be those programs where the feds transfer funds to the states. For example, highway funds. IOW, the states would have to increase their spending which means their taxes which means they won’t vote for it.
Put me in the “it won’t work so don’t waste your time”.
Of course we continue to fight. But, we need to choose battles we can win rather than wasting our strength on futile efforts.
So what is Futile Battle? Gotta Try!!!
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.