Posted on 08/12/2018 7:36:28 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
It’s Time: There hasn’t been one since the earliest days of our founding, but conservatives — increasingly alarmed by creeping socialism, Left-wing courts, and Democratic efforts to overturn the 2016 election are now turning their attention more avidly towards a “constitutional convention.”
In the days of the Tea Party movement, a book called “The Liberty Amendments” by constitutional scholar, author, talk host and former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin sparked a modern-day convention movement that would operate much as the first “con-con” which took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia.
“I think we’re three or four years away,” former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn told The Guardian on Friday at the annual convention for American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
Not sure about that. In theory the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Constitution by its own terms was already one of limited, enumerated government, i.e. the government had no right to do anything other than what was spelled out in the Constitution. But the Framers didn’t think that implicit framework was enough, and they wanted to basically redundantly state specifically certain things that the government was prohibited from doing, because they presciently knew that the government would try to. So, having a Constitutional Convention to basically put in a couple of new amendments that reinforce the Constitution as written, and put in a process to protect against corruptions of it, I think it could be useful.
Whatever it takes to restore our Free Constitutional Republic.
The problem is not the Lying left. The problem is the double-minded Right. Wills, hearts, and minds need to be steeled to re-gain our liberties and our constitutional republic. With God's help, I think it will happen.
Everyone has an opinion... I believe there is a need for a convention, balanced budget. We need to stop baseline budgiting ermanently. Just my opinion.
You are aware that a states convention can do those three things you suggest? And it does not open the constitution to allow anyone to change anything they should want to. The convention of states does not work that way.
Its sad/amusing to read the "let's enforce the Constitution we have" chorus. Its as if they are immune to the written and practical lessons of history. Read Livy, Machiavelli, Locke, Sidney, Cato, Jefferson, Madison, and our own Declaration of Independence. For those too lazy for study, we need look no further than our colonial and early experience under the Articles of Confederation to see what happens under unamendable governing forms.
I've read every post to this thread so far, and you'd think our Constitution was perfection on earth. Which Constitution? The 1787 Constitution, the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, the Constitution after the 13th-15th Amendments, or perhaps the 16-17th? Anyway there are twenty-seven amendments and I'm not sure which one the chorus thinks we should enforce. Oh, we should just enforce the latest? Okay. Since, by the chorus, it doesn't make a difference, let's start with repeal of 17th and see what happens.
Not even our Framers thought their Constitution was perfection. They said it wasn't. They included Article V so that self-governing people in a republic could keep their republic. Duh.
On this, of the DUTY of the sovereign people to correct errors and shortcomings as they become evident, the Framers spoke with one voice.
I realize that won't budge the chorus. Actually, they needn't worry. There are hundreds of Article V applications scattered through the national archives. Congress will never call a state-derived Article V convention. This should please the chorus until the moment the creaky gears of our once free government come to a grinding halt.
To call us all closed minded bigots immune to reason is a rhetorical fallacy when no one calling for a convention of the states has actually tried reason.
A reasonable [e.g. reasoned] argument would begin by proposing the text of an actual amendment, then citing the ills that it is aimed to address, examing how the amendment would work to address the ill and then anticipate and put to rest concerns about a host of unintended consequences that will arise from any effort to meddle with the constitution that exists.
I don't see that anywhere.
The abandonment of states rights to the federal government, except for the cited nullification of sanctuary cities, is not an ill of the constitution, but an ill of the states. And, there a plenty of remedies for fixing the sanctuary city problem, which is already an unconstitutional abrogation by the states of powers that the federal government has had from the outset and that it must have to defend the states (unless say Wyoming will maintain a militia to repel illegal invaders declared legal by the state of California). The fix isn't Wyoming but to fix California, which Trump is working on.
We are already on our way to fixing an overbearing federal government. We elected Trump and he has been hacking away unmercifully on the regulatory state. Didn't need and amendment, just an electorate and a President who were in agreement that that job needed to be done.
Now, the real problem is that those on the right don't like the folks that the country sends to Washington. You can't fix stupid with a constitutional amendment.
Just don't call us close minded bigots because we are immune to arguments that have never been posed to us.
A constitutional convention would be open to all political persuasions. History teaches us that almost nothing goes as planned or as expected. Even if all conservatives spoke with one voice, there’s no guaranree they would prevail.
Jacqueline, thank you for your very thoughtful post. Excuse my French, but the balanced budget amendment is just mental masturbation. Ok, if that’s what’s needed to make Article V non-radioactive. If we’re going to start limited, I’d certainly be game to start with the 17th amendment, though I think the need for that is tough to sell to the sheeple. FRiends, those who haven’t done so, check out Levin on the Article V process. A Convention of States can be limited in scope, the Legislatures can recall wayward delegates, and amendments still need to be ratified by38 states. Levin’s 11 proposals are good ones; that doesn’t mean there are not other good ones available. The left has triumphed on a hundred fronts over 100 years. Conservative inroads might turn back, what, 5, 10, 15 before the rats regain power and go pedal to the metal on more statism. It might not be doable, but I’ve become convinced that nothing but Convention of the States can effect the systemic overhaul that is needed.
Don’t even CONSIDER massive risky constitutional options...
...until EVERY PRECINCT’S voter rolls
are free of fraud and dead voters.
Yes, but opinions that are worth anything should be supportable with reason. The fact is a forced balanced budget gives the Lying left EVERY legitimate opportunity to RAISE taxes to meet $3 trillion unconstitutional spending.
The Constitution AS WRITTEN and RATIFIED and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and INTENDED.
THAT Constitution.
We don’t need another CoC. We need the states and their chicken-sh#t governors to get a mindset of INDEPENDENCE from the feds (remember, as in our founding Declaration) and stand against their mostly unconstitutional acts, laws, and decisions.
Our constitution may not be perfect but it far better than anything this generation of politicians could come up with. The naivete of some still astounds me.
Obviously it’s not working.
The idea behind this is to prevent further changes and to stop all efforts to disrupt the integrity of the Constitution.
I do not propose that our Constitution is “perfection”.
However, I recognize that if we open up the Constitution to a re-write, which is exactly what you do with a convention, we put our country and ourselves at grave risk. Perhaps you trust the people of this country but I do not. The margins of victory for the right are far too slim to risk allowing the left to get their hands on replacing the very foundation of our country.
And to what end? If we are going to ignore the one we have now, what the hell good will writing something different do?
How do you drain something that has enforcers buried all over the District? The STATES HAVE TO TAKE BACK THEIR POWER - the same power that created this District to begin with.
Leftists infiltrate *everything*. I think a CC is the worst idea in a _long_ time.
Some states are integrating rules that delegates cannot legally vote on anything not approved by the state legislature. Other states have mandated that delegates can only vote for a single change, a balanced budget amendment. This means that unless the process is streamlined, there is no way it can reach the 38 vote threshold.
Thus the biggest threat is of espionage conducted against the convention by US agencies and foreign governments. Security at the convention will have to be very high, and layered, with the host state using its resources to keep interlopers out.
Electronic communications to and from the convention may need to be prohibited, with messages to and from state legislatures being carried by courier with heavy armed escort.
The list of precautions goes on and on.
Yes, I am very aware that an Article V Convention could address all of those issues. I’ve done a great deal of research on this and agree that an Article V Convention is probably the only way to right our ship of state.
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.