Replies

My problem with Article V is that unless we can stop the propagandizing of our young people it won’t matter. If politicians and judges actually followed our present Constitution there would be no reason for Article V, but they don’t. The politicians that support this destruction of the country continue to get elected because ever larger numbers of young people have never lived in a country with out the bureaucracy, and have been forced fed the mantras of victimhood. They wouldn’t understand nor be comfortable in a country like the one in which I grew up.

I can say this with certainty from talking with the 30-40 something in my family. We don’t just disagree on principles, we don’t even live in the same world. They have no understanding of freedom as I remember it. To them the most important “F” word is fairness. Fairness as defined by those who benefit from said victimhood. It is futile and frustrating to discuss politics with them because we have no common ground to start on. If I talk about the right to free association they immediately go to bigotry and intolerance, except of course if those wanting their own space are official victims then it’s fine. They don’t or can’t see the irony in their stance.

Article V isn’t going to fix that divide.

The “fairness” word is exactly what the article is referring to. People who demand fairness (i.e. The homosexual coup!e with 2 adopted kids) will use government and its monopoly on force to guarantee this fairness. It is the underlying reason why there is such a divide.

To translate, see my earlier post 15 in this discussion.

JoMa

Article V isn’t going to fix that divide.

I think we have to carefully consider what Article V, like any part of the Constitution, can do and cannot do. The Democrats have recently become fond of quoting Dr. Franklin since they thought it might aid their unconstitutional quest for impeachment, when he said about the new constitutional government if ratified, "a Republic madam if you can keep it."

There are some things constitutional provisions can and do regularly. For example, since the 13th amendment we've had virtually no slavery (some of Chinese workers held in bondage in the Rocky Mountains states building railroads and digging mines and some white slavery today) and no slavery overtly sanctioned by government. The 13th amendment worked.

Such an amendment, or a procedural amendment that for example that requires a balanced budget is enforceable and likely would have profound changes just as we have seen by the 13th amendment and by the amendment providing for popular election of Senators.

Your personal story illustrates how fickle political opinion can be from generation to generation. I think we have to draw the distinction between the power of constitutional amendments to alter certain behaviors or to curb partisanship or, finally, to change human nature.

Our founders were wise enough to know that the Constitution could not change human nature, that is why they undertook to work with human nature rather than against it but to control it with enumerated powers, balance of powers, checks and balances and, later, a Bill of Rights. But the limitations of the Constitution to change human nature were recognized by the framers as illustrated by Benjamin Franklin in his admonition to the woman as he an exited the constitutional convention.

I think we have to be careful about the kinds of constitutional amendments we seek and that should come from an understanding of what we can expect from ourselves.

I have challenged Gen’l Forrest along these same lines before and I confess myself persuaded at least somewhat. I think that an important insight for me is this. Our side will not fight! They would or they might if they could be convinced that they were in the right. Sadly people on our side accept at the deepest level the current view of the constitution so my tired old idea of “enforcing the constitution we have” is simply impractical. There is no way to get there from here.

The second amendment for example, could not be more clear, yet it was the National Rifle Association that opposed any efforts to defend Bernie Goetz against a NYC gun charge. The NRA also did all they could to stop Heller from filing his lawsuit. Thankfully he didn’t listen to them. And yet the NRA is the best we have defending the 2ndA!

I cannot see how the good general will bring about the Article V convention, but I can accept that it would be a good thing and the fight surrounding it would be won by our side. As central_va (or was it wastoute?) mentions on this thread, there is a fight coming.

I think he is right.

I think we will win.