Article V Invocation -- Is There a Better Way to do it?

It’s long been evident that Congress has no intention of curbing its profligate spending. Despite racing 90 mph in the wrong direction, instead of reversing course, their meager budget reductions are the equivalent of simply slowing to 70.

The inevitable result of this reckless behavior –- whether triggered by a US government credit failure, a vast inflation of the currency or a repudiation of the debt -– will be economic chaos.

In the first chapter of his new book The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin makes the case for the safety, propriety and necessity of this method. He notes his transition from being a skeptic of an Article V Convention to becoming “a confident and enthusiastic advocate.”

Concerns have been voiced by many individuals and organizations, both by those who revere our founding charter, as well as those who wish to maintain the status quo, about a “runaway convention,” where our constitutional protections may be abrogated, the document may be discarded entirely or our very form of government might be changed.

But what if there was a legitimate and well-designed approach to Article V which not only provided supplemental safeguards, but simultaneously expedited the amendment process and secured the outcome ahead of time?

It takes 34 states to initiate a convention but 38 to ratify proposed amendments. Why not have an agreement, or compact, among the states where a full complement of 38 proposes the convention, approving in advance all the guidelines, language, restrictions and obligations, thus pre-ratifying everything necessary to enact an amendment?

That, essentially, is what the Goldwater Institute, a public policy organization in Phoenix, is advocating.

With the initial focus on a federal balanced budget amendment, Nick Dranias, Goldwater’s Director of Policy Development and Constitutional Government, has designed a virtually turnkey approach to the amendment process.

State invocation of Article V of the US Constitution is a never-implemented and little understood power of the states to restore a balance of sovereignty. But it was carefully worded by our founders and reads in part, “The Congress, … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”

A crucial item which the language of Article V makes clear is that this provision, adopted at the original Constitutional Convention, shall be a convention only for proposing amendments. Adoption still requires the approval of 38 states.

Adding to this substantial safeguard, Dranias envisions a structure where the amendment language is known in advance, there’s a binding agreement among the states wherein they are reciprocally obligated, the delegates' actions are carefully restricted and there are no gaps left to be filled by Congress, whose actions are constitutionally defined. After 38 states are on board, the convention call goes into effect. The up or down vote itself is slated as a one-day affair.

The prescience of the framers is evident in their provision for a convention of states to amend our Constitution for the purpose of reining in what they envisioned as an irresponsible or rogue federal government. Our founders counted on the states “to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” But we have failed to do so.

In an Oval Office speech more than 25 years ago, Ronald Reagan fairly implored the states to convene an amendments convention. He said, “We desperately need the power of a constitutional amendment to help us balance the budget.”

At that time, our national debt was under $2.3 trillion. Today we’re $17 trillion in the hole –- and counting –- and the bill WILL come due with no practical way to pay it unless the states force the issue.

There are other important possibilities for amendments –- Levin proposes an additional ten -– and the time may soon come when they can be addressed. But for many, the most pressing issue at this time is to get our fiscal house in order. Most citizens want the federal government to spend within its means –- just as they must. And the successful enactment of one amendment would likely expedite additional action.

No one has a crystal ball, but the trends and warning signs seem clear. The unknowns are just when financial chaos will hit us -– just as is happening to indebted countries in Europe -– and in what form it will come. It’s time to take action, and the folks who are needlessly worried about a runaway convention are overlooking a more imminent existential threat.

NOTICE TO COURT AND ALL COURT OFFICERS

We the People of this still great country are Constitutionalists and require all public servants, including judges, to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including those before the court. This protects the American Citizens from government and court abuse.

Since the Constitution cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to government by the Constitution can never supersede the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to The American People. “Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Government and the courts without Constitutional authority can conduct nothing lawful, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep “authority” in mind as you review the following statements and questions.

CHALLENGES TO THE COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS CAN START

1. A. Your Honor and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?

B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?

2. I, YOUR NAME, hereby notify this Honorable Court that I am a living, breathing, natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters, not as it appears on the court documents.

Is there any objection to what I just stated?

3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?

4. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?

5. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?

B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?

6. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof or factual evidence. Is that correct?

7. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.

8. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Furthermore, no official Oath of Office can be located anywhere, nor has one been put on the public record. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges and/or warrants for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed and any warrant recalled, with full prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with full prejudice.

Failure to respond to this formal written notice, dated January 23, 2007, within 30 days in written format with Proof of Service to the undersigned, constitutes and validates your fraud and failure to honor your Oath of Office. Furthermore, all said charges, judgments, warrants and/or claims against YOUR NAME, is null and void, without force or effect or lawful power. Any further harassment of YOUR NAME by this court or any of its officers will be construed as intentional harm, with malice and the conscious intent of inflicting both physical and mental harm to the defendant-in-error in this matter. Copies of this document along with the attached documents will be sent to the Office of Judicial Administrations, Washington DC in the event that justice is not reached.

Respectfully submitted,
All Rights Reserved
________________________________
YOUR NAME, American Citizen

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this ____ day of January 2007, a true and exact copy of the aforesaid Motion was sent, first class postage prepaid, by U.S. mail, to ATTORNEY’S NAME, ESQ. and Honorable, JUDGE’S NAME, 51 East 400 North, PO Box 1808, Cedar City, Utah 84721.

Why stop just with a balanced budget? Here would be my suggestions:

AMENDMENT XXVIII (Repeal of Income Tax) The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

AMENDMENT XXIX (Repeal of Direct Election of Senators) The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

AMENDMENT XXX (Marriage Defined) Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of alternative unions to marriage. State established alternative unions to marriage shall not be imposed upon other states. No marriage benefits established by Congress may be provided to alternative unions.

AMENDMENT XXXI (Balance Budget) Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which-- (1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and (2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year. Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

AMENDMENT XXXII (Term Limits) Section 1. No person shall serve in the office of Senator more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator, or acted as Senator, for more than two years of a term to which some other person served as Senator shall serve in the office of the Senator more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Senator, or acting as Senator, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Senator or acting as Senator during the remainder of such term. Senators currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

Section 2. No person shall be elected to the office of Representative more than four times, and no person who has held the office of Representative, or acted as Representative, for more than one year of a term to which some other person was elected Representative shall be elected to the office of the Representative more than three times. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Representative, or acting as Representative, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Representative or acting as Representative during the remainder of such term. Representatives currently serving at the time of ratification of this article will be subject to this article at the time of their next election.

Of the many things that need repair, as we consider the specifics of judicious amendments, we must also consider revoking the power that the federal government as assumed to place all citizens in economic serfdom by the effects of the infinite and perpetual debt it accumulates when it spends more than it takes in.

It has been said that as government grows, liberty must of necessity retreat. Government can only grow by assuming an increasing level of spending. When it can’t fund its spending by taxation (see “Rahn curve”), it has been creating currency, allowing banks and GSEs (Fannie/Freddie) to expand credit, or issuing nearly infinite amounts of debt that it has no intention of ever repaying.

In doing so, it creates debt that has compounded interest payments, and to pay that interest, it must of necessity turn citizens into debt-serfs from which it cannot allow escape.

Our parents were part of “The Greatest Generation” that won WW II. Their children gave birth to “The Most Selfish Generation”, who were happy to borrow money in the name of their own children to pay for buying votes and paying “benefits” to attain political power. This is not “sustainable”, a concept the left loves to scold us about.

Stein’s Law says that something that cannot continue forever won’t. Our federal government has put us on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory that leads to us exactly where the Egyptians were with Pharaoh. We have been lead to sell to government our liberty in return for “benefits” paid for by our own debt.

We must revoke this power or history will judge us very harshly.

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.