Posted on 08/25/2013 2:36:07 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Are you suggesting that, if a repeal of the 17th passes and a state selects a different Senator, or if term limits are passed, that a sitting Senator will just ignore the Constitution and barricade himself in his office and refuse to leave?
Is that what you mean by "refuse to follow?"
-PJ
Read what Mark recommends for agency/bureau oversight. They have to regularly defend their very existence!
I deeply RESENT your comments. I wrote this many years ago and have posted it here and elsewhere as appropriate.
Aside from the disaster of a ConCon and armed rebellion — which, given the ignorance of those around you will FAIL as your neighbors would happily join the federales in hunting down and killing you — please tell me what YOU propose to do that’s so radically DIFFERENT and EFFECTIVE.
As a bonus, I’ve also posted a true life tale about how the GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (aka SOCIALIST INDOCTRINATION CENTERS) have been the source of most of the mess we now face.
Be sure to fire off a snappy comment to help convince us all of your superior wisdom and methods.
**********
If you want to know why I’ve cautioned my many friends to NOT SEND THE RNC A NICKLE, READ ON.
Over the years – when, to steal a line from Billy Joel, I wore a younger man’s clothes – I was involved with several pretty solid conservative candidates for Congress. One was a Democrat (Lawrence Patton McDonald) – because that was the only way he could win in that district. Those old-timers who know Larry’s record will tell you that he was a solid an anti-communist America Firster and more Republican than the Pubbies in nearby districts at the time. (His mother’s cousin was General George Patton from whom he got the middle name – and his incredible resolve and love of this country.) How ironic that he, like General Patton, was also assassinated by the communists they both despised.
Those other candidates ran as Republicans. Because I was a rabid Bircher back then (still am philosophically!), those candidates had to pass my rigid litmus test or I went looking for someone who did. For that reason, I hooked up with what the TRADITIONAL country club Pubbie establishment types believed were too radical for their refined tastes.
As those campaigns began to unfold and it became clear to the country clubbers that these guys 1) had a shot and 2) were pretty independent thinkers who would be hard to keep on the reservation once they got sworn in, the local Pubbies communicated that information to the Republican National HQ types who rather quickly sent in campaign “professionals” ostensibly to lock up the impending victory.
Instead, in nearly every case to which I was privy, these “professionals” proceeded to TORPEDO our guy’s campaign in subtle but effective ways.
From that experience I can tell you that the Pubbies at the HQ in D.C. would rather have a Democrat win a given district than have a pubbie up there who would embarrass them by refusing to follow the party line.
If YOU become involved in campaigns for solidly conservative, America and Constitution loving, hard-nosed, independent thinking candidates in 2012 and beyond – and I pray many of you do — please DO NOT trust any of those folks from GOP HQ in Washington. If they want to send you no-strings cash for your campaign, take it. If, however, they “suggest” sending in one of their “professionals,” tell them to fuggetaboutit.
They ARE WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS AND THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS!!!!
“The common and continual mischief of the spirit of Party is
sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to
discourage and restrain it.” G. Washington
(BTW, My genealogical research informs me that my 5th great-grandfather, one John Carpenter, was one of George Washington’s Virginia neighbors and fought with GW in the French and Indian War and the Revolution. Prior to that, John traveled with GW during his survey of the Northwest Territories.)
Dick Bachert
**********
In 1978, my wife and I came to know a young woman named Patty. She
was a devoutly religious young mother who’d become more devout when her
husband and father of her two small sons aged 2 and 6 informed her that he
was leaving. In dire economic straits, I offered to let her stay in our
former home in Chamblee — which was not rented at the time – rent-free until she got back on her feet. She had been clandestinely home schooling the 6 year
old for about 2 years using very well done Christian course materials from
an organization in Texas, Accelerated Christian Education (A.C.E.). The lad had recently been tested and had placed at least a year ABOVE his chronological age. As required by the government school authorities at the time, she dutifully apprised the authorities of his scores.
For reasons which would become clear in a moment, Patty had been harassed by the DeKalb County school authorities for about 6 months and, by the time she moved into the Chamblee house, had been — unbeknownst to us — ORDERED to put the 6 year old into the nearest government elementary school or suffer the consequences. Because she wanted the boys to be educated Christians, there was no way she was going to do that and she told them so.
At approximately 2 am one morning, a loud knock on the door announced the
arrival of the aforementioned “consequences.”
Dressed only in a nightgown, she was confronted by several burly police officers who thrust an arrest warrant in her face. With the now awakened 6 year old watching and the 2 year old wailing in the other room, she was handcuffed and led out the door to jail. She was tossed into a large cell with a couple of hookers and a junkie who spent much of the rest of that morning vomiting in the corner. The two young boys for whom the educational authorities professed such great concern were just left AT THE HOUSE — ALONE! Patty was later told that the bureaucrats from Children Services who were SUPPOSED to accompany the cops were late and, in their haste to get this dangerous miscreant behind bars, the cops just missed the fact that the Children Services people were, well, missing. The CS folks showed up an hour later to find two terrified kids, one of whom had just seen his mother hauled off in cuffs.
Patty was ultimately brought to trial under the Georgia Truancy Statutes. Her pro-bono attorney tore the school authorities to shreds and hers has been called THE case that opened the floodgates to home schooling in Georgia. Once they had all the facts, the jury didn’t take long to acquit her. I’m proud to have played a small part in that.
At Patty’s trial, a previously overlooked aspect of the government schools was put into sharp focus for those paying attention: The Director of Instruction for DeKalb County testified that the then current 7 hour school day consisted of an average of approximately 3 hours or less of instruction. At that time, Patty was devoting 4 to 5 hours a day to direct instruction.
He also as much as admitted that the REAL reason they wanted ALL these kids in school was the $3,000.00 per kid per year (I’m sure that number is MUCH higher today!) they then got from the state and federal government. Empty seats = lost funds. As in most things, follow the money.
Patty home schooled these two boys through high school.
And how did the boys turn out?
One is now a physician and the other a budding journalist.
But that now seems to be the norm for the growing legions of home schooled kids – which most likely explains why the NEA and the government school folks feel so threatened. For what it’s worth, a home schooled kid won the last National Spelling Bee.
Thomas Jefferson believed an EDUCATED PUBLIC to be the cornerstone of the system he and the other Founders TRIED to leave behind. He would NOT, I feel certain, be a big fan of the current government education system. If he returned today, he’d home school just as he did before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0lR1KQq2-U
Dick Bachert
1989
Our current electorate has no idea what a “virtuous” public official is, as demonstrated by the fact that all members of one party and many members of the other party, are baby-murderers.
============
Yes! Our framers were absolutely steeped in Biblical worldview (even those who were deists or rational theists). This worldview inculcated the culture of the time through the vibrant preaching, through the body of law from middle ages England onward (Blackstone etc which was based on the Bible), and just the general tone of the culture. Protestant, Catholic and Jew all still had a fear of God and revered scripture, and even the deists and theists knew a lot about human nature from all that scripture teaches.
And the ONE thing that they knew they had to plan for was man's sin nature. Even the most "angelic", godly, virtuous, committed Christians are very vulnerable to temptation, much less the average ordinary sinful person. They knew this was so from their deep scriptural knowledge or just the cultural air of Christianity that was so prevalent at the time. Therefore they knew that they HAD to provide many different methods to balance power and keep various offices and levels to check each other.
It is such a beautiful system and worked so well, for so many years.
Now, the liberal statists think that if only THEY are the ones in power, they would do it right, and clean things up and fix all the problems. (It's just all those other dummies that couldn't handle all that power that gave communism, fascism, etc a bad name. If only THEY are in charge - everything will be beautiful.) They want to streamline the process to get their guys in and get things done.
The Road to Serfdom. : (
So I agree, the 17th must go, along with a lot of other powers which migrated to the Federal (National) Government.
I just hope that people see how short our time is and get busy.
Dick, you can resent all you like, but your misrepresentation of the constitution and what Mark Levin is calling for is what I resent. I applaud your individual efforts, but your negative attitude is NOT helpful in solving the problem facing us today. The methods we've tried in the past aren't working.
You repeatedly use the term "CONCON", meaning a "Constitutional Convention", in a negative connotation, I.E., a convention in which the Constitution itself could be rewritten. THAT IS NOT THE CASE! Have you bothered to read Mark Levin's book? Have you even read Article Five of the US Constitution and the very explicit words written there, because those words don't say that? Here it is and they are:
Constitution of the United States, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Constitution allows for a limited convention for the limited purpose of proposing Amendments to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. . . a very onerous procedure. It is NOT a Constitutional Convention.
I misrepresented NOTHING about what has happened in the past forty years. . . and I speak as a friend of Ronald Reagan's, a true conservative, a man who has tried to send true believers in limited government to Washington for 45 years, only to repeatedly see them turned into beltway whores. . . over and over. . . seduced by the power, the lure of re-election, and the desire to be "liked" by the "media" and the brokers of the means opening the doors to all that, money. Electing more Republicans to send them unarmed into the vipers' nest is NOT working and has not been working. To think it will work in the future if we just send more cannon fodder into battle is a losing battle plan. Our opponents KNOW how to seduce the lambs we send in. It's all to easy. A compromise here, a deal there, a quid quo pro for a little gain, a favor for a favor—after all, politics is the art of compromise—and the slippery slide begins. But, Dick, every compromise with our RIGHTS means that some small fraction of those rights are given up, and a new status quo is the starting point for the NEXT compromise demand. . . Each compromise results in an Incremental loss of rights. It NEVER goes the other way! The Left never cedes back any ground they've won. . . NEVER.
We've been electing Republicans wh. seem to be completely satisfied with defending the CURRENT Status Quo, Even now the leadership, elected by our efforts of the last forty years, is taking the INSANE POSITION of defending the status quo of Obamacare as established law, and are merely carving out protections for themselves and their preferred cronies. It IS insane for us to continue the same tactics and then expect a different outcome.
We Republicans control 97% of the State legislatures needed to call a Convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. 97%. RIGHT NOW. We can do an end run around the roadblocks put in place by the liberals in Washington, and reclaim Constitutional government. Don't fall for the propaganda designed by the Republican leadership to keep Conservatives neutered. . . and them in comfort. Playing the old game won't do it.
I would suggest that there were no muskets in the room during the constitutional convention, and no muskets forced the voters to ratify the constitution after the finished product was produced.
The Congress of the US under the Confederation submitted it to the states for action, and after being accepted, transferred their powers to the new US government. The outgoing US President of the United States under the Confederation stood next to the incoming President of the US under the current Constitution.
I think it could be called an Article V convention.
No, the Article 10 says “...the states and the people.” so it is not just the states, but also the people. And how would the people act? Through their personal lives, as well as through their elected representatives at state and federal level.
Example: Religion: States could have a state church, or not. MA still has a state church. Individual citizens could decide to go to church, or not. Federal government had, initially, nothing to do with it, except the commissioning of various chaplains as necessary and proper to other powers.
The anti federalists asserted that the last constitutional convention was a run away convention.
current jurisprudence on the 4th Amendment has favored first one side then the other, not for any great philosophical reason, but rather as a crude and ad hoc balancing act as new technologies are invented to improve the ability to search, or to hide.
Attempting to freeze the 4th Amendment in stone would presume knowledge in advance of new technology that we simply don’t have.
When the SCOTUS makes errors, we have the ability to change laws, or even amend the constitution to correct errors (like the 13th 14th and 15th amendments corrected Dred Scott decision). That feedback loop is probably necessary.
Say a new algorithm was invented that could guarantee that criminal communications could never be deciphered. What would that do to the ability to gather evidence?
Now imagine a new algorithm was invented that could guarantee that any criminal intent could be gleaned from any communication, so the criminal could be stopped before he could commit the crime.
One or the other would radically change the way we look as search and seizure in different ways. We can’t predict the future of complex things.
The status quo is not what we have. We have a race, and some (printing guns, encryption methods, and blogging) technologies show potential to disrupt centralized power and others (IR and x-ray searches of houses, communications recording and analysis) show potential to increase centralized power.
But you have representation.
What would you tax? How would you fund the government?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, you mean thought crimes, pre-crime arrests? Hate crimes are more than enough thought crimes thank you, and they should be done away with. What a doofus. My idea of fixing the 4th is to make sure the probable cause portion is adhered to the way it is written. There is nothing in the 4th that allows searches with probable cause unless a warrant is obtained. Today all a cop has to say is he/she saw something suspicious and that gives them probable cause to search and enter your property without a warrant. Searches of people, vehicles and residences should require a warrant as is stated in the 4th.
Your rambling discourse is BS and more liberal like than conservative.
What is probable cause? Is it your assertion that a bank robber can not be searched until the police officer gets a warrant from a judge? That would make it initially cheaper for cities because police officers would only rarely get to draw their pension, but harder to recruit, as being a cop would be seen as more hazardous.
If it is thought to be liberal to think that police officers should be able to search detainees so the cop is not suddenly shot, well, put what ever label you want on it.
Imagine that multishot guns are now so small that they can be concealed in a nostril. No searching of prisoners, that would be contrary to the pristine 4th Amendment, no matter how many people die.
The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Yes, I say that, the constitution says that also. Read it sometime. Do you think it is ok for a cop to say, "Hey, look, I saw__________(fill in the blank) , that's probable cause, we can search this house, guy, car, etc.". Give up your freedoms if you want, I will fight for mine until the day they plant me.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That doesn’t say what you say. Court cases decide what it means to be secure, what searchs are reasonable, and unreasonable. Warrants, if issued must be on probable cause, but that doesn’t mean that a person ‘caught in the act’ is secure against search until the cop gets a warrant.
thx for posting this. Will review.
Would you agree, at least, that the 4th amendment was intended to set a minimum expectation that declining to give law enforcement permission to search is not de facto admission of guilt of something that can be used against a person immediately to hold them?
That a person can be "secure" in at least that much?
-PJ
Didn’t see the video.
I was pulled over once. I had gone a few miles too fast through a school zone. The police car pulled out, turned on its siren. I looked up turned right to get off the highway, and pulled over into a diagonal parking place in front of a store. I got out and leaned up against the side of the van with my hands raised high, on the side of the van (facing the van).
The police were suddenly confused. They asked if I was being kidnapped. They didn’t search me. They didn’t write me a ticket. They did ask me where I was going.
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.