Posted on 04/16/2014 2:47:01 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A common concern among Article V opponents is fear that a convention of the states to propose constitutional amendments will result in an oppressive constitution. All we need to do is enforce the constitution we have. Elect the right people to implement our written constitution and all will be well.
As logical and appealing as that approach appears to be, it ignores some horrible realities, and actually promotes our headlong dive into tyranny, for the anti-constitution, the unwritten Frankenstein constitution rules.
First, aside from the occasional heat politicians take from an outraged populace, our legislative and executive branches in the aggregate do not acknowledge any limitations on their power.
Second, and perhaps worst of all, the branch charged with adjudication of disputes arising under the constitution has rewritten the constitution such that instead of securing our freedoms, their constitution, the Frankenstein constitution, welcomes tyranny.
The United States has two constitutions. Freepers read, study, and revere the brilliance of our framers’ plan of government, and support like-minded politicians. Meanwhile, federal courts, when they adjudicate within any limits at all, are guided by the Frankenstein constitution, the one they and their predecessors amended at least dozens of times these past eighty years.
There is no need to attempt to list here at FreeRepublic all of the illegal judicial amendments that created today’s Frankenstein constitution. Suffice to say that a counter-revolution to the American Revolution has occurred. A compact between We The People, via our states, and the government we created has gone wrong. Rather than secure our rights, the unwritten constitution secures the power of our oppressors. When cases come before Scotus, the starting points are previous, typically unconstitutional decisions, and not the supreme law they swore to uphold.
The executive branch has gleefully swept up powers discarded by congress. In fact, the very first clause of Article I, Section 1, the one in which a free people assigned all legislative authority therein granted to congress, now resides within the executive branch. This authority will pass on to the next president. Unless these powers are formally retrieved, ALL subsequent presidents will have Obama’s unwritten, unconstitutional, despotic powers. That is tyranny which no even year election alone can reverse.
When freepers ignore the reality of the unwritten Frankenstein constitution that is the actual framework of the ruling class, there is little hope for freedom’s restoration. It means we have turned a blind eye to our situation, for elections long ago stopped serving to choose who will faithfully perform their constitutional duties on our behalf. It means the ruling despots have a constitutionally free hand to aggrandize more power and wealth, to continue sapping our liberty. In order to possibly restore republican freedom, we must first come face to face with our enemy, admit the dominance of this Frankenstein constitution and the increasing irrelevancy of the written constitution.
Only the very hard and fast provisions of the written constitution remain. Representatives serve two years, senators six, and for the time being at least, presidents are limited to two four year terms. Nearly every other “soft” clause that has gotten in the way of progressive goals is either gone, misapplied or turned upside down. Think commerce clause, equal protection, taxation, abortion, fag marriage, our Bill of Rights, Obamacare, Common Core . . .
An unwritten Frankenstein constitution rules. If we are to kill this monster and return to republican freedoms, it is way past time, if time remains at all, to grasp a clause from Article V that George Mason demanded at the federal convention of 1787.
Unlike so much of the written constitution, the state amending authority of Article V still exists. We must act while we still have the power to peacefully correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that no election can correct.
I really don't care.
What I care about is someone posting -
HEY! Let's all gang up and endlessly BULLY those who refuse to get down on bended knee and kiss the robes of the SCOTUS.
That IS, in essence what you said.
I have and it does not authorize a "Constitutional Convention".
The very word “Convention” is used. I am not impressed with those people advocating a convention. They appear to be just those type of people one does not want tampering with our government.
“HEY! Let’s all gang up and endlessly BULLY those who refuse to get down on bended knee and kiss the robes of the SCOTUS.”
Well I’m sorry that’s your interpretation of what I said.
In the nice response I posted earlier (or miss posted because I can’t find it now I point out this:
RE: My post #43 in the thread on states sending faithless electors based on popular vote (a fiction created by the media to sell controversy) http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3145825/posts
Salient point
[BARF ALERT WARNING]
— begin quote —
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson [REFERENCE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMER JAMES MILLER] noted in 1787, “... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#interpret
— end quote —
To which I ask: So what Constitutional Framer do we give more credibility to? What do we base that choice on?
So the summary is: If we don’t abide by the Constitutional methods of changing the Constitution .... what right do we have to expect the other side to?
If we won’t abide, then why should they abide?
A single amendment wouldn’t require a convention. AFAIK, a convention is for a constitutional overhaul. So what would be required at the amendment level would be this issue passed by the proper number of States. In the alternative, it could be passed as a federal law by Congress. However that would presume Congress would want to draw attention to it’s main form of wrongfully imposed power and then limit itself from access to that wrongful process. Needless to say, it’s hard for me to see that happening. So if it ever happens I see it arising from the several States in the form of a constitutional amendment.
Oh, yes. Mark Levin is such an idiot.
Amendments must first be formally proposed. There are two ways to propose amendments - via Congress or via a convention. Since you don't want a convention, that leaves Congress.
LOL, it’s not that I “don’t want” a convention. In fact, I don’t really care how it comes about. All I’m saying is that it is a simple fact that the US Code and the State Codes apply - by their own definitions - to corporations, officers of corporations, people acting in a corporate capacity, or government employees. That’s it. And obviously, these laws are being applied to people who do not fit those incorporated definitions, and thus they are being wrongfully applied. Further, there is no clear way from any part of the government to identify oneself as non-corporate or refute the presumption of corporate status. And finally, it is also a fact that every single effort of leftists, liberals and RINOS to undermine the freedoms acknowledged by the rights of the original Constitution is done through statutory (corporate) law.
So what’s left? Changing the laws? They’re still statutory laws applying to incorporated subjects. What has to happen is that they have to stop being applied to non-incorporated free people. And so it seems there needs to be a law that blocks that presumption, and requires full declaration of corporate applicability. How is that to be done? Through the amendment process, or through simply passing laws pertaining to these needs at a congressional level.
Other than that, what’s left - a constitutional convention? Yes, technically. The problem with a ConCon, as I understand it, is that it is open to numerous agendas being enacted against each other by all parties, and lacks inherent coherence to a specific goal. Obviously, that can wreak destruction, especially when this particular subject, if enabled at a ConCon, would cancel out the mechanism by which the entirety of the Left’s agenda is wrongfully enacted. So essentially the entire convention would be about this one single thing. Which is fine, but why not then just do an amendment and cut out the ConCon risk of Leftist agenda subversion?
All that being said, yes, technically, if the needed amendment could be safely achieved through a ConCon, then that would do just fine. It just seems that doing it in that way would be unduly difficult and even risky. Because the philosophical descendents of same people who came up with the idea of applying corporate law to free people in the first place, would be at the same ConCon where that technique was being blocked - and I have a feeling they’d fight it with everything they have, whether aboveboard, or through dirty tricks, or lies, or whatever.
Grant that Levin is what you think he is he is only one out of many delegates. The demographics of today’s America is not the demographics of 1789. I don’t want Third World people and some kooks tampering with our government. To put it another way we do not have George Washington, James Wilson and Ben Franklin anymore. They have all gone away. We have a Negro community organizer as President in America 2014 A.D.
Grant that Levin is what you think he is he is only one out of many delegates. The demographics of today’s America is not the demographics of 1789. I don’t want Third World people and some kooks tampering with our government. To put it another way we do not have George Washington, James Wilson and Ben Franklin anymore. They have all gone away. We have a Negro community organizer as President in America 2014 A.D.
An interesting read and I think it addresses the concerns of those who make the oppressive Constitution argument. Alas, that is not the argument I take in my opposition if it can be called that. I think think that the debate is harmless and may even be a positive thing. However I also see actively seeking an article V convention as an exercise in futility: in order to be ratified 38 states have to agree on anything that comes out of it. That means that 13 states can effectively veto anything. We have at least 13 states who are not only OK with the status quo, they’re actively rushing to expand it.
Another problem that I see is the implicit assumption that the state governments are any more freedom-friendly overall than the Federal government. And this belief is based on?
Delegates? I didn't know delegates had already been chosen!
What is your plan? Perhaps surrender is your option? That is an option not available to me. Defeatism is not a winning strategy!
My primary objection to a Constitutional Convention is based upon the simple fact that George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc. "ain't here no mo!" Today we are peopled by Azi al Wazi, Barack Hussein Obama, Juan Maria Garcia, Chung Chan and last but not least Mbuggami Ngngi. I don't think they will propose and pass amendments that will benefit all. I do think people should become aware of how the amendment process works. I heartily recommend reading Article V which provides for two methods; one by congress and one by a call from the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states.
The people you mention will have no vote.
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.