Posted on 06/12/2014 5:10:40 AM PDT by Jacquerie
YOour believing that is just more evidence of your delusion.
So, what exactly *IS* my position on the convention? I bet you cannot tell me.
Naw. I grow weary of this. You aren't a challenge. Therefore, I will tell you what my position is, on the convention: I don't have a position at this time. I have more research to do on it before I determine what I feel about it. I do note that there is an increasing disregard for law and procedure these days, so I am suspect of the importance and impact of a convention, but aside from that concern, I have no position on it.
I came to this thread to learn a little more, not to be accused of wanting a shooting war.
I am also FIRMLY OPPOSED to pedophiles, and DO NOT WANT them to babysit children..... Just for the record. :)
Whip out your penis. RIGHT NOW!
-PJ
Watch out. You might get accused of wanting a shooting war.
It would be best to let the Constitution alone at this point in time.
I will ask you my standard question regarding this.
If an amendment repealing the 17th amendment were passed by the convention and ratified by the states, do you truly believe that a sitting Senator who is replaced by his home state's legislature would not "follow the rules" and refuse to vacate the seat?
Are you expecting the current ruling class to become the anarchists and refuse to accept Constitutional changes like repealing the 17th?
What would that look like? Would someone really barricade themselves in their office and refuse to leave?
-PJ
Some will follow the rules. Others, most notably liberals, would refuse. The minority ones would claim racism, and if physically removed from the office, would try to run a 'shadow government'.
That would be like Thad Cochran refusing to leave if he loses in two weeks.
Do you think that a Democrat Senator who loses in November will refuse to leave despite losing? How would that scenario be any different than a Democrat Senator refusing to leave if repealing the 17th caused him to lose his seat?
If they have such disregard for the rules, as you suggest, then why won't they refuse to leave in November? Why only refuse if an Article V convention changes things?
-PJ
The authority of Owed Reparations.
I'm speaking mostly of black Senators. When you see the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, and John Conyers (representatives, of course, but extrapolate to Senator behavior), and especially if a switch in election methodology occurred midterm, I could see them refusing.
And running a government-in-exile, too.
“A people unwilling the use the peaceful means bequeathed to them by their Founders to preserve their liberty, deserve the misery, starvation, and destruction they ask for.” Me.
I agree with your statement, however one of the tools they left us was the 2nd amendment and for good reason, this quote sums it up.
“When the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have liberty” Jefferson.
The government tyrants do not fear the people, they sit behind barricades and armed guards and ride in armored cars.
Try again.
-PJ
You may be reading too much liberal nonsense. An Article V convention is not a change in the Constitution, it is PART of the Constitution, namely an alternate method to propose amendments. That’s also a key factor - the word “propose”, not ratify. Ratification still must be done by 3/4 of the states, just like an amendment proposed by Congress.
The whole point of an Article V convention is to allow the states a method to make changes to the Constitution that are deemed necessary when the Congress refuses to do so. For instance, (and this is hypothetical) if you believed that term limits for Congressmen and Senators would be a good idea, such a change would require an amendment. Certainly, it would be difficult to get 2/3 of the career politicians in Congress to propose such an amendment. Article V gives a means to propose such an amendment without having to go through Congress. Article V does NOT provide a practical means of just throwing out the Constitution and starting all over.
Laz,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument and assume that you’re right, that Senators would refuse to leave office under a repeal of the 17th Amendment. We should still repeal that amendment via an Article V convention. The reason is that most people would not believe that such an occurence could happen without actually seeing it. If we don’t exhaust all legitimate, Constitutional means to reign in Federal power and jump straight into more extreme measures, we are deemed kooks and nuts by the general populace, and our cause is hopeless.
However, if we use a legal, constitutional measure, such as repeal of the 17th Amendment via an Article V convention, such an action confers legitimacy on our side. If, in that case, Senators refuse to leave office even though the law states that they must, the general population concedes that we were right all along about the tyrants in the government, and will support our cause. Now we may have a chance to rectify the situation.
We must exhaust all legitimate, Constitutional remedies first. As I pointed out before, how does doing so cause harm? At worst, the Feds will ignore these actions and we are no worse off than we would be had we not done it.
If that were to occur, we would be worse off because the Constitution would no longer have any meaning. But that's not a reason for not doing it.
The federal government is elected by We the People to represent us and the states. If the feds begin to ignore explicit Constitutional terms on their positions (not boundaries of their power), then their entire license to operate becomes invalid and we now have a tyranny where rulers refuse to vacate.
That is really what the intent of Article V comes down to. We must separate the proposed amendments that limit power from the proposed amendments that constrain the terms of office, and first focus on the term limits, because there cannot be any wiggle room to enable an existing Representative or Senator to stay beyond their term.
Currently, terms in Congress are constrained by a person's ability to get reelected. At the very least, we must restore federalism in the Senate by returning the appointment of Senators back to the states. If a state wants to keep sending the same person back term after term, so be it. If the people of a state feel compelled to replace state officers in order to change the selection of federal officers, all the better.
But if a sitting Congress member refused to vacate, then we move into something completely unchartered.
-PJ
Its necessity should be evident. Considering Obama’s recent actions there is little time to save what remains of our republic.
At this moment, instead of defending our borders, he leads the invasion forces from Guatemala and Mexico. Congress will do nothing. We can.
You realize that of those 17 states you exclude, five will be needed to ratify your amendments? Good luck with that.
That’s why I proposed the convention method of ratification, so that people in those states who wanted to ratify the amendments could go around the legisl00tures.
You are not wrong.
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.