Posted on 03/14/2015 8:43:48 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
Exhibit 1: who’ll choose COS delegates in good old conservative Texas?
Google Texas House Speaker Joe Strauss...
I have never seen a source for the “Soros wants a convention” story other than the John Birch Society itself. Can you cite one?
“...who’ll choose the delegates?...”
-
State legislatures.
Consider this, you want the fight to be at the state level but don’t trust the state level Republicans.
You’re not really arguing a recipe for success.
State Legislatures. Exactly.
Again. Look up Texas House Speaker Joe Straus.
You won’t even get right minded delegates from states like Texas. Now, imagine who NY, CA, and MA will send...
Other questions:
Q: “What will the delegates propose?
A: Some good things and some bad things.
Q: What happens then?
A: 3/4 of state legislatures would have to approve.
Q: Will they repeal the 2nd amendment?
A: IF (big if) such a thing was proposed, 3/4 of States would never ratify it.
What else are you worried about?
Until legislatures can stand up to fight fedzilla directly, how can they be trusted to send right-minded delegates to a COS?
The contradiction isn’t with my POV, but with yours: that a state govt too scared to stand up to the fedgov on a daily basis will do so when it counts...
You’re arguing until they fight they shouldn’t fight.
Direct action you take such as banning the EPA, seizing revenue en route, and other things is picking a direct fight that requires a lot of conflict. A CoS is a less aggressive way to get the result we need.
You want a fistfight in the middle of the street and until you get it you don’t support even giving the guy a mean look.
You want a guy punched square in the nose while CoS supporters
The Articles of Confed required unanimous consent to reform. The Constitutional Convention altered the terms of ratification to 3/4ths of states.
You hold out ratification as an immovable check against overreach. Ironic since it’s current form is the result of moving the goalpost on ratification.
More to the point, the chief problem with COS is this insistence by its supporters that people used to making the rules will actually follow the rules as written. The folly of that thinking is if it were true, a COS wouldn’t be necessary: the Constitution as written would suffice.
I’m arguing that when the states finally decide to stand up and fight, we actually still have potent tools short of a COS.
We should employ those tools, first.
The idea that a COS is the last straw and we are already there is flawed. There are plenty of options between here and there for states motivated to rein in the fedgov. Read the Federalist Papers. Our Founders were quite certain that the states would have an upper hand in battle with the fedgov. That’s how they designed the system to work.
I have someplace to be so I’m walking away from this thread not because it isn’t a discussion worth having, but because I’m out of time to continue for now. Have a great weekend.
What on God’s green earth does the old
Articles of Confederation have to do with anything?
If you believe there are 38 state legislatures
that would ratify what you and I would call a “bad” amendment,
then you must believe the Republic is already lost.
If you really believe that, you should just log-off
and go bury your head in the sand somewhere,
because it means you have given up and surrendered.
Get with the program, or get out of the way.
An Article V Convention of States is the last recourse that
we have before something much much uglier comes our way.
“...we actually still have potent tools short of a COS.
We should employ those tools, first...”
-
Like what?
A lot of those tools have been weakened and worn down due to abuses in the federal system already. The judicial expansion of the commerce clause and amendments turning Senate seats over to popular vote.
The CoS was also one of those reliefs.
Some of the methods you suggest would put the onus on federal courts to rule legitimacy. How do you think they’ll rule?
As said earlier, any runaway CoS issues have to rely on total capitulation of 3/4 of state govs.
I put on rubber boots and crept into the leftist ooze of the lefty websites cited in the column.
None of them supported Article V. There isn't any reason at all for progs to invite conservatives to amend a constitution that progs are happily destroying. If progs supported Article V, we would hear of it from MSDNC.
All the JBS people I encountered believed in conspiracies that eventually ended up being caused by the JOOOOOS.
I'll accept your quote at face value. Meckler is right.
Most Americans are stuck fast in the rut of political parties; so is congress. The fact is that some rats in state legislatures will have to cross over, will have to change their minds in order to peacefully reform the government.
There is no guarantee they will do so. As opposed to the left, we do not seek to impose amendments to the constitution. It isn't in our conservative DNA to use tyrannical means to achieve republican ends.
If one fourth of the states object to reform, so be it.
Since the Framers designed a state appointed senate, and specifically rejected one that was popularly derived, I agree entirely with your post.
The Articles of Confederation were a collection legislative acts among thirteen republics. Legislative acts may be altered by subsequent legislatures. The states regularly blew off their duties under the AC via statutes. It was their right to do so.
The 1787 Philadelphia federal convention of states altered nothing. The draft constitution was sent to congress. Congress voluntarily sent it to the states. States voluntarily hosted constitutional conventions of the people's reps. The reps voluntarily ratified the constitution.
Then, as now and forever, the people have a God given right to frame their government.
The only worthwhile amendments to the constitution are of a structural nature, such as repeal of the 17th Amendment, term limits, etc. These are the sort of changes that cannot be ignored.
Article V. There is nothing to lose.
When Republicans held the presidency conservatives generally approved of an "imperial president" presiding over a Democrat congress. Ever since the Democrats grabbed hold of the presidency, not so much.
Now that Republicans hold most of the state houses we are seeing arguments against the 17th Amendment, against the Supreme Court decision in Reynold vs. Sims., and calls in favor of secession.
It was thought that the Republicans supported conservatism in opposition to the liberal Democrats. Now it seems to be believed that state legislatures will be the army to fight for conservatism in opposition to federal politicians.
If most state legislatures truly are stalwart conservatives then we can trust them to take control during any Article V convention. If, however, they are not then we can't trust them in an Article V convention nor trust them to take tax dollars and control away from the feds.
At least with an Article V convention we wouldn't be asking the state legislatures to do anything that could be considered illegal.
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.