Posted on 03/27/2015 2:21:16 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
Someone recently asked, “Why is it that the John Birch Society is so opposed to an Article V amendment convention today despite the fact that they have been supporters of amending the Constitution since back in the 70s?”
That’s a darned good question.
It a matter of history that Robert Welch, the first president of the John Birch Society, welcomed those who would repeal the 16th Amendment (the progressive income tax) into the society and made their cause a part of JBS lore.
In 1975, Larry McDonald, then a Democrat U.S. Representative from Georgia, who went on to become the second president of the John Birch Society in 1983, went on record in the U.S. Congress in support of a convention of states to propose “The Liberty Amendment” in their continuing effort to repeal the 16th Amendment. The Congressional Record from October 9, 1975 contains several of his statements as follows:
- - -
“In almost two centuries our Constitution has been amended a comparatively few times. The first 10 amendments—Bill of Rights—were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified—in December, 1791—and there have been only 16 added since then. This may seem too slow, but any amendment is unique in that is supersedes anything preceding it which is contrary to it.
Only through an amendment, will we be able to correct the present distortion of our basic law. The Liberty Amendment will clarify the terms of our freedom, rectify the current conflict between Government and people, define our economic liberties and force the Government to abide by that definition.”
“The fifth article of the Constitution prescribes two valid methods for amending the Constitution. An amendment may be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress concurring; or the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States—34—may require Congress to call a Constitutional Convention to propose such amendments, which, in either case, become a part of the Constitution when three-quarters—38 States— ratify a proposed amendment.
The Liberty Amendment resolution is being advanced in both ways. It is now pending in Congress as House Joint Resolution 23. It has also been approved by the Legislatures in seven of the sovereign States and is pending in several others.”
“The fifth article of the Constitution provides this method of causing the amendments to be proposed. Then, too, the States must eventually ratify to make it a part of the Constitution. This country consists of a union of sovereign States which hold the only power to ratify amendments and State legislatures hold concurrent power under the Constitution to initiate such amendments as they, the States and the people within them, require.”
- - -
Today, in a shocking display of sheer hypocrisy, they make the exact opposite argument, pretending all the while that they have never been on the other side of the issue.
As to why they take the positions that they do, I can only speculate based on my own personal interactions with self-proclaimed Birchers, and on information gleaned from Bircher-affiliated websites. In a nutshell, the majority of them seem to be still fighting the Civil War... for them, it's all about states' rights, but in a very perverse, dangerous and non-productive way.
In my view, they are the original nullifiers, the "common law grand jury" proponents who laughably deny that neither the federal government nor its illegitimate court system has any lawful power or authority over us, that all we have to do is "just say no"... they are the ones who illogically insist that the Constitution was ratified illegally, yet are the first to declare its sanctity while obstructing any effort repair it… they are the ones who alarmingly want another shot at starting and winning a War Between the States, who are just itching for a state to secede, oblivious to what the predictable response of the federal government would be... they are arrogant elitists who believe that "the masses" are all ignorant dupes and fools who must be protected from themselves… they trust NO ONE at any level of government, but especially the federal government, making us vigilant libertarian-leaning independents look perfectly sane... they are the extremists of the extreme right wing, paranoid to the max, the penultimate conspiracy theorists, the guys who invented and copyrighted the tin-foil hat.
Other than that, they're pretty good guys… many seem to be very well connected in conservative circles, and very influential, spreading their fear virally to virtually everyone they come in contact with at social gatherings, political groups, Tea Party meetings and such. What the Birchers have discovered is that when the average person doesn't know how to resolve a critical problem, it's instinctively easier for them to succumb to fear than it is to trust in an what they’ve characterized as an unknown, untried solution… the Birchers know that, and they use it… to their advantage and to the detriment of the country.
It was over 30 years ago when they first raised the bogus specter of a "runaway convention," and despite decades of evolutionary thinking to the contrary, neither their thought processes nor their arguments have evolved. But ours have. A perfect illustration of contemporary Conservative thought as it pertains to Article V is found here in a letter Ronald Reagan penned in March of 1994 to Lewis Uhler, a leading advocate for tax relief:
- - -
“We can’t depend on Congress to discipline itself . . . we must rely on the states to force Congress to act on our amendment. Fortunately, our Nation’s Founders gave us the means to amend the Constitution through action of state legislatures . . . . That is the only strategy that will work.”
- - -
It is now my opinion, without equivocation, that the John Birch Society and those who buy into their fear-mongering are, if nothing else, shameless hypocrites, enemies of liberty and, by their obstruction of every attempt to balance the budget by a state-led Article V amendment convention, single-handedly responsible for the fiscal mess in which we (and the world) find ourselves.
True.. my upgrade was a godsend... "fight fire with fire".... Forest Rangers do that... republicans DO NOT...
ALL RINOs despise me..
I know this is a thread about the JBS, but I think we can leave it out of the discussion because their complaint has nothing to do with mine. It’s a strawman often used to avoid the glaring flaw in COS. I believe COS is obviously constitutional. But I also believe the Bill of Rights is constitutional. I know you think of cases where lower courts and SCOTUS have ignored those and ruled on personal preference or the zeitgeist.
As far as no court upholding nullification, there’s never been a time of overt, government lawlessness like we have now, so I don’t think the question is relevant because we’re in a crisis. And nullification is implicit in the supremacy clause through the language “pursuant to the constitution.” Who decides what’s pursuant to the constitution? Federal judges? That language has no meaning if the federal government can pass unconstitutional laws and the federal government can then declare them constitutional. States decide what’s pursuant to the constitution. The Feds were wrong to enforce the fugitive slave act on Wisconsin because Wisconsin’s nullification was constitutional. Nullifying Obamacare, ATF rules, EPA regulations, Roe v Wade, marriage for Sodomites, and other fed overreaches would absolutely be constitutional.
The framers were sending an engraved invitation for violent intervention from the King when they signed the Declaration. That’s not the issue.
And besides all this, the framers pretty much all said that you can wad that document up and burn it once we have an immoral, idiotic, selfish electorate. At least some states still have sanity. I don’t feel like waiting on Virginia (who made a piece of crap their governor) to see if my kids will inherit a free country. Most of the people in my state want liberty, it’s their God-given right, they should have it.
I thought I saw it all, until I read that a Republican appointed Chief Justice said that government can force citizens to buy something because a penalty was actually a tax even though the authors of the bill consistently claimed it wasn’t. Or that “shall not be infringed” means forced to pay 100.00 for training, another 150.00 to be brought into a police station, photographed, finger printed, and put on a list that the governor can make public anytime he wants.
In all seriousness, I truly can’t imagine why you guys think SCOTUS will honor these amendments. You admit they’re lawless right?
Similar experiences here in Arizona, except for one... I believe you’re familiar with our “conservative” senate president Andy Biggs... He’s a Birch Pod, paralyzed by his own fear. He’s a little different than the typical fear-monger in that he has written a book about the “Con-Con” and is using his position to hawk it. Don’t you just love the smell of free-market corruption in the morning? This guy is an abomination to the party and to the pursuit of liberty.
Love your sig, BTW... wasn’t that Reagan... If not now, when... if not us, who?
Once we've exhausted all legal, peaceful means, then you and I can meet shoulder to shoulder at the ramparts, but until then you're just picking a fight that you're going to lose, and you're gonna take us all down with you. I can't support that.
The logical progression of your approach leads to the destruction of the nation. So does Obama's, by the way. I choose differently.
The meme that the Federal government does not follow the Constitution is demonstrably false. I submit to you that even our current "lawless" government adheres to virtually every modern day amendment to the Constitution. It's more the Articles that they've raped and plundered. On average, amendments to the Constitution are followed VERY closely for about 100 years after they are ratified by the states and made part of the Constitution. Some have endured even longer. When an amendment has been debated, drafted, proposed and ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures, the federal government has little choice but to sit up and pay attention. For example, it’s been almost 225 years since the First Amendment was ratified, and only recently have the federal courts dared to trespass on religious freedom, and even at that, only on the margins and in the service of a small but influential political special interest group.
Similar things can be said of the government’s nipping at the edges of the Second Amendment… private ownership of firearms went virtually unchallenged until New York passed the first “gun control” law in 1911… that’s 120 years. And even though the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Search & Seizure, Privacy, Due Process, etc.) have been held virtually sacrosanct since the nation’s inception, no serious discussion about loss of liberty can avoid acknowledging the impact that September 11, 2001 and consequent federal legislation has had on them, but that’s only over the last decade.
Although these are all liberties that are currently under attack, we have enjoyed most of them for almost 2¼ centuries, and all were achieved by AMENDING the Constitution.
The problem is that these liberties are being changed by legislative fiat without benefit of the amendment process, and when challenged, the Supreme Court has enabled the infringement.
So, in response to your charge that the government doesn’t follow the Constitution now, it’s more than fair to say that the Constitution as a whole is, by and large, followed by government at all levels, all the time, and fairly closely… but here I need to clarify that I’m not talking about the Constitution as it was written, but as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
It's the "Interpreted Constitution" that brings us to what many believe is the crux of the matter, and the single-most important reason to support an amendment convention - it's the beautifully written but vague and ambiguous language of the Founders that allows "constitutional scholars" like our current president (and liberal justices) to find the wiggle room that they need to subvert the original intent of the Founders.
If we were to close the loopholes that civil rights lawyers, activist judges and an enabling U.S. Supreme Court have used to “create” new powers and authority for the federal government that the framers never anticipated nor intended, if those loosely written phrases were amended to reflect the narrow scope intended by the authors of that great document, it’s completely conceivable that the legacy we could leave to the next several generations of Americans would be living free of the overwhelming burdens, constraints and regulations of hundreds and hundreds of ever-expanding federal bureaucracies.
IMHO
A waste of who's time? Yours?
Then I'd like you to read Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal, which brings the story to the present and offers a look into the future. This one is much shorter.
“Pretend Patriots”? Stuff it, buddy.
But I stand by every other word.
When someone uses the word "probably" to deride or reject another's opinion and doesn't even bother to take the time to investigate what it is that he is about to dismiss, then he deserves to be called lazy.
As a matter of fact, for your future benefit, I would recommend using the word "prolly," which is the now popular abbreviation for the word "probably"... it's fewer keystrokes, meaning it takes even less effort on your part.
I'll revise my earlier closing statement as follows: America certainly DOES NOT need any more uneducated, unmotivated, un-involved patriots like you.
You might find some information in this library useful.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/not-a-constitutional-convention.html
“You might find some information in this library useful.”
I did find it useful and I agree with the goals. I will support it. It’s a shame some people try to persuade others by using insults.
You insulted yourself... I simply seconded the motion.
You behave like an idiot.
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.