A PERMANENT ANSWER TO SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABUSES (Hostage)

Now it is clear more than ever that the Federal Government needs to be checked BY THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES.

Neither morality nor common sense can be 'legislated' via Congress ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

We need our states to assert AS SOON AS POSSIBLE their Article V constitutional right to AMEND OUR US CONSTITUTION,

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.

To understand what must NOW be done will require us to think deep and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’. And it has to be quick because time is of the essence.

(1) It takes 3/4’s of states presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

Now some may think ... “but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee.

Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments or ignored altogether.

This lack of power is actually a loss of power as a direct result of the 17th Amendment extinguishing the power of state legislatures before Congress.

NOTE: the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments were all from the year 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day result in disaster. We must avoid these types of 'knee-jerk' mistakes by ensuring our amendment is both broad and specific AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE FOUNDERS.

THEREFORE, if WE THE PEOPLE through our state legislatures are to consider amending our US Constitution by asserting Article V, then we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the CORE OF THE PROBLEM. We must not be 'all over the map'. We must be united. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it and some very respected FREEPERS advocate for doing just that. But in my opinion repealing the 17th Amendment takes too long and is not necessary to solve the problem. Also the 17th is laden with emotional symbolism because it gave a power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; we risk the reason for the repeal to getting lost in the noise and being forgotten.

Let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

An illustration is needed that shows how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and incorporates valuable input from concerned Freepers.

To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the states and to restore effective suffrage of state legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

************************************************
Section 1. A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

Section 2. Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

Section 3. Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, specific federal court decisions and specific executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void. ************************************************

Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. The 28th Amendment can survive as a predominant amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

(1) Strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

(2) Strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

(3) Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

A coin has two sides. Good government is dependent on virtuous people, that is true and John Adams had it right. But people are not virtuous or at least not virtuous enough or virtuous all the time therefore the same founding fathers who knew that virtue was a necessity were also realistic enough to know that there government must compensate for a culture that lacked requisite virtue.

So they designed a Constitution for a federal government with separation of powers, checks and balances, a Bill of Rights etc. Oh, incidentally, they also devised a Constitution with a method of amending it if it was shown to be inadequate to cope with the people's potential lack of virtue-it is found in the Constitution in Article V.

I joined with you in exhorting the people to be more virtuous, I also ask you to join with me and availing ourselves of the remedies provided for by the founders to cope with human foibles.

I DO NOT believe a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics.

I simply believe you cannot arrest the current tyranny erected upon us via adding Amendments to a document that is already in all practicality rendered irrelevant and ignored.

What I am urging Americans to do is wake up to the reality we now find ourselves in, and recognize the truth that we can no longer reason with the unreasonable, expect honesty from the corrupt, or expect the rule of law to be followed by the lawless. We cannot co-exist peacefully among those who loathe what we were as a culture and people and whom do not trust you or I with liberty. They will see you subjugated or eradicated. Tyranny cannot co-exist with liberty anymore than sin can co-exist with righteousness. One must dominate the other.

To survive what is coming will require those things that few to none of us will even allow our minds to contemplate. We will not be left alone, despite all of our efforts.

History teaches the unthinkable is going to be the only way to preserve our lives and what little is left of our liberty.

In short - we have to start over, and tyrants are not going to allow that to happen without vicious efforts to eradicate those they see as a threat to their power.

Article V will NOT prevent any of this, nor will it restrain the tyrants in Washington and government. We need to be thinking beyond civil means - because that is what it will ultimately come to whether by our hands, or theirs.

You are still operating under the illusion that we still have a Constitution and the Rule of Law exists in this country.

Then we stop calling them Senator, Congressman, Justice, President. Three terms no longer exist. The highest official is now governor, and there are 50 of them. The federal compact is disbanded.

Those in Washington cannot ignore the Constitution but still rely on the parts that define themselves.

-PJ

I read your page... Go Galt? That’s your answer?

You are like most “burn it down” conservatives I know. We are where we are because WE disengaged politically & culturally...

Don’t like the schools? Pull my kids out and home-school (disengage) Don’t like what’s on TV? Turn it off and get rid of cable (disengage) Don’t like what’s playing at the theatre? Don’t spend my money (disengage) And EACH & EVERY time the progressives replace it with something we detest...

We allowed our local Republican machines to be taken over by RINO’S... No point in voting... (disengage)...

The founders thought enough through the process to include Article V... I’m willing to give it a try before disengaging...

The problem is, Nate, they have undermined the legal process completely, simply by denying the definitions of words and putting new ones in.

Twice per Obamacare, at the Supreme Court level, the left (and the blackmailed) simply redefined the meaning of a word, or declare that it has a meaning that differs what it should be because of uncited 'context'.

So any remedy involving words has utterly no impact on these people.

Those in Washington cannot ignore the Constitution but still rely on the parts that define themselves.

But they currently now DO.

WITH Impunity.

Now what?

SCOTUS has already ruled that individual states cannot defy the Federal Beast, nor "interfere" with policies deemed "federal matters" (i.e.: Illegal Mexican Squatters).

I agree that the Federal Compact has been violated and therefor null and void - but tyrants will impose it by force if they see need, and claim the Constitution as their authority, even though it exists in name only.

I also ask you to join with me and availing ourselves of the remedies provided for by the founders to cope with human foibles.

I'm not opposed to Article V. It is, in fact, just one of many tools the Founders gave us to combat tyranny. I AM, however, being much more practical than many Article V supporters in that:

1. I don't believe it will be all rainbows and unicorns for Conservatives. The right caves to the left, every single time, be it on the federal or state level. Once the left resigns itself to the fact that Article V is inevitable, they WILL do everything possible to make it work in their favor. "Bipartisanship" will be the word of the day, and the left will quickly realize that, if the right wants their stuff passed, they will need to have at least some leftist support. The left will use this, again, all in the name of "bipartisanship" to their advantage. I believe some good will come with Article V, but I believe will need to take that good with the bad leftist amendments that WILL make it through. The Article V process is a tool and, like most tools, can be used for good and bad.

2. I will NOT support term limits, period. I don't support campaign finance limits, and I won't support term limits either. However, I do believe that we agree on the issue - career politicians. I WOULD support amendments that bring public service more in line with jury duty (low pay, no lifetime benefits, etc.).

3. REGARDLESS of Article V, I would call on the American public to start acting like it. I realize we all enjoy our toys and such, me just as much as anyone else, but the fact is, we CANNOT stand idly by, shirking our duties as Americans - basically, giving up freedom after freedom, for a little, ineffective security - we must start living like real patriots, even in the face of great sacrifice.

4. Finally, I believe that far more good would come from adhering to God's 4 point plan to restore America as outlined in 2 Chronicles 7:14 than would come from an Article V CoS.

Most conservatives would prefer to give Article V a fair chance before resorting to revolution. I believe most would also argue that contemplating Article V does not so distract us that we cannot be prepared for the worst. That is an entirely different proposition and one need not confound the other.

As GraceG wrote in reply 117, we will have ascended the high moral ground.

I would add that much of the opposition on the conservative side to article 5 seems to come from the NRA which, in my opinion, would sacrifice all to preserve the Second Amendment. However much I value the Second Amendment, and I do, I do not believe that we can shoot our way to liberty in the 21st century against the world's superpower. We will end up devastated and ruined in bondage if we survive at all after tasting the bitter fruits of terrorism.

Post #112 repeated here:

Amendment 28 of the main post is really different from all other amendments as it gives the States and the people of the States power over their US Senators, and it gives power to a unity of 3/5’s of States or 30 States to roll back anything the federal government and courts throw at states and their people.

There is no dependence on any federal level body to observe Amendment 28 and there is no consequence to States when federal entities violate provisions of Amendment 28 because the States are in complete control.

30 states can choose to ignore whatever the federal government in all its manifestations throws at them. And the federal government has no recourse if 30 states vote to void and repeal federal dictates. In other words, the federal government would have no constitutional authority to oppose a voiding and repealing act of 30 states.

Amendment 28 restores and strengthens a much needed check on the federal government that was lost completely with the 17th Amendment.

**************************

Try not to take the failed state of today and project it into the future. That would create a false inference based on previous data from the last few decades.

Amendment 28 is a different beast altogether.

A better inference would be to take data from pre-17th America and project forward from there. But even that does not factor in the new provisions.

I've done no such thing.

If you are in favor of term limits, you must also be ecstatic and supportive of "campaign finance limits" too, right?
Who the hell are you to suggest that you have some right to limit my ability to vote for my Reps???
Just because you don't like the outcome when the majority votes opposite of you doesn't give you any right to come in, change the rules and restrict my freedom of speech.
This also leads me to believe you must think that Dinesh D'souza was entirely in the wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest, right?
Apparently, you also believe Dinesh D’souza should be prosecuted to the fullest.
Why do you hate freedom so much?
you CLEARLY support D'souza's arrest and punishment, and further, it's painfully clear that you and your kind HATE the 1st Amendment!
Who the hell are you to tell me who I can and can't vote for, and what do you have against the 1st Amendment?

Hyperbole aside, I happen to agree with you regarding term limits, as I once posted to this thread in October 2014. You should read it.

-PJ

Who the hell are you to tell me I can't vote for the candidate I want to vote for?

Term limits are not necessary in an ideal democracy. They are needed only when the people are afraid that the elected person can convince the voters to vote for him when that is not the best choice - or simply claim the victory. Dictators usually are reelected by 99.9% of the voters. Anyone brave enough to question the vote disappears without a trace.

The Constitution is a contract against the egregious aggregation of power unless the will of the people provides consent.

The will of the people is irrelevant. The GOP proved that to us almost daily since November last year.

A growing majority CONSENT to Communism and Fascism and those numbers will increase exponentially as more and more third world squatters are imported here at the behest of the Ruling Class.

Article V is the last line of defense.

Article V is a PREVENTATIVE to where we have already arrived.

It is NOT a solution to REMOVING the tyranny we have already become comfortable with and has been entrenched and deemed 'legal' and 'Constitutional'. If they do not follow the existing Constitution now - adding new Amendments to it and expecting the tyrants to follow it is an exercise in insanity and futility.

Article V is NOT going to save us or restore us.

Article V is what will be needed once the struggle to remove tyranny and start over from the beginning has been won.

You cannot stop tyranny via civil means nor expect the lawless to follow the law.

I do not know what about that fact of human nature is so willfully ignored except that this people are so afraid of the truth - that wallowing in anything and everything that seems like painless salvation will be lauded as our only option.

"Words, words have meaning"-isn't that what Obama pronounced at one point in grand stentorian tones?Irony of ironies from a confirmed liar.

Let's assume that we actually get a constitutional amendment that says that a Supreme Court judgment can be reversed by a vote of two thirds of the states, or two thirds of the federal legislatures?

In that case we might find that elected representatives betray us and vote contrary to their promises but at least the Supreme Court opinion would undergo review. We would have review of judicial review and that is a process as opposed to "words". It is difficult to see how the Constitution would be evaded in that the process would not be observed, although we might not get the result we desire.

Now what?

Call them on it. To their face. Force them to play their hand. I posted this yesterday.

Really, at this point the only thing one can do is shame them, shun them, make them pariahs, disrespect them at every opportunity, make them persona non grata.
Mark Levin is doing this daily on his radio show, calling out their lies and deceits to their own party voters. We need others to do this; Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Hewitt and the rest.
Give them no friendly quarter. I know that Fox News will not go along. They will give McConnell safe harbor to continue his lies to the American people.
We need a daily editorial drumbeat from conservative columnists that repeatedly call our Congressmen out. Question everything they say. Accept nothing at face value. Treat them as hostile witnesses. Magnify everything.
Make them angry. Make them lash out. Make them look ugly and petty.
Disconnect them totally from their voters. Make the voters ashamed to vote for them again.

Apply it to the Justices, too.

-PJ

We are past the point of prostrating before King and Parliament to redress our grievances and petition them because each attempt has been met with further injury.

A government whose character is thus marked by every act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

The high moral ground for those of us who would be free and whom cherish liberty is to refuse to comply. Refuse to consent. Refuse to follow whatever an illegitimate government imposes upon us.

That will enrage the tyrants who have already war-gamed plans to make public examples of everyone that dares oppose them. We will then have the right to resist by force and will hold the moral ground regardless of what a wicked society and culture think and believe of us.

That may cost us everything - but we are arrived at the same place our Forbears were when it became self-evident that civil measures were futile and resistance to tyrants was a righteous cause they were willing to die for.

It is INSANITY to think adding new Amendments is going to restrain the beast of tyrannical government and restore what has been stolen from us anymore than it was for the Quakers to insist more Olive Branch Petitions would restore their rights and stop the burden of tyranny.

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.