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

Free Republic Exclusive ^ | June 25, 2015 | Hostage

[Hostage]

THE SOLUTION

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,

Article V

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.

We should first take note to understand the following:

(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.

(2) THE MAIN REALITY: THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

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.

Repeat the main reality:

THE STATES HAVE NO POWER BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Understand why is this. Understand how this happened.

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?

The answer is yes.

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.

************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII

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.

WHAT MUST WE DO TODAY?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

(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.

(4) Sign up here as soon as possible:

http://www.conventionofstates.com

[djf]

Well, the question is in part “Who pays your House and Senate members?”

Ask yourself that question.

Then realize they get paid BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and you can start to see the problem.

[mbrfl]

O.K. Thanks for the links. I’ll definitely have a look.

[Cheerio]

What will make them obey new statutes?

THE STATES.

[Political Junkie Too]

State governments had become wholly owned subsidiaries of companies or interests. Because the legislatures selected senators, the senators from California were known as the senators from the Southern Pacific, and the senators from Pennsylvania were known as the senators from King Coal. The Progressives revived the direct election idea, and it caught fire.

In hindsight, what is wrong with that if the economies of those states depended on those companies?

Are California Senators today not the Senators from Google and Oracle? Michigan and General Motors? Massachusetts and Harvard?

I think the difference is that voters in the 1800s paid more attention than do the voters of today, evidenced by Hostage's stories of voters concerned with whom their state legislators would appoint. Again, what's wrong with that? I'd much rather have an informed electorate than a disengaged one.

That may be why Congress wanted to take control and push through the 17th. They realized that it was easier to appease an increasingly distracted voting public once every six years in the new Industrial Age, than appease a constantly watching legislature every week.

So I'm not as worried about local state cronies appointing federal cronies. As I've written before, at least the cronies will be contained to their state's unique interests. Today, the Senate is disconnected from the interests of their states-in-name-only, and more interested in a globalist agenda that is in conflict with their own states.

State control of the Senate is a missing cheek and balance in the Constitution, regardless of the trade-off of good and bad.

-PJ

[Hostage]

I know Publius will get behind an amendment to repeal the 17th as will I.

I think though that Amendment 28 is a ‘new thing’ that voters will get behind faster rather than revisiting an ‘old thing’ like the 17th. Because the history of the 17th will be dredged up if a serious effort is ever made to get its repeal going. All the negative history of pre-17th days can get in the way whereas the 28th might get voters to nod and say “yep, sounds good to me”.

But I am glad to see you sticking with the original founder’s meanings and intents. I’m pretty sure you would support the 28th if it started buzzing around your area.

I’m for either or both.

[Art in Idaho]

I might remind you that our Constitution of 1787 lasted until 1861, about 80 years and the post-Civil War Constitution operated effectively until the progressive era. There is every reason to believe that Article V reforms will have a long and effective life.

We have to work on an Article V convention for posterity, for the generations unborn. The Federal leviathan is escalating as we write. For the love of God, people are actually going to hear Bernie Sanders speak. Article V now, before it's too late!

[Tzimisce]

How can the states do anything?

Do you realize the Obamacare ruling today overrode what the states were doing?

[nathanbedford]

At war's end, General Robert E. Lee was approached by his subordinates who urged him to break out from Yankee encirclement and take to the western mountains to wage a guerrilla against the enemy. It is a testament to the nobility of Lee's character that he firmly declined their suggestion urging his men instead to lay down their arms and take up their duties as citizens of the Federal Republic. By word and deed until his death, Lee set this example for his countrymen in the difficult reconstruction period. Initially, Forrest followed Lee's lead. But two years after Appomattox, Forrest became the head of the resistance movement-one might say terrorism cult-which sought to defeat the federal occupation of the South and undo reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan....... (from my about page)

My advocacy of Article V instead of rebellion might "amuse" you but your presumption irritates. You are dealing with a line of Americans that has taken part in every single war starting literally with the French and Indian war. We do not accept lectures on our patriotic virtue or the deficiencies of our conscience lightly.

A rebellion against the American government equipped with drones, lasers, cyber warmaking capability, air power, logistics, and all the panoply of modern weapons known to man is utterly doomed to failure and dooms the nation to a horror unimaginable. To insight such a rebellion knowing the inevitable consequences when other constitutional remedies are readily available is irresponsible beyond description.

Before you condemn me, my wife, my children, and my grandchildren to murder and slaughter, torture and privatization, incarceration and indoctrination, penury and misery you should abandon your self-righteousness and consider the costs. You want to bring down hellfire on 300 million people rather than try Article V because you have a smack ass about the present government. No amount of bloodshed will resurrect 40 million dead babies. Nor is this a matter of saving smart smart phones and flat screens for millennials, this is a matter of murder and fire on a scale you cannot even imagine.

[Tzimisce]

The Supreme Court today just ruled, that just because an article says something it doesn’t really mean they have to follow it.

I guess you can have your convention if you want too - but get ready for piles of lawsuits that will be run through the corrupt court system, entrenched bureaucrats and politicians who don’t like you or what you’re doing and all kinds of new laws stymieing your efforts.

The problem is the system is corrupt from top to bottom.
You can’t use the corrupt system to fix itself.

[INVAR]

We do not accept lectures on our patriotic virtue or the deficiencies of our conscience lightly.

I wasn't making your patriotism an issue or declaring your conscience deficient. I'm making an issue that Article V will NOT stop the tyrants or the path they have us on. Lawless despots have no regard for the law and civility unless you submit to their will. Making new laws when they ignore current laws in the hopes they can be restrained and reasoned with before bloodshed occurs, is lunacy.

A rebellion against the American government equipped with drones, lasers, cyber warmaking capability, air power, logistics, and all the panoply of modern weapons known to man is utterly doomed to failure and dooms the nation to a horror unimaginable.

Had our Founders succumbed to the same fear of the most powerful military on the planet at the time, we would still be subjects of the Crown. How sad that the home of the brave seemingly no longer is.

To insight such a rebellion knowing the inevitable consequences when other constitutional remedies are readily available is irresponsible beyond description.

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. The consequences of appeasing tyranny on a Satanic level in a vain hope of avoiding trouble is far worse than resisting those who would render you under absolute despotism or worse.

There are no "Constitutional remedies" to removing tyranny without violence sir. None. That is WHY we have a Second Amendment. Do not lie to yourself or others. Rulers that have demonstrated they are above the rule of law and are a law unto themselves are not going to abide by any new laws we demand them to abide.

Article V is a civil preventative to tyranny. It does not offer a means to remove an entrenched tyranny, because tyrants are not beholden to anything but brute force and the threat of force. Fact of history and human nature.

In addition, tyrants and oligarchs are not sanguine about reasonable restraints on their power and do not acquiesce to laws that limit them. Even when the majority of their people demand them.

you should abandon your self-righteousness and consider the costs.

The cost? You want to live on your knees or on your knees over a trench???? If your life and comforts are worth more to you than resisting tyrants for liberty, may you and your posterity enjoy your subjugation. May your chains rest lightly.

No amount of bloodshed will resurrect 40 million dead babies.

I'm beginning to believe that no amount of praying and begging is going to deter The Almighty from pouring out His Judgment on this land for those 40 million murdered infants. You might write them off - but God will not.

As some have suggested, if the Civil War was blood for blood required of this nation for the sin of slavery - we should QUAKE in fear over what The Lord is going to require of this nation for those 40 million that cannot be brought back from the grave.

this is a matter of murder and fire on a scale you cannot even imagine.

It's coming whether we like it or not, or whether or not we all just sit here and do nothing but surrender what we have left and lick the palms of Obama, the Left and the Oligarchy to beg for table scraps and a subsidy so we do not make them mad at us.

A post-Constitutonal nation under a Marxist Oligarchy is no more going to be restrained by any new Amendments you attempt to add to to the document that has been rendered completely irrelevant.

[nathanbedford]

because tyrants are not beholden to anything but brute force and the threat of force. Fact of history and human nature.

A post-Constitutonal nation under a Marxist Oligarchy is no more going to be restrained by any new Amendments you attempt to add to to the document that has been rendered completely irrelevant

It's coming whether we like it or not,

Well after all of this back and forth is now clear, you fall into category #2: So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

------------------------

My question to you is, assuming arguendo that article 5 can be accomplished and assuming that it will restore constitutional democracy as the founders and we understand it, would you prefer Civil War?

[mbrfl]

I respectfully disagree. I do agree with your statement that you can’t use the corrupt system to fix itself, but that’s the point of the article V process. It bypasses the federal government - aside from congress’s obligation to call for the convention once enough states have petitioned.

If you’re contending that they would try to interfere with the process at that stage, I can’t say whether you’re right or wrong, only that if they did, the defiance on their part would be open and undeniable. This would take their defiance to a whole new level. The gauntlet will have been thrown down and if that happens, then at least it will have served the purpose of forcing the fight.

My sense is that they would not try something so brazen. Politicians are sneaky and devious but also risk averse. They don’t like to fight their battles in the open where the average American can see them for what they really are. They prefer the safety of their backroom deals.

Aside from that possibility, they would be powerless to effect the process of proposing amendments and the subsequent process of ratifying them. They simply play no role in that process. How will they prevent it? Send the army to the convention of the states to force it to disband? Dissolve the state legislatures when they vote on a specific amendment?

As far as their ability to ignore any amendments that might get passed through this process, it’s possible, but I think it’s important to distinguish between two types of amendments that would likely be at issue - those that require the federal government’s compliance in order to be carried out, and those that don’t.

I agree that amendments like a balanced budget amendment could be problematic. I could easily envision Congress devising various accounting gimmicks that would allow them to ignore the law while claiming to comply with it. Likewise, I could envision the Executive branch continuing to spend money they are not authorized to spend, and a SCOTUS all too happy to grant their stamp of approval.

However, there are other types of amendments that would make structural changes to our government and which would be enforced from outside the federal government, not from within. Term limits for Congress, or repeal of the 17th amendment would be examples.

The election process is controlled by the states. They certify the winners and losers. They control the ballot process. If a senator or congressman wanted to run for an additional term that exceeded the limits placed on him by a term limits amendment, practically speaking, the only way he would be able to get away with it would be if the states allowed it to happen - the very states that would have just voted 3 to 1 to enact the amendment.

The only way the federal government would be able to prevent it’s implementation would be to directly interfere with the process (e.g. send troops to occupy the state legislatures or election commissions). Aside from that, there is little they could do legislatively to prevent it.

In short, the ability of the federal government to interfere with this process, would require them to take their defiance of the people and their Constitution to a whole new level. Most American’s, even the low information voters would see their actions for what they really are. If we’re ultimately headed for civil war then that’s as good a starting point as any. At least we’d know that we had done all we could to prevent it.

[Political Junkie Too]

We could also encourage a Presidential candidate to run on a pledge of not signing any bills that include Congressional exemptions from the law. They may ultimately renege on that pledge, but that will then be a scar on their legacy.

-PJ

[BlueMondaySkipper]

On one hand, I'm in favor of an Article V convention, but on the other, I'm concerned that such a convention, once called, would end up gutting our existing Constitution and replacing it with something worse.

What's to stop the hijacking of a convention and dumping say, the 2nd amendment? Nothing really.

I think our Constitution is just fine as-is. We just need to find a way to start following it again.

[INVAR]

You can advocate as many Olive Branch Petitions as you like.

The results will be the same now as they were then.

You are obviously free to join the ranks of those who believe we can vote ourselves out of tyranny and practice insanity to your heart’s content with more ‘laws’ the Ruling Class will find ways to ignore and circumvent under the color of law.

I have absolutely no faith in any civil efforts we make to restrain this wicked tyranny we now are grown comfortable under. Therefore, I withdraw my support and consent to be governed by those in power in this nation. We are as a Jews in 1938 Nazi Germany. The math is not hard to figure out, but too many of you refuse to believe what is plain before your faces.

I am moving on with what will actually be required to survive and endure. You folks go on ahead and enjoy playing word/law footsie with despots. We will see which of us was correct in our assessments in the very very near future.

Tyrants are motivated only by the one thing you are afraid of and dare not risk.

I am thankful our Founders were not of the constitution you argued on this thread, otherwise we would never have come into existence as a nation.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...our Constitution is just fine as-is.
We just need to find a way to start following it...”
-
There seems to be a contradiction in your thoughts:
If the Constitution is not being followed,
then it is not just fine as-is.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

There seems to be a contradiction in your thoughts: If the Constitution is not being followed, then it is not just fine as-is.

No contradiction at all. We were warned when the Constitution was written that it was wholly inadequate for people that were not moral. Any new one would be suffer the same fate.

By your logic, the Ten Commandments are not fine as-is because people break them. In either case (Constitution or Commandments), what changes would you propose that would make people follow the new words any more than they follow the existing ones?

I'm a bit demoralized right now. When words have no meaning then the entire thing is going to come crashing down on us. I hope that if Obama gets the civil war he's been trying to instigate it happens before I'm too old to matter

[nathanbedford]

strange you have not answered the question

[INVAR]

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem then.

I said I have no faith in any efforts made to restrain tyrants via civil means- because unlike you - I understand the nature of tyrants and bullies. Somehow you are deluded into ignoring their fruits, and insist that more ‘laws’ or begging and pleading will stop tyrants now in power from acting like despots.

You have no viable plan to stop what is happening to us, so enjoy your chains. May they rest lightly upon you.

[INVAR]

We were warned when the Constitution was written that it was wholly inadequate for people that were not moral. Any new one would be suffer the same fate.

By your logic, the Ten Commandments are not fine as-is because people break them. In either case (Constitution or Commandments), what changes would you propose that would make people follow the new words any more than they follow the existing ones?

That was EXCELLENT and perfectly stated to frame the entire point I have spent a thousand words attempting to articulate on this thread.