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.

> “Let me pose this question - given the dreadful ignorance of most of our electorate today, what is to prevent the Supreme Court, or the President - from making a pronouncement that this new “Amendment 28” is unconstitutional and invalid? You said Amendment 28 prevents that - but I still have a big concern.”

Nothing prevents ‘saying’ anything. People can say “I am the King of Siam”. Fine, so what?

The States, having duly ratified Amendment 28 into the Constitution need not respond to anyone’s statements that their amendment is invalid. It simply does not matter. All this is discussed in the context that the Rule of Law is intact, otherwise there will be violent confrontation.

> “”But I believe they will effectively try to do that but using some other sort of high faluting legalize language and “interpreting” it in some way that it doesn’t really mean (they would find some emanation in the penumbra that revealed the inner mystical meaning which would be exactly what the federal elite powers that be want and exactly the opposite of what the constitutionalist writers intended...)

That’s your fear. Whether founded or unfounded, put your fear to a plausible fact. Invent one such ‘specific’, ‘plausible’ evasion or distortion of the example 28th. Try it. I can think of one (which will ultimately fail) but I will let you work up one of your own first. It will be a good exercise for you and others to throw what you got against the 28th to see how strong it is. These are tests or ‘thought experiments’, and they can be beneficial.

> “Article 10 has no “teeth” or is even much more than a placeholder these days.”

You meant ‘Amendment’ 10. The 10th Amendment has no ‘teeth’ because of the way it was written. It provides no means for the States to check the Federal Government should the separation of the different branches of the Federal Government abandon checks and balances and instead coalesce into one entity (which has happened today in several specific instances).

> “... will Amendment 28 include in it actual enforcement measures - like clearly enumerate that the individual STATES reserve the right to direct state officials, state militias, etc to ENFORCE this by certain means, up to and including physically remove federal judges who try to circumvent this restriction of their power?”

Governors call up the National Guard with consent of their state legislature. If a state legislature has joined with at least 29 other states to ‘quash’ a specific act, mandate or order of the Federal Government, I think it would be suicidal and insane for federal government officials to oppose the ‘quash’ using militant means. And to be clear, if such a conflict were to happen, it would not be a scenario of a Civil War II, it would be confined to a confrontation between forces of the Federal Government and forces of the States, The States have overwhelming force in this scenario. The Military Forces of the United States are barred from deployment by the Posse Comitatus Act, and exceptions based on the the Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the US military forces to be called up when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people. No such violence or opposition would exist within a state. Therefore, using the Army is impossible in an arena where the Rule of Law is intact. There are far too many hurdles for the Federal Government to jump through to order enforcement of their will and interpretation. The probability of this scenario happening is extremely low.

We can take out ‘fears’ and dream up all kinds of monsters in the attic. At some point we have to draw a line between what is realistic and what is fear-driven fantasy.

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.