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

[INVAR]

Article V was a mechanism intended to PREVENT a tyranny from taking root and a stronghold over the nation.

Article V WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A MECHANISM to REMOVE a tyranny that has taken root and is a stronghold over the nation.

Because Article V is a civil means to ensure a civil societies’ Rulers are kept in check to the rule of law.

We are no longer a civil society and we no longer have rulers who abide the rule of law.

We have tyrants.

And Tyrants CANNOT be stopped via civil means. The do not respect the rule of law and civil means that restrain them. As such - Article V is toothless in the face of the tyranny and tyrants now ruling us.

[Hostage]

Good points! The COS Project is doing precisely what you are thinking.

Please sign up:

http://www.conventionofstates.com/create_your_account

[nathanbedford]

The answer to your question is quite clear and it has been expressed many times on FreeRepublic:

Article V proponents contemplate process amendments which are very very difficult to evade. For example, term limits, provisions that bureaucratic rulings not ratified by Congress are automatically voided, provisions for a combination of states to overrule Supreme Court rulings. These are but examples of process amendments which entirely change the balance of power and are very difficult to evade.

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.

Or, we can continue to do what we are doing as the country cruises toward the cliff secure in the knowledge that we have not wasted any time in attempts to save our children's birthright.

[Yosemitest]

If the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY, and their minions, are going to strip the Government of everything "Civil War", then will they stop studying the strategies and tactics of their most studied Officer, Nathan Bedford Forrest ?

[TMSuchman]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States

[Yosemitest]

We're airborne.
We fell off the cliff this morning.

[dware]

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

It most certainly WILL work, but it WILL WORK for both sides, not just Conservatives, so be prepared to accept the losses from liberal amendments getting through.

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.

Well, the fact is the Feds are currently doing what they want, when they want, and are completely ignoring the current laws, Constitution and BoR's, so really, what's going to make them suddenly adhere to new amendments????

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

As mentioned previously, it WILL work, and it WILL WORK for both sides. To think that this is going to be all good for Conservatives and all bad for the leftists is just plain ignorant. Both sides would end up getting some of the things they want passed. Will they get everything? No, but both sides will come out of this with something.

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.

It will work. But the fact is, yes, the Constitution and BoR's we have now work fine. The issue at hand is the fact that the Feds are IGNORING ALL OF IT. Adding to it won't make a difference.

[dware]

For example, term limits

If you are in favor of term limits, you must also be ecstatic and supportive of "campaign finance limits" too, right? Both stifle free speech. Who the hell are you to suggest that you have some right to limit my ability to vote for my Reps??? If I want to vote for a specific candidate over and over again, I have the freedom to speak my mind by voting for that candidate. 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?

[Hostage]

Excellent!

[dware]

Article V is toothless in the face of the tyranny and tyrants now ruling us.

+1

But that's just too much common sense for some people...

[Hostage]

> “Who the hell are you to suggest that you have some right to limit my ability to vote for my Reps??? If I want to vote for a specific candidate over and over again, I have the freedom to speak my mind by voting for that candidate.”

So I take it you are in favor of repealing the 22th Amendment?

[Buttons12]

Excellent post.
Trouble is, nobody’s willing to do what you suggest.
Or hardly anyone.
It entails giving up one’s credit, defaulting on the mortgage, quitting the job, taking the kids out of public school.
Hardly anyone in America is willing to suffer for the liberty our forefathers were willing to die for.
A few people won’t make an impact.
And they’ll be resented by the rest.

[dware]

So I take it you are in favor of repealing the 22th Amendment?

And I take it you can't read??? I said my Reps. My Congress Members. The Executive is different, and does not have nearly the impact as term limits would have on Reps. I like the idea of term limits, but, in the end, just like campaign finance, they all stifle free speech. I suppose you would also seek to demolish the 1st Amendment in an Article V COS? Why do you hate freedom of speech so much?

[Hostage]

> “I said my Reps. My Congress Members. The Executive is different, ...”

So you make the decisions on which offices are term-limited and which are not?

[semimojo]

Good points! The COS Project is doing precisely what you are thinking.

Thanks for the link. After looking at the site I'm afraid their strategy is exactly what I think is doomed to fail. I don't see how a convention called to address such a broad topic as reining in federal power could ever reach the needed consensus on the details.

You would have 50 delegations and who knows how many individual representatives, each with their own conception of what specific actions we need to take.

I think it's important to early on be more specific rather than less so the decisions that actually have to be made in the convention are manageable.

[dware]

So you make the decisions on which offices are term-limited and which are not?

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

[Hostage]

Stay tuned. You are not up to date with information and developments.

Soon there will be some knowledgeable Freepers that will show what’s been done and what’s being done by the COS Project to address your concerns.

[Amendment10]

"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."

Note that either the states or Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states. But only the states can ratify a proposed amendment. So Congress cannot amend the Constitution without state approval.

[Hostage]

If you want to vote for a career politician, shouldn’t you be in favor of those that want a 3rd term for Obama or for those whose governors are term-limited. Shouldn’t term limits for governors be repealed?

[Political Junkie Too]

The Roberts Court renders the American People unrepresented.

I wish I could say that the SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional. It violates Article IV Section 4:

---

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

---

The people's representatives wrote the law one way; SCOTUS changed it to be something else.

We are no longer in a Republican form of government. What do we do when SCOTUS itself becomes unconstitutional?

-PJ