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

[dware]

The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

You have far too much trust in the GOP. The conservative amendments you speak of will not be ratified without the support of some leftists. The left will use that to their advantage, and the right WILL CAVE to their demands, all in the name of bipartisanship. It happens every single day.

For example, term limits

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?

[Publius]

Here is my boring, pedantic boilerplate with reference articles.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[chris37]

It is now obviously a mistake to think that we have any manner of control whatsoever over what is going to occur in this country form here on out.

The only thing that matter sin America any longer is the will of those with power.

That it, that’s all nothing else.

We have, on this day, gone over the edge.

[Repeal The 17th]

Thank you for this.
I like the idea of applying the plain and accepted language of the 22nd amendment
to members of the Senate AND the House.
-
AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.
Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President Senate or the House
more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President,
Senator or Representative for more than two years of a term to which
some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office
of President more than once.
-

[dware]

irrelevant side issues

Term limits are the same as campaign finance contribution limits. They both stifle free speech. What do you have against the 1st Amendment?

[EQAndyBuzz]

Article 5 is all we have left. But we need it before 2016. By then it won’t matter anymore.

[bfh333]

From Scalia’s dissenting opinion...

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.”

[Hostage]

Thanks for posting it. It’s not boring at all. It’s a great synopsis of essential information.

[dware]

I am not dictating anything

But you are. You spoke YOUR mind by voting for the candidate of your choice. They didn't get elected, and now you are throwing a temper tantrum, and trying to change the rules to fit YOUR needs, and pi$$ing on the rest of us. Again, 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?

[INVAR]

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????……. The issue at hand is the fact that the Feds are IGNORING ALL OF IT. Adding to it won't make a difference.

Exactly the point that everyone is refusing to acknowledge.

Article V only works when there is still respect for the foundational rule of law.

The Oligarchy in power no longer considers itself beholden to the Constitution and therefore adding anything to it and expecting them to abide by it is absurd.

If we would be free men and want our Rights as endowed by our Creator - then we will have to fight for them, via very UNCIVIL means.

Because Tyrants are not restrained by civil means.

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks for the ping.

[nathanbedford]

I do not advance Article V with the Pollyanna faith in the process. To get favorable amendments through (which is entirely different from preventing unfavorable amendments which is very very easy) is a daunting challenge. I do not believe it will be accomplished apart from some sort of national trauma which I call a "black Swan" event which so jars the national psyche that the people become ready to accept real reform. When that happens the left will also be ready to strike; they will not be likely to let a good crisis go to waste. Will we be prepared?

Assuming that reasonable amendments are enacted, if the amendments are well founded and if they are process amendments, we have good prospects that they will be observed for a long period of time.

But even with process amendments, you are both right in the end culture trumps politics and if we are not a virtuous people no words on paper or even parchment will save us. Nevertheless, our duty is to soldier on and never take counsel of our fears (Stonewall Jackson).

[INVAR]

There is every reason to believe that Article V reforms will have a long and effective life.

You are operating under the delusion that our rulers and their oligarchy respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Since they have rendered the Constitution null and void, how can you possibly think that tyrants are suddenly going to abide by any new additions to it?

Who is going to enforce any new restrictions upon tyrants?? How many divisions do we have to force them to comply with new Amendments when they no longer comply with the existing ones???

[Publius]

Under normal circumstances, you would be correct. Fifty state delegations would meet, and the initial result would be chaos.

But the Convention of the States movement has been holding meetings of state legislators at a number of locations -- Washington's estate at Mount Vernon was one -- to discuss the kind of amendments, wording of amendments and procedures for the conduct of the Amendments Convention. Leaders at the state level are already emerging. If two thirds of the states apply for an Amendments Convention for this effort, Day One of the convention will be orderly and will apply an agenda decided upon in advance at these earlier meetings.

[thescourged1]

Well spoken, good sir.

BTW, I'm an admirer of your namesake. He was a man that truly put his money where his mouth was.

[inchworm]

hEre’s the solution:
John Roberts is Bush’s everlasting legacy for us having to once again vote for RINO ROT!
Boehner= RINO ROT
McConnel= RINO ROT
3/4 of the Senate Rebubes = RINO ROT
3/4 of the House Repubes = RINO ROT
Cheif Justice = RINO ROT
STOP voting for RINO ROT or this is what you get.
Is it time once and for all for Conservatives and Tea Party to separate themselves from useless RINO ROT?

[INVAR]

Exactly what Jade Helm’s unspoken intentions are designed to deal with.

Do any of you understand what had been done to us and where we have arrived????

Or do you all continue to rest in Normalcy Biased delusion??

[Hostage]

I don’t agree with any of what you are asserting about my beliefs.

And I don’t agree that term limits are a 1st Amendment issue. Term limits have been shown to work where they are in force and there’s been no court cases challenging them that have been successful.

If you are a lawyer, which I am sure you are not, then lay out an outline of your pleading to overturn current term limits placed on governors of states.

Then I might listen.

A successful pleading would also include a factually detailed summary citing references and statistics, summaries of citizen petitions and court filings on the subject of how existing term limits have been deleterious to citizens and their rights.

I am not persuaded by your argument that any harm comes from term limits, in fact I an convinced that term limits on US Senators would be enormously beneficial in breaking up the Washington Cartel of career politicians.

[nathanbedford]

Think about what you are saying. You would forbid me from advocating Article V because it forecloses your free speech!

The Constitution presumes to tell you who you can and cannot vote for. For example, you may not vote for someone under the age of 35 to be president of the United States. If the Constitution is changed to forbid you from voting more than two or three terms for an elected individual, it does so on the very same authority.

As I said in a previous post, you accept the Constitution or you do not. If the Constitution imposes term limits and you do not like term limits, advocate the repeal of that amendment-after all we repealed prohibition so it can be done. Your alternative is to grouse as you're doing now or start a revolution.

Further, we all try to "change the rules to fit our needs", that is provided for the Constitution in the amendment process as laid out in Article V. It is done every season by application to state and federal courts and it is an accepted part of our governmental system. If you don't like the system resort to Article V and get it changed. Don't blame me for a system created in 1787.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I cannot believe that people still want a Constitutional Convention. For God’s sake look at the representatives New York, Illinois, Maryland, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont etc etc would send. You would end up with an amendment cancelling the entire Constitution or imposing slavery on whites.