Do We the People Need an Article V Convention of the States in the Aftermath of <i>Obergefell</i>?

self; | July 1, 2015 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

Do We the People Need an Article V Convention of the States in the Aftermath of Obergefell?

The short answer to the title question would seem to be: Very likely YES. And that for a number of reasons.

First, Congress has been utterly derelict in executing its constitutional powers designed to constrain excesses emanating from the Supreme Court. There are three constitutional legislative “checks” on SCOTUS — or any other federal court. Other than the Article III Supreme Court, Congress is the creator of all the other federal courts — and all are firmly within its lawful legislative power in certain vital ways — most importantly including the Supreme Court itself.

(1) The first is the power of Impeachment. Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments, subject only to “good behavior.” If a justice behaves badly, he or she should be impeached. Arguably, several sitting justices have behaved rather badly in the Obergefell case. Two justices had been asked, in an amicus curie brief, to recuse themselves from this case on grounds that they had a preexisting personal stake in its outcome: Both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor had already conducted several gay marriages. Both refused.

We won't even get into the matter of Justice Kennedy, who evidently considers himself as the "swing vote" on the current Court. In such way he manages to elevate himself above the other oligarchs on this Court. So we not only have the horror of a "tyranny by oligarchy" of nine black-robed unelected and unaccountable judges who will tell us what our Constitution means by simple majority vote; but HE is the single vote that will carry the day on any given question. Under the circumstances, he is not just one among the other oligarchs; he is the sole archon who determines what our constitutional order actually IS.

(2) The second is the constitutional power of Congress (Article III, Section 2) to “regulate” the Supreme Court. Bear in mind such regulation cannot reverse any Supreme Court decision already made. However, though

A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a [SCOTUS or any other federal court] determination once made in a particular case; … it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81. Emphasis added.

Which entails that Obergefell is indeed now the law of the land. But Obergefell is just the opening salvo of much more to come respecting the issue of marriage. And so much more is at stake, preeminently religious liberty.

Congress — that is to say, the House of Representatives — has the constitutional power to instruct the Court, going forward, that it has no authority to adjudicate issues regarding marriage, perhaps further stating that the original design of the Constitution contemplated that marriage issues lay firmly within the jurisdiction of the several States — not least because the ratifying States at no time contemplated, nor conceded the regulation of marriage to the national government. The regulation of marriage was a retained power, not a delegated one. Congress could simply instruct SCOTUS that it has no jurisdiction in this matter. On my understanding, this could be done on the basis of a simple majority vote, one that is constitutionally immune from presidential veto.

(3) The third is Congress’s power of the purse. Congress controls the salaries paid to federal officials, elected and appointed. In the case of the Supreme Court, Congress cannot cut their pay, certainly not on an ad hominum basis, nor abolish it altogether. But unlike pay for the President, which cannot be either reduced or increased in any way during any chief executive’s tenure in office (and thanks to Amendment XXVII, the same applies to Congress), though Congress is constitutionally forbidden from reducing compensation to members of the federal judiciary, it can definitely deny any future increase in their pay. The saliency here derives from the fact that federal judges and Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments (subject only to good behavior). The rising cost of living inevitably will take its toll on their salaries. To Ruth Bader Ginsberg, at age 82, this may not be much of a concern. She’ll be retiring sooner or later; we just don’t know exactly when or the cause of her retirement at this point. But for the youngsters on the Court — Sotomayor and Kagan, for example — such a pay freeze would take its toll over time. Plus meanwhile, you’d have to freeze the pay of every other federal and Supreme Court justice commensurately in order to strike out at the miscreants. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a good deal of pushback from the ranks of the judiciary at all levels for judicial decisions made (on the basis of ideology, not constitutional construction) that imperil their own future financial well-being.

Need I say that Congress has done none of these things? Even though their own constitutional authority and powers are tacitly sacrificed, surrendered, on the alter of judicial activism by their lack of action with respect to the exercise of the duties plainly put on them by the language of the Constitution itself?

Given that Congress is evidently supine in the face of egregious attacks on its own institutional privileges and constitutional authority, and is so willing to “compromise” with the Spirit of the Age; to say, “hey, it’s the law, so let’s just move on,” I think it’s fair to say that these most direct representatives of We the People are not doing their job. Since the only way we have to “fire” such folks is through the electoral process; and via that process, they manage to get reelected almost always anyway; and since these agents of the sovereignty of the People are doing such an execrable job in standing up for the liberty of the People — which is the whole point of the Constitution — We the People have to take matters into our own hands, via Article V.

The Article V Convention of the States approach has never been taken before in American history. All the Amendments we have — all 27 of them — were proposed, deliberated, and produced by Congress, and then submitted to the several states for ratification.

The “Convention of the States” approach to Article V constitutional amendment has no precedent in American history. So I ask, what could go wrong with that, when it is finally tried?

Given that the firmly ensconsed “powers that be” can be expected to be highly reluctant to having their powers curtailed, they — that is, Congress, the mediating body of whichever method of Amendment is proposed — might think they have some kind of discretion respecting what sorts of amendments can be entertained. I was very grateful to learn, from Federalist No. 85 (Hamilton) that, respecting the constitutional amendment process,

Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars in which [the then] thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest…. [I]t has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they once possessed…. I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers. [Emphasis added.]

Which is to say, one cannot amend the original Constitution in such a way as to increase the original powers of the national government. Since the original powers of the federal Constitution did not include the surrender of the power of the several States to federal adjudication of marriage issues, the Obergefell decision ought to be regarded as a nullity right out of the gate.

Obviously, that has not happened. At least, not yet.

But if our “servants,” Congress, will not act, I guess it’s up to We the People to act — the People being the lawful principals here, in recognition of the constitutional fact that Congress is merely their agent carrying out a very narrow range of delegated powers, restricted to the warrants granted in Article I, section 8; in recognition that the defense of individual liberty of the citizens of the United States is the “prime directive” of all just government. There are two ways they can do that: Constitutional amendment or outright civil war.

Since we do not have any precedent for a Constitutional Convention of the States under Article V, I have no clue how that might turn out, or what obstructions Congress itself might raise against it. If the articles contained in the Applications of the 67 States have the effect of limiting any existing powers as they are now exerted, perhaps there is no friend to be found in the authorizing body, Congress.

But then I was very happy to learn that (at least this was the original understanding and intent of the Framers), if 67 States make such Application, Congress MUST comply. There is no lawful way for it to do otherwise: It MUST establish a Convention of the States.

Actually passing an Amendment is a bit more tricky. You only need 67 States to advance it; but you need 75 States to ratify it. Some States — my own included — are wallowing in such thoroughgoing political corruption that you can never depend on them to “do the right thing.”

Another relevant issue is, one cannot convene a “generic” Convention of the States: It must declare what are the specific objects it has in view that need amending.

For those of us still agonizing over the Obergefell decision, a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman, having full effect in law, will be paramount.

However, in the States’ bills of Application, I would strongly urge the desperate need for another Amendment besides: Repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment completely changed the very architecture of the original Constitutional framework, right down to the bedrock of the separation and balance of powers in our political system. It one swell foop, it deprived States per se of representation in the national legislature. Thus the natural defenders of the Tenth Amendment were expelled, deprived of representation in that body.

We do indeed “live in interesting times.” All I can recommend is to understand the nature of the political order into which you were born, which is the best specification for the flourishing of human liberty in the history of the world; stand up for what you believe; pray constantly; and leave the rest up to our Lord….

[nathanbedford]

Most of the arguments that appear in thread after thread concerning Article V are rehearsals of arguments already made on both sides. Yours falls in to this category as well but I do not mean to imply that just because an argument has been made before it is therefore not worthy of consideration and reputation. That's an old Clinton technique which self-respecting conservatives should eschew.

I do, however, make this observation as justification for reproducing yet another old reply of mine and to let the interested reader know that most of these objections, if not all, have been effectively dealt with. Here is the old reply:

You are absolutely correct, the arithmetic cuts both ways, although more in favor of conservatives but only moderately so. That means that we are at a stalemate situation as far as Article V is concerned but that means that the left prevails as long as the situation is static because they control the electoral process, the judiciary, the media etc. If our politics proceed as they have, we will drift ever more to the left, ever deeper in debt, ever weaker abroad, ever more divided at home.

The whole idea ofArticle V is to move the game to a new board where the rules favor conservatives more and that new game will occur in the state legislatures. But to break the deadlock we will need some sort of a "Black Swan" event to energize the electorate and breakthrough the inertia which we unfortunately read on these boards even from conservatives as well as to overcome leftist minorities in state legislatures.

As I said in another post, luck goes to the prepared and we have very good reason to believe that some sort of a reckoning cannot be long delayed. While Nathan Bedford's Maxim, "failed socialism does not result in reform but in more socialism," is often true [as we will no doubt see on Sunday in Greece] it is also possible that the country will react in common sense against what has been done to us and actually turn toward conservative reforms.

All we can do is try. If we do not try, what will we tell our kids as they survey the wreckage of their country?

[Purdue77]

How does an Article V Convention prevent the federal government from eroding our rights? How do you structure a new constitution to prevent them from circumventing it or just ignoring it? If the people we send to DC don’t play the game as currently defined in the Constitution, them how do we change our representatives’ attitudes? They have proven that they aren’t afraid of the people any longer.

[xzins]

Yes. It’s not like they’re honoring the current constitution.

Term limits, recall elections, and retention elections for ALL offices should all be part of the mix. Also, having the executive possess sole access to legal enforcement is a mistake. Senator accountability to their states needs to be restored. There needs to be a budget required, and the right for each branch of Congress to make its own rules must forbid any rule that modifies or negates anything in the Constitution (filibuster, for example).

Additionally, I’d prohibit any kind of borrowing except in time of Congressionally declared war. I’d specifically prohibit any kind of taxation of religion. I’d require any deal or treaty to be approved by 2/3rds of the state legislatures, the same process as amending the Constitution, only 2/3 instead of 3/4. I’d also require all such deals/treaties to have a sunset date.

I would require all congressional actions to be less than 10,000 words, and they all would be required to have supreme court input (not advice and consent, but re-working, citing only actual words —penumbras not invited — of Constitution or Law with which in conflict), so that when passed they had already been reviewed and would thenceforth be non-reviewable by any court, the legislators themselves being the ones who could thereafter change them by appropriate legislation. I would replace the federal court system with the state courts and state supreme courts in which a case arises.

[Political Junkie Too]

It is my opinion that any state corruption is local and contained to issues unique within their respective states. The corruption is not an organized nationwide partisan corruption that puts globalist interests ahead of state interests, which is the case in the Senate today.

The competing local interests of the states will combine to police the Senate. Factions of states with common interests on one or more issues will align to convince a majority of states to approve their desired solutions.

This is how a Senate of states was supposed to work.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

...how do we change our representatives’ attitudes? They have proven that they aren’t afraid of the people any longer.

They aren't afraid of the "voters" any longer. The solution is to eliminate the voters, at least in the Senate, and replace them with state legislators who pay attention and have the power to replace rogue Senators every six years.

So, what to do about it?

Some things will take care of themselves, if we can wait that long. The bell will toll for 73 year old McConnell, 81 year old Hatch, 79 year old McCain, 82 year old Grassley, 79 year old Roberts, 80 year old Inhofe, 75 year old Alexander, 71 year old Enzi, 77 year old Cochran. When the personalities leave the Senate, their weak behaviors will go, too. We have to ensure that their replacements don't follow in their footsteps.

Obviously, winning the presidency in 2016 is paramount, because the bell is tolling in the Supreme Court, too. The next president will get at least 3 SCOTUS picks. If Republicans are unwilling to fight the Democrat brand, then external groups must do it. We know in hindsight that Obama used the IRS to prevent these groups from gaining traction. We have evidence that Vichy Republicans collaborated in sabotaging their own base. This cannot be allowed to repeat. People have to be willing to shine the spotlight on the strong arm whenever it appears. It will likely first appear, again, as gag orders meant to prevent others from recognizing the widespread abuse of power. Somebody will have to be willing to be the whistle-blower and violate the gag order to get things started.

As stated elsewhere, there must be some structural changes to the federal government. Some power must be taken back by the states, making the federal government size and reach smaller. This begins in the Senate. First, state legislatures must take back the power to select their own Senators. People complain that state legislatures will just select cronies. I've said, so what? Personally, I think they will choose from amongst themselves. State legislators will be promoted to federal Senators. The Senate in Congress should be thought of as a United Nations of States, with Senators acting as ambassadors of state interests. The give and take will be over issues in common among several states. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #85:

We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact;

Hamilton was referring to Constitutional Conventions, but the same is true for a Senate of states debating common interest legislation. The problem today is that the Senate is not of the states, and its interests are not the states' interests, nor the people's.

And what if the legislatures choose to send cronies? Again, I wrote "So what?" I asked 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'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 cheekc and balance in the Constitution, regardless of the trade-off of good and bad.

It is my hope that a Senate of states can then begin to dismantle things like the Department of Education and make education local again. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and stop all the globalist regulating that is killing the private sector. Rein in the Bureau of Land Management and return control of "public" land back to the states so the public com actually enjoy the land again.

There is more that can be done: give back the stockpile of bullets that NOAA And the FDA don't need; take charge of immigration policy; restore the budget process, single-issue bills (no more "comprehensive" messes)...

I'll stop here.

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

Many people have been saying we need an Article V convention for some time now. Why did Obergefell push you over the edge?

[betty boop]

LOL!!! Silly me. I did mean 67% and 75%, which would be 34 states to advance and 38 to ratify. By my calculations, rounded up.

Thanks for correcting the record!

[betty boop]

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

Thank you for that correction, Publius — I completely "forgot" that the 21st Amendment was brought and ratified by the COS method of Article V. Even though I have Ken Burns' excellent Prohibition on DVD, and should have recalled this fact....

It's very interesting that the only Amendment that was ever repealed — the 18th, Prohibition — was repealed via a COS. That is heartening. It's past time to repeal the 17th; but it seems it would require an Article V COS to do it, for we cannot reasonably expect that Congress would ever do it. They like the status quo.

Thank you, Publius, for your highly informative essay/post, and for the great links! MUCH appreciated!

[betty boop]

who is ‘we’? You mean “we the people” that elected Obama, Clinton and the RINOs?

Sigh. You bring to mind John Adams' observation that the Constitution was made for a moral people, no other. Which evidently a great many people are not these days. Which is how you get an Obama, and how you may get a Hillary. Or a RINO like Jeb Bush. It seems RINOS don't much care for the Constitution. They just want to win.

Jeb Bush's advocacy of Common Core is a case in point. It is completely blind to the fact that there is no constitutional warrant for federal government involvement in education. Yet Bush evidently doesn't see that as any kind of constraint on federal action in this area.

What properly should happen is the abolition of the federal Department of Education, and acknowledgement that education is a power retained by the States since Day One. Among other things, that would save us taxpayers a ton of money. Plus it would dis-employ a whole bunch of progressive educrats....

Thanks for writing, plain talk!

[betty boop]

Art V is for purposes of proposing Amendments, ie changing the Constitution.

Yet changing it via constitutional means; so in a sense, enforcing it.

The Framers were well aware that times and circumstances would require modification of our founding document, so stipulated the process by which such modification can be done — Article V.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 85, has a well-tempered and rather cautionary view of the matter:

The zeal for attempts to amend ... must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of [David Hume, Essays]: "To balance a large state or society ... whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; EXPERIENCE must guide their labor; TIME must bring it to perfection, and the FEELING of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in their first trials and experiments." These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from TIME and EXPERIENCE.

[Publius]

No, the 21st Amendment was not ratified by a Convention of the States. It was ratified by state ratifying conventions, which is a totally different animal.

The first time we used state ratifying conventions was to ratify the Constitution itself. Hamilton and Madison wanted it understood that the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were two different legal concepts. The Articles were a treaty between sovereign powers, governed under treaty law. The Constitution was a compact, or contract, between the Whole People and the federal government they created. The states were the agents of the Whole People, not the actual parties to the contract. As such, the Constitution was governed under contract law, not treaty law.

To help make this clearer, I'll provide you with two links to Publius Essays I wrote for the purpose of FReeper education.

Federalism: Yesterday and Today is a 10,000 word essay on the history of federalism from the Founding through the present.

Because I slighted the present era, I wrote a short sequel, Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal, that delved into the New Deal-to-the-present period. Some day, I'll merge the two essays.

The Articles had never been presented to the people for a vote, and Madison and Hamilton wanted a vote of the people to emphasize the contract nature of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were written by Madison, Hamilton and Jay to convince New York's ratifying convention to ratify the document.

The decision to use state ratifying conventions to ratify the 21st Amendment came from a completely different problem.

The bootlegging industry had its tentacles deeply embedded into both government and law enforcement at the local, county, state and federal levels. Congress feared that if the ratification of the 21st Amendment were left to the state legislatures, the congressional seven year window for ratification would expire and repeal would die. While the people overwhelmingly wanted repeal, law enforcement and government wanted Prohibition to remain for its ability to provide bribes and payoffs. This is why Congress chose the state ratifying convention method.

The states decided how ratifying conventions would be elected by the voters, and these conventions met, debated, voted to ratify or not to ratify, and then adjourned. It took a mere nine months for the 21st to be ratified by this method.

State ratifying conventions and a Convention of the States are two completely different things.

[Political Junkie Too]

There is a difference between the Article V proposing commotion of states, and the state convention ratifying method. The former is a single convention where all states participate; the latter are separate conventions within each state to ratify an amendment.

One question regarding the state ratifying convention method: since each proposed amendment stands on its own for ratification, if Congress calls for the ratifying convention method is that one convention per amendment or one convention that handles all amendments?

What is the sequence?

1. States file application for convention.
2. Congress calls Convention.
3. Convention passes an amendment.
4. Congress chooses method of ratification.
5. Convention passes an amendment.
6. Congress chooses method of ratification.

Or

1. States file application for convention.
2. Congress calls Convention.
3. Congress chooses method of ratification.
4. Convention passes an amendment.
5. Convention passes an amendment.

Or

1. States file application for convention.
2. Congress calls Convention.
3. Convention passes an amendment.
4. Convention passes an amendment.
5. Convention adjourns and reports out.
6. Congress chooses method of ratification for each amendment.

I think it's the third. If the convention is held in secret closed session, Congress has to wait until the convention reports out to choose the ratification method.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

The government hasn't been federal since 1913.

Members of our statist, oppressive, tyrannical government will not be a party to an amendments convention.

Never, in any process designed create or amend a government, such as parliament in 1688, the thirteen state constitutional conventions beginning in 1776, nor the federal convention of 1787, did any people EVER set themselves up to be slaves. Go back further and you'll find that the Roman Republic amended itself often enough to last 450 years. It did so not by declaring rights on paper, but rather by setting up institutions whose natural, structural interests tended to secure the liberty of the people.

The only worthwhile amendments are therefore structural, those that cannot be ignored without formal repudiation of the constitution and de-facto establishment of a tyrant. Despite galloping tyranny and thorough corruption of every ruling (not governing) institution in DC, the faux republic of the United States will continue to hold even year elections, it will continue the House, Senate, Presidency, Judiciary, limit the president to two terms, reps to two and “senators” to six. The faux US republic will not bring back slavery, stop women or blacks over 18 years of age from voting. These are hardwired, structural aspects of our government that cannot be disregarded or lawyered away.

Given the above, how for instance could repeal of the 17th Amendment be ignored? With repeal, the internal contradiction of a constitution that acts on one of its two broad classes of members (people and states), yet denies those members representation would be cured. Power would immediately be diffused across fifty states. Say adios to anti-10th amendment lawyers seeking federal judgeships.

Here is something else: The states will send delegates to a convention. Delegates will be agents of their states with strict commissions to consider certain amendments and no more. The states will not send reps with plenary powers.

Like a homosexual drag queen who puts on makeup, a dress and high heels pretending to be a woman, what we have today is tyranny in the drag of a republic. All of our institutions in DC have been corrupted into forms that work to purposes that are opposite of their constitutional designs. Congress hardly legislates at all, while the executive and judiciary wallow in arbitrary unconstitutional lawmaking. Consider the three Scotus decisions last week. Taken together and added to eighty years of similar assaults on freedom, Scotus effectively repealed self government. If we are to reestablish free republican liberty, we must address the corruption, and the source of it is the 17th Amendment. I'll go further and say that every freeper should review Mark Levin's suggested amendments, for they would further decentralize the powers that DC has stolen from the people and our states.

It is silly to fear the outcome of an amendments convention when REAL TYRANNY IS HERE.

[betty boop]

I’m watching Texas. If they secede, I’m over there.

Me, too, GingisK! ME TOO!!!

[Jacquerie]

reps to two and “senators” to six year year terms.

[Jacquerie]

I need an editor:

Never, in any process designed to create or amend a government . . .

[betty boop]

I suspect most Article V opponents emotionally refuse to believe that America is not exempt from historic cycles of freedom to slavery, of the sort Aristotle described unless we actively work to stop the process. They believe we can find deliverance if we only elect the right person for president. Our history has proved them to be fools.

Americans, nowadays, seem not to be familiar with Aristotle, or Plato — though these two men essentially founded what we today call "political science." Left progressive educrats out of the federal DoE seem hell-bent on grinding out pupils who are encouraged to think the world started the day they were born: They have zero knowledge of the deep human past.

But to have that knowledge is profoundly liberating in so many ways.

Thank you ever so much, Jacquerie, for your splendid essay/post!

[hosepipe]

The American Constitution has become a SHIELD that democrats use against republicans..
because republicans will not violate the Constitution..
-------------------------------------------

Democrats .....OWN..... Congress, Supremes, FBI, IRS, CIA, NSA, all military security, Joint Chiefs, The entire Justice Department, Most all federal workers, every UNION, State Workers in many States, most Police and Fire Departments, ALL broadcast Media, upper management of most charitable institutions and foundations, many of the SUPER Rich, upper management of many global corporations, every newspaper, magazine, periodical, most ALL academic centers, and Journalist Schools,
AND MUCH MORE....

And republicans want to use the Constitution against people that could care less about it?...

NOW... thats quite STUPID.. or Dopey... Oh!.. and many americans are doped up.. on something.. which breeds even more apathy...

The American Constitution ceased being relevant(OR active) a long time ago...
ONLY........... republicans failed to see it, AND really DON'T WANT TO SEE IT..... STILL...

Alright I'll say it---->>> The American Constitution IS A MYTH...
Need proof: Read the news..

[betty boop]

... the Roman Republic amended itself often enough to last 450 years. It did so not by declaring rights on paper, but rather by setting up institutions whose natural, structural interests tended to secure the liberty of the people.... The only worthwhile amendments are therefore structural.... The faux US republic will not bring back slavery, stop women or blacks over 18 years of age from voting. These are hardwired, structural aspects of our government that cannot be disregarded or lawyered away....

Thank you so very much, Jacquerie, for your outstanding insights!

It bothers me that some people seem to feel that if you just "get the law right," on paper, that all will automatically be well with our Republic.

Yet even the best laws do not make the people good. As Plato pointed out over 2,000 years ago, a political society is only as good as the human material that composes it. If the people are disordered, "bad," then there really is no political solution that will make society "good."

I think this is what John Adams had in mind when he observed that the Constitution was intended for a "moral people," and no other.

Which I imagine is why left progressives of all stripes in our society today are joining in a concerted, full-scale frontal attack on Christians and Christianity, currently spearheaded by the so-called "Gay Revolution." And they will never stop....

[caww]

....."As Plato pointed out over 2,000 years ago,...

"A political society is only as good as the human material that composes it. If the people are disordered, "bad," then there really is no political solution that will make society "good."

...."I think this is what John Adams had in mind when he observed that the Constitution was intended for a "moral people," and no other."....

Indeed betty, indeed..