NO PUSH BACK.. will or ever will happen until a minority of people REVOLT..
Yes.. rise up with pitchforks and torches as they say...
and organize, angry, determined and resolute even more than the progressive socialist are, always are..
APATHY will KILL the United States.. the reverse of APATHY WORKS..
Call it "angry".. even if it seems moderate it MUST look like angry.. be perceived as angry.. totally pissed off angry..
Even IF your not angry; it MUST appear so.. to SPREAD and be accepted by the "weaker" sorts.. whom are not really angry about "things" they don't really know about.. (understand)
LIKE; POLITICS, CIVICS, HISTORY(American and World), and Patriotism.. even morals and dialectic..
SOooo; I call out.. shout from my keyboard.. GET PISSED OFF.. -OR- make it appear so.. even IF you are laughing so hard at Hellary Clinton and Obama and the GOPe.. and slapping your leg..
** THERE I SAID IT.. Mrs;
NO PUSH BACK.. will or ever will happen until a minority of people REVOLT.... Yes.. rise up with pitchforks and torches as they say... Sounds like a fine plan, dear 'pipe; except people don't use "pitchforks and torches" anymore. You know what they would be using. Are you advocating armed insurrection? And then telling us to believe a "minority" could successfully carry it out?
Though that model worked during the American Revolution, the seat of "enemy power" then was far, far away. Not so with the present seat of "enemy power," which is very much immediately present and infiltrated into all levels of American society.
I'm already plenty "pissed off." But that doesn't mean I'm irrational.
Once again let me make a plug for an Article V Convention of the States for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is the constitutional way for the States and the People to change our fundamental rule of law in the face of congressional inaction, a defaulting Congress that is unwilling to correct manifest defects in the federal system of government, which work disproportionately to undermine the Tenth Amendment powers of the States and the People thereof. Even though Congress manifestly has the constitutional warrant to fix such problems.
Article V clearly says that what the Congress will not do, the States, working in concert, can do.... It seems all the recent, most culturally offensive SCOTUS decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade, and now Obergefel) have entailed unconstitutional invasions on the sovereign powers of the States, as reserved by the Tenth Amendment.
It doesn't help at all that the Seventeenth Amendment all by itself gutted a main voice for States trying to preserve their Tenth Amendment interests against federal encroachment. Since 1913, senators are directly elected, not appointed by their state legislatures as before.
So what interest does the Senate represent, if not (as originally intended) the interest of their respective states? The interest of the people is already represented in the national legislature. It appears popular election of senators is a redundancy. So, who or what does a senator represent, nowadays?
Given recent history, one would gather that the Senate has become quite independent from its local constituents, and has become little more than an echo chamber of disputes in national politics.
So, one hopes that an Article V COS would entertain repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, to restore the Senate as a voice for state and local governments, who are increasingly finding themselves under the thumb of the Leviathan in Washington.
Repeal of the Seventeenth would be an example of a "structural" amendment. Compare this with an "aspirational" amendment: an example would be, say, a "marriage amendment." The only aspirational amendment I can think of that actually got ratified was the Eighteenth, Prohibition. We all know how that worked out: rampant organized crime, public corruption at all levels, and eventual repeal.
An aspirational amendment deals with desired outcomes. A structural amendment deals with rules of the road. A rule of law cannot comport with shifting climates of "desire for outcomes." For one thing, one man's desired outcome might be another man's curse. Beyond that, an aspirational amendment presumes a unity of public thought. If there were such a thing, we wouldn't need the First Amendment....
A structural amendment deals with constitutional procedure, not with outcomes. It facilitates, not inhibits, free speech. But it imposes a rule on what mere speech can achieve in public life. It disciplines public speech towards public ends without the need of a governmental censor.
In conclusion, dear, dear 'pipe, I hope we will have an Article V COS, and that soonest.
If that doesn't work out, we can always go to "pitchforks and torches."
But let's give the Article V COS a chance, first.