Posted on 02/16/2016 11:40:06 AM PST by Kaslin
Sometimes I wonder which side she is on.
As for an Article V Convention of States being gimicky — blame the Framers. They put it in there. As for Scalia’s opinion, his comment was about a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of states. Ww do not know what he thought about amending the Constitution in order to restore states rights. I can tell you that Schlafly’s plan is only good for as long as brave Republicans control congress. How often does that happen? As soon as it goes to Democrat control the deal is off. The Article V Convention of States liberty amendments would apply at all times no matter who was in control.
Furthermore, a toolbox is for using all the tools necessary. There is no reason to choose between Congress controlling the purse and a Constitutional Article V Convention of States. We should use every tool available to us just as the left does. In this case the answer is “All of the above.”
The big lesson here for conservative’s... no matter how much you love getting stuff for free... don’t accept a free weekend at a “ranch” resort out in the middle of nowhere next to the Mexican border from a Democrat insider.
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax, “ said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! “
Although this Phyllis Schlafly article proposes that Congress block any further judicial appointments proffered by the Obama administration, in an aside she condemns a "constitutional convention." Some comments on this thread are about that condemnation.
Either way, the President rules by decree where his party can prevent an override of his veto.
I need to go re-read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer but my understanding is that this is all "legal."
Mail.
Corrected.
Also consider;
With the change in the USSC over the weekend, The NBC status of Cruz and Rubio is going to be a train wreck. It makes it very important that neither get the nomination.
Anybody that thinks this is not going to be litigated by the democrats if either of the two gets the nomination is not accepting reality. A liberal or even tied USSC does not bode well for a decision that favors Cruz or Rubio.
Alito, Thomas, and... who? Roberts?!?
-PJ
Unfortunately they do not make them like Phyllis Schlafly anymore. Even more unfortunate is they don’t make them like Scalia anymore either.
However, 103 years into a constitution with the 17A, there is no remaining institutional pride in the senate. The vast majority of senators can't see beyond their reelections and will do nothing to risk them. It is an institution whose once noble purpose has been corrupted into rubber-stamping whatever the half-black guy wants.
Still, I'm amazed she is so opposed to Article V. It certainly isn't a gimmick any more than the other recognized individual and societal rights peppered throughout our Constitution.
Good question. When he was appointed, Roberts gave every appearance of being a good choice. And for a few years, he did indeed stand shoulder to shoulder with Alito, Scalia and Roberts.
Then, along came the 0bamacare case ...
And he switched sides faster and less explicably than did Benedict Arnold.
I think he's compromised, and responds to threats.
They are all being spied on by the NSA.
Scalia was Breitbarted.
Again the timing was right before Andrew was going to come out with some major video on Obama. The timing again was quite remarkable.
The mind control of the public is astounding.
Phyllis is a little slow, actually a lot.
We know, and you’ve seen my posts, that it doesn’t matter whether we have Batman or the Joker in the White House, selecting Supremes determines the course of the country longterm. We know RR gave us Anthony Kennedy who gave us marriage perversion and persecution of Christians.
The key amendment is (as first formed by Mark Levin and others) in effect, a ‘30-State Quash Authority’.
I repeat here the illustrations of two amendments that should be lasting (and that contain valuable Freeper input):
************************************************
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.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
and,
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXIX
To enhance federalism between the States and their Federal Government, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
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 2.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
The above provisions could be combined into one amendment or various provisions can be stricken or moved as seen fit by convention delegates and their state legislatures in order to move to consensus and cross the 34-state threshold.
However the provisions might be arranged, it is important that the provisions be written adroitly to bar any federal entity from misinterpreting or interfering with the provisions. Phrases such as “subject to ... state legislature”, “subject to ... voter referendum”, “shall be set by ... state legislatures”, “upon a vote ... in state legislature” are tantamount to keeping control of the amendments under the jurisdiction of states and state voters and impeding the federal government from having an opportunity to encroach and meddle.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3306719/posts?page=238#238
Those touting mere application of the 10th Amendment should be mindful that the 10th was never worded to explicitly give a state quorum power to administer its application. Thus, federal agencies and federal courts have conspired to make what they will of the 10th Amendment, and in effect, it becomes a nice thought of a bygone era.
For the edification of those reading and desiring more insight, I leave the following exercise to ponder over:
Abolition of the Electoral College by amending the Constitution would result in California and New York electing the President of the United States. How was the 17th Amendment similar to such a proposed abolition of the Electoral College and what were the longterm effects of the 17th Amendment?
Untimely??
Psalm 90:10
Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures;
yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.
Oh; they do to!
We've just not heard of them yet.
Daniel 2:21
He changes times and seasons;
he deposes kings and raises up others.
He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
I think sudden would be more correct.
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.