Jim DeMint Joins Convention of States Movement to Rein in Federal Government

The Politistick ^ | 06/12/2017 | Matthew K. Burke

[ForYourChildren]

The fast-growing, grassroots Convention of States movement has been joined by former senator and head of the Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, a constitutional conservative who has been one of the leading champions of limited government and individual liberty in America the past two decades.

“The Tea Party needs a new mission,” DeMint told USA TODAY on Monday. “They realize that all the work they did in 2010 has not resulted in all the things they hoped for. Many of them are turning to Article V.”

Article V of the U.S. Constitution, often referred to as a “safety valve” provided by the Founding Fathers to rein in a federal government that has surpassed its constitutional bounds with no other peaceful means to do so, allows for legislatures of two-thirds of states to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution — not to be confused with a constitutional convention to rewrite the entire U.S. Constitution.

DeMint said that his 15 years in Washington in both the House and Senate, as well as his four years at the Heritage Foundation, have convinced him that Washington, D.C. will never fix itself:

{..snip..}

[Jarhead9297]

I agree with you whole heartedly. However it has been proven time and again Congress is centralizing more and more and removing power from the States. Our forefathers foresaw this hence they penned in this wonderful article into the Constitution as a last gasp to reign in Federal over reach and bring power back home to the local level.

The discussed amendments thus far come form the Freedom Amendments such as
Impose Congressional term limits
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
“Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
Limit eminent domain powers
Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Amendments

It’s a beautiful article we all should be rejoicing. Congress along with the courts WILL NOT follow the Constitution and there is no one there to hold them accountable

[Walrus]

Oh, please. If everyone had to pass a purity test, there would be no one left to lead.

Jim DeMint is a conservative’s conservative. No “explanations” are necessary.

[grania]

I repeat, how did Ben Sasse get past him? Add to that, I don't recall Jim DeMint ever becoming an enthusiastic Trump supporter.

Don't you get it? Establishment "conservative" Republicans who don't enthusiastically support President Trump are through. A lot of Deplorables are not going to support the bums who've been backstabbing Trump.

But please, change my view of Jim DeMint. Find just one quote in which he enthusiastically supported Trump.

[Edward.Fish]

Want to reign in the Federal Government?
Its very easy - kill the Federal Reserve, and return the USA to currency that is not debt-based, and is backed by something banks and government does not control.

It's honestly going to require an Amendment to end the Federal Reserve, just look at how the congress can't even get an audit through!
This booklet details such an amendment. (See Fiscal Responsibility Amendment on page 3.)

[Edward.Fish]

I read the texts for Levin's amendments and, to be honest, they're really quite convoluted, the sort of thing I'd expect from a lawyer… and the sort of thing I'd expect the elites to wrangle to our disadvantage. (Simpler is better, as there's less room for interpretation — OTOH, they should not be simpler than possible [ie an over-simplistic view].)

I much prefer the amendments in this booklet, as they're simpler and actually more limiting than Levin's proposals. (Look at the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment and compare it to Levin's )

Booklet's Proposal

Levin's Proposal

Section I The power of Congress to regulate the value of money is hereby rescinded; the unit of money of the United States is the Dollar. Section II The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand. Section III To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI). Section IV The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Any five states may commission a third party audit to confirm this report at their own expense. Section V The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section VI Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold, money, or real estate to be confiscated from a citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: be removed from office (and fired, if an employee), forfeit all pension and retirement benefits, pay all legal costs, and restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy. Section VII The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void. Section VIII The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation and theft.

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration. SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year,which shall commence on October 1 of each year,and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year's fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted. SECTION 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year. SECTION 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product for the previous calendar year. SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal. SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product. SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote. SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

The booklet's isn't dependent on GDP, which can be manipulated, but upon the actual amount in the treasury, which must be store of physical monies, thereby bypassing a whole host of manipulations. Section 7 also prohibits abuses from unfunded liabilities in a straightforward manner.

[Edward.Fish]

See post #25 and the linked Amendment Booklet; it's part of Art In Idaho's list of links.

(BTW, thank you for posting those links, Art!)

[Da Bilge Troll]

"Its very easy - kill the Federal Reserve ..."

Easy? How would that be easy? How would that be accomplished - easily? Would we all just fervently wish for it?

[momincombatboots]

Demint is right, we just inked an arms deal with the country that brought us 9/11.. no wall, amnesty for dreamers, no repeal. Strangely enough, no veto voice. And.. we are in a prioxy war with Russia because a Syrian kid washed up by some cameras. E..flipping nough!

[Oklahoma]

And Trump in the not distant past supported the Clintons, Schumer and Obama. Why doesn’t that disqualify him? I’ll take Sasse over any democrat alive and ninety percent of the Republicans.

[grania]

I'll take Sasse over any dem and 90% of the Republicans

Out of any context, I'll agree with that statement. However, there is a context. It's that many if not most Republicans who get elected to DC are true to the agenda that got Trump elected, until they get to DC. So many traitor the little folk who got them elected before they even unpack. The way I see it is that in a way, they're worse than the dems who campaigned on that sick agenda. Why? They're filling the seat of someone who promised to be on our side. So, in effect, they're the ones who stole a seat from the voters.

If President Trump doesn't get their enthusiastic support, enough so to get the Deplorable agenda passed, a lot of the traitors won't get re-elected. (think Kelly Ayotte) If the nation doesn't turn around, fast, it can't be saved. So why would we let those who let the voters down stay in power?

I don't know if Senator Sasse is one of the worst or not. But do you ever see him at Trump rallies or hear him saying enthusiastic things about President Trump? It's disturbing if he doesn't.

[nitzy]

[nathanbedford]

No Convention of States until we can out-organize the likes of Schumer and Pelosi, and outstrategize Barky and lizard-woman.

That is precisely why we need a convention of the states, because history is proving that we cannot out-organize the likes of Schumer and Pelosi. The idea of the convention is to involve people other than the likes of Schumer and Pelosi to conduct a convention where Schumer and Pelosi have no legal, constitutional or direct involvement. To kick over the game board and introduce a whole new game with new players, a new game in which we at least have a chance.

[PGR88]

Easy? How would that be easy? How would that be accomplished - easily?

You are right. Killing the Fed would not be easy, in fact, its probably impossible. It is a cancer on our organs - removing it means the present structure of our country and empire die also. What I meant is - limiting the power of Fed.gov, its socialist lackeys and its vast social engineering programs would disappear immediately if the US restored a currency not controlled by central planners. The two phenomena are absolutely linked like Siamese twins. Its "easy" in that its obvious (but not easily achieved)

[Da Bilge Troll]

"Its "easy" in that its obvious (but not easily achieved)"

Yes, exactly. It's not about what needs to be done so much as how to accomplish it. Now you begin to see what the Article V movement is about.

A Convention of States is not a solution in itself, it is the method by which changes such as you propose could realistically be made, bypassing Congress.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand."

If we assume the current U.S. economy is roughly $15 trillion, by my calculations (please double check), backing that at $1,500 per ounce would require 312,500 TONS of gold.

Is there that much gold on the planet? Well, by some estimates it is more than double the amount of gold on Earth.

Any suggestions?

[Edward.Fish]

>> "The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand."
>
> If we assume the current U.S. economy is roughly $15 trillion, by my calculations (please double check), backing that at $1,500 per ounce would require 312,500 TONS of gold.
> Is there that much gold on the planet? Well, by some estimates it is more than double the amount of gold on Earth. >
> Any suggestions?

The final sentence of Section 7 addresses a lot of that so-called %15 Trillion: All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.

There are also other manners in which to handle the $15 Trillion debt:

1. The easy solution to the debt is repudiation, simply saying “the Constitution does not authorize Congress to incur debt for X” is simply not conforming with the Constitution; However, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 clearly assigns congress the power with “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;” and furthermore the first sentence of Amendment 14, Section 4 says:
   “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” — so it is therefore not possible to directly repudiate the debt.
2. However, the Constitution places restrictions on what the legitimate currency can be in Article 1, Section 10 when it says: “No State shall […] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;” — this restriction must also apply to the representatives of the States in Congress, for if any State is denied the authority to do so, then its representatives cannot have a greater authority. Therefore, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 whose long title is “An Act To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes” could not have been legitimately passed by the States in Congress without first amending the Constitution to allow it.
3. Given #1 and #2, it is here that we are confronted with a huge contradiction — the Federal Reserve’s Notes cannot be held to be valid, as such tender is prohibited, and yet the 14TH Amendment clearly prohibits the questioning of the validity of the public debt.
4. Solution:
   The solution is therefore not to question the debt, but to acknowledge that the Congress had no power to enact the Federal Reserve and that the debt incurred as Federal Reserve Notes cannot legitimately be laid to the States or the People thereof — obviously those Congresses were acting in their own personal power and all such debts are theirs personally and the courts should apply that portion of debt to them and their estates as they would for private citizens.

And there you have it — a nice, tidy solution to the public debt.
And one that is wholly just: for it turns this method with which the elites sought to enslave us, the people, back on their own heads using nothing but the Supreme Law of the Land.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"The final sentence of Section 7 addresses a lot of that so-called %15 Trillion: All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void."

My post was not clear -- when I mentioned the U.S. economy, I was referring to the GDP, not the debt.

It does not appear that the current GDP can be supported by a gold standard of $1,500 per oz.

[Edward.Fish]

My post was not clear -- when I mentioned the U.S. economy, I was referring to the GDP, not the debt.
It does not appear that the current GDP can be supported by a gold standard of $1,500 per oz.

But you're thinking is slightly warped in that the GDP can count the same money multiple times -- the little parable about the town where everyone is indebted to everyone else and the money from the visitor's wallet [$100, as I heard it] is 'borrowed' to pay back the one, who pays back the other until everyone's debt is cleared and the money then returned to the visitor is a good example: even though the total amount of the services the debt pays off is something like $600 there was only ever the $100 note in the story.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"the total amount of the services the debt pays off is something like $600 there was only ever the $100 note in the story."

LOL! Well, I was talking about the real world.

Of course the entire money supply is not currency. However, isn't the reason some dollars can be used more than once is because of the fractional reserve banking system that would be abolished with a strict gold standard?

[Edward.Fish]

> However, isn't the reason some dollars can be used more than once is because of the fractional reserve banking system that would be abolished with a strict gold standard?

No, actually.
I mean take a gold coin: you could use it to pay for something and, later, the person you gave it to could buy something from you. -- IOW, usage is non-destructive… as opposed to, say, whiskey.

Or are you talking about the sort of "double booking" that fractional banking does?
Even there you could do it [fractional reserve] with gold coinage -- the bank would just lend out coinage from the accounts of the depositors in the full loan amount and be paid back that amount plus interest.

So despite your LOL! Well, I was talking about the real world. I'm failing to see any real objection.