Posted on 04/19/2010 8:35:55 AM PDT by justme346
The Tenth Amendment Center in conjunction with http://www.werefuse.com/ announced the release of their model legislation for State-level action to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 based on premise that such sweeping federal mandates are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Nullification was first used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to nullify the Alien Sedition Act of 1798 that made speaking out against the President a crime punishable by six months in prison and a fine of $1,000.00. In 1798, when a man would work a month or more for $20, $1,000 was a huge fine that would generally bankrupt all but the wealthiest landowners or merchant princes.
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/ has argued for the past couple of years that the States need to start using the rights provided to "We the People" in the 9th and 10th Amendments and begin nullifying the laws with which we disagree through the use of State legislation known as a "Resolve," or without declaring a Convention of the States, the States themselves can initiate and ratify an amendment to the Constitution that nullifies the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. When Kentucky and Virginia nullified the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798, the law died. Every couple hundred years the federal government needs to be reminded that it is an agent of the States, not the boss of the States. And, the American people need to start reading the Constitution and learn the how that document still protects their rights. The people, through their State legislatures, have the authority to nullify any law enacted by Congress, or overrule an Executive Order issued by whomever resides in the White House. The people have the power...its about time they started using it before they lose not only that power, but liberty as well.
However, and this is a huge however, he did not nullify those laws. They contained expiration dates, and he simply allowed them to expire, and pardoned and released the remaining, jailed editors from jail.
There is, also, the little point that a war was fought over the subject of nullification. The people who lost that war, supported nullification. It is hard to imagine a clearer defeat of any argument than to lose a war fought over that idea.
Congressman Billybob
One of the Left’s arguments against X Amendment is the supremacy clause. However, since the X Amendment was adopted after the supremacy clause it should be argued that it limits the supremacy clause only to those areas and powers that are explicitly granted to the Federal Govt. The states and people remain supreme in all other matters.
The question that has to be asked is: What does the healthcare act have to do with governing?
It allows the government to determine wether you live or die. What you can eat and what activities you may undertake.
I’m one of your biggest fans, CB, but IMO, in your third paragraph you’re advancing a lazy debate point.
Wars do not defeat arguments (or concepts or beliefs). They defeat armies and men by force of arms. Defeated men may be reticent to continue to advance their arguments, but that doesn’t mean their argument has been defeated.
Similarly, if you yell at your wife and force her into compliance with your wishes, you have not defeated her opinion, or her arguments. Many deluded men believe otherwise, even after her divorce attorney has bled them dry.
My grandmother used to tell me frequently, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” Granny was right.
A man coerced is not a man convinced.
I strongly suggest that the discussion of a constitutional convention no longer be regarded as “unthinkable” or “radical”. Such considerations are our public school training, but they are shown up as false by the facts.
Right now, our government has a backlog of constitutional changes that have existed since almost the start of our republic, and still need to be changed. Even the Confederate State of America were aware of changes that needed to be made, totally unrelated to the slavery issue, and they incorporated some of these changes into *their* constitution.
Over time, our constitution, our president, our congress, and our judiciary have made some mistakes, that now hang like ever-heavier chains on our country, and for no good reason. And there have been many very good ideas waiting in the wings, opposed by only a small and entrenched elite, who cling to unauthorized power, yet who have effectively blocked them.
If our State legislatures could just start talking about what *might* be changed, then discuss the issues among themselves, enough of them (34 States) might agree to make just enough changes to restore order, solvency, and balance to our nation.
And they would have to convince four more States, for a total of 38, to agree to these changes. So for all intents and purposes, until 38 States already agree on what to change, there is no reason to call a constitutional convention.
So obviously, this is not done frivolously.
Importantly, what the States do will not be issue oriented, but for their States rights, with relation to the federal government. This is what they care about most, and what the people benefit are the side effects of this.
It will take an enormous amount of debate between 7,382 State legislators, as well as 50 governors and 50 attorney generals of those States. And on average, 75 legislators in each State will have to agree, and vote on a constitutional convention resolution.
About 2,550 State legislators of both parties for 34 States, just to call a constitutional convention.
And 2,850 State legislators of both parties will have to agree to any draft changes made by the constitutional convention.
So what in the world should this almost 3,000 average Americans be debating? Here is a possible list of changes:
Repeal of the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Direct Election of US Senators) Amendments of the constitution.
(Another Form of Federal Tax) Amendment;
A Balanced Budget Amendment;
A Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment;
A National Census Enumeration Only Amendment;
A Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;
A Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;
An Oligopoly Antitrust Amendment;
A Presidential War Powers and Posse Comitatus Amendments;
A Limitation on Presidential Authority To Declare Martial Law Amendment;
A Presidential Authority Only Through Cabinet Officers, Appointment and Impeachment of Cabinet Officers Amendment; (as well as) Term Limits for Recess Appointments Amendment;
A Congressional Approval of Bureaucratic Regulatory Authority Amendment;
The Creation of a State Appointed Constitutional Review Court Amendment (50 State Judges To Sit As a Federal Nullification Court);
A Reorganization of the Federal Judiciary Amendment;
An Amendment for the Reduction of the Size and Authority of the Federal Government and Enabling Acts;
A Writ of Mandamus Amendment;
Congressional and Judicial Term Limits Amendment;
A Restoration of State Lands from Federal Land Takings and Limitations of Eminent Domain Amendment;
The Creation of a National Tribal Congress for Indigenous Peoples Amendment (renegotiation of treaties and integration of tribal and commercial law).
A Limitations of Federal Intelligence and Police Authority, Surveillance and Records Retention Amendment;
A Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment;
An Abolition of the FED Amendment;
Prohibition of Federal Largess to Individuals Amendment;
Restrictions on Earmarks, Single Subject Congressional Act Amendment;
An Abolition of Government Employee Unions Amendment.
(Importantly, this is not an exclusive list. But these are subjects that our State legislators should be debating right now. Nullification, nor just a constitutional amendment or two cannot correct 200+ years of housekeeping that need to be done.)
That’s not governing. That’s ruling.
A Constitutional convention is a dangerous thing. With a constitutional convention, you don’t just change the things you don’t like, the whole constitution is scrubbed and we start from scratch. The liberals would also have a say in what goes into a new constitution. Say good-bye to gun rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Say good-bye to elections and hello to a liberal dictatorship. You may say that that has already happened, but in fact, it has not. With our current Constitution, we have it to fall back on to fight the infringements to our rights that the liberals are trying to impose on us. Whatever is going on now, it would be far worse with a Constitutional convention.
There are several fallacies here. To start with, the States pick the delegates, so there would indeed be conservatives and liberals in the convention. But neither would have the majority anywhere near approaching what was needed to pass even a single change. And even if the draft had something, anything radical in it, 38 States would still have to agree to it.
And they most certainly would not.
The founders intended it to be an extremely difficult process, specifically to fend off radical ideas. Importantly, the reality is that the existing constitution would be the new constitution, with very few changes indeed.
The *one* and only one thing with enough agreement between the States to survive a constitutional convention would be a bipartisan increase in State power at the expense of federal power. The furthest thing from a dictatorship of liberal excess.
However, over the years, public school students were drilled with the idea that a constitutional convention would be "unthinkable", because it would "rewrite the constitution". This was propaganda, and a lie. And this lie must be overcome with the truth.
The truth is what I say is supported by the process of the convention. The lie is not. What you wrote cannot be substantiated in any way. Federal officials and officers are prohibited from influencing a convention, as well, so *they* cannot corrupt the process, either.
So if anyone tells you a constitutional convention is "unthinkable", ask them to prove it. They cannot. In fact, the public and our State legislators are thinking about it right now.
Randall E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center:
The Bill of Federalism
http://www.federalismamendment.com/
A constitutional convention is also endorsed by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. These men are true experts in the subject of the US constitution.
During the Perot campaign, he was advocating a constitutional convention. Many knowledgeable attorneys went on the record as saying that a c.c. would be disastrous for the very reasons I have enumerated. It’s nice to have a laundry list of what we want, but the other side gets a say in what they want as well. I don’t trust state legislatures not passing anything radical. Who would have thought that we would have a radical in the White House like we have now? And if it’s so difficult to pass anything during a c.c., then why take up the time? We have an amendment process that would produce the same results you mention. And I don’t think you will find too many conservatives willing to trust a restart of our constitution. We have enough trouble already.
Unfortunately, there are too many problems to fix as individual amendments, and individual amendments are far more agenda driven. The last two unsuccessful proposals were the loathsome Equal Rights Amendment and the D.C. Voting Rights.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, four “progressive” amendments were forced through congress, two of which, the 16th and 17th, need to be repealed, and the 18th, Alcohol Prohibition, was repealed, after creating enormous and powerful criminal mafias we are still fighting against. And the 19th Amendment, Women’s Suffrage, was only done out of the cynical attitude that women would vote more progressive than the men in their families. (They didn’t).
So in other words, the ordinary amendment process generally cranks out either bad or politically motivated “agenda” amendments.
But as I said, the one thing that enough States could agree on is their rights vs. federal rights. Already, at the State level, there is often bipartisan efforts on several issues, State resolution movements, that show blocs of States want their power back. All of these listed movements want that same, basic thing:
The 10th Amendment bloc
The Firearms Freedom bloc
The Federal Firearms Law Nullification bloc
The Medical Marijuana bloc
The anti-Real ID bloc
The Health Care Freedom bloc
The Bring the National Guard Home bloc
The anti-Cap and Trade bloc
The Constitutional Tender bloc (federal taxes go through States)
The Sheriffs First bloc (federal arrest only with Sheriff permission)
The Regulation of Interstate Commerce bloc
And the federal government has created so many system to take State power, as well as federal judges ordering States to appropriate monies under the rule of “special masters”, and other constitutional abominations, that mere single amendments can no longer address all the abusive and unconstitutional practices.
If it’s nearly impossible to get one or two amendments through, what makes you think we can get this long laundry list of amendments passed? And these are conservative ideas you are listing. Just wait until the left starts messing with the constitution. And yes, you have to scrub the old constitution before you can even begin these amendments at a constitutional convention. You’re playing with fire.
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.