Just Enforce the Constitution We Have (?)

Article V Blog ^

[PeterPrinciple]

We are no longer a constitutional republic. We are now living in a post constitutional America ruled by an oligarchy.

---

Repeat LOUD and OFTEN .........................

[Robert DeLong]

I must disagree as Article III does not authorize judicial review.

Article 3: Judicial Branch: the Supreme Court decides court cases according to US Constitution.

So it most certainly does authorize judicial review, when there is concern (disagreement) as it pertains to constitutionality.

I argue that an Article V convention could be used to empower the states to overturn federal dictates without resorting to violence.

I'll agree that is the intent, to resolve differences between the State and the Federal governments.

This begs the question, will the federal government resort to violence to keep their slaves, slaves. I think we have to try and find out.

Nothing is stopping that. The fact that it has never been done, however, tells us:
a) It is not an easy task to get accomplished, and for good reason.
b) How it will be carried out and how to assure the outcome doesn't go down different paths is really an unknown.
c) After Congress calls for the Convention, how and who assumes control of the convention
d) Like any other Amendment, it can be ignored or even exploited, based upon language used.

What makes us think that we the people can respect what the Convention provides anymore than what comes out of Congress? Or put another way, why are people so convinced that this will somehow be better or that those involved are anymore trustworthy? If they are mostly politicians, then why would they behave any differently than politicians in Washington? Especially if they share the same political parties, Republican & Democrat.

After all it is not, we the people, putting our input into the Amendment(s), but representatives in our behalf.

If succession is tried we know the answer already to your question regarding violence.

[Nuc 1.1]

I respectfully disagree with your first point. Having reread Article III in response to your post, I see nothing that supports your statement. While Hamilton argues in Federalist 78 that judicial review exists he does not cite any constitutional reference supporting his position. Nor did Hamilton cite any constitutional defense against judicial extremism. I believe Hamilton believed that the Supreme Court should have the authority for judicial review and that the Constitution provided that authority. The wording of the actual constitution does not support that contention. Regardless, the Supreme Court has exercised that authority since 1803. And we are now their slaves.

I understand your concern about the political corruption. I argue that state legislatures are closer to the people and therefore more accountable to the people but I am not certain that is true. Your fundamental position seems to be a lack of trust due to the demonstrated mendacity of our political class. Can't argue with that. But it seems to me we have no other choice, except fighting. Chips fall where they may.

Though I was not referring to succession, as a southerner I know a bit about the War of Northern Aggression. For instance I know we shot first. And I also know we didn't need to. Indeed R. Toombs argued strenuously against doing so. In fact , after reading Lincoln's letter to the governor of South Carolina, Toombs said memorably: “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.” I do not believe the Armed Forces presently would attack large numbers of citizens resisting marxist tyranny. But I don't think a change in that is too far away.

Later FReeper.

[Robert DeLong]

The fact that you disagree actually proves my point, because disagreements will arise as sure as the sun will rise. Unfortunately neither you or I have the power to say, my word is the final word on this issue.

So what happens? We are clearly at an impasse. Our only solutions are you kill me or I kill you, but then the survivor goes to jail for murder. Both of us being level headed individuals, and not ready to sacrifice our lives for a murder charge on the other, seek a different avenue to resolve our issue.

Judicial review of our issues to seek a resolution.

[Nuc 1.1]

I would never attempt to kill you. Respect for others is a corner stone for conservatives. Further, if I have learned one thing in life, it is there are far, far more things I don't know then things I do. I know one thing though, I would never subject my life to the whims of the marxists on the Supreme Court. Nor anyone else’s life.

Now. To more important matters! What to cook on the grill this weekend?
I am going to have to think about this over some beer.

Have a great weekend!

[Robert DeLong]

Steak, hands down!!!!

[RedWulf]

The supreme court long ago stopped being a court and started being a law creation body. If you want to reform the system you need to start with a counter balance to the SC.

[Robert DeLong]

you want to reform the system you need to start with a counter balance to the SC.

Well that is kind of what the whole discussion is about, and why some think a Convention of States, or Constitutional Convention per Article V is the answer. However, since there has never been such a convention, how exactly will it operate. Since the Constitution only mentions how one will be called by Congress, details as to how it is executed is absent, so what is procedure is the source of the debates for and against . So provide how you think it will operate.

[PA-LU Student]

ahh, but how can they call something in the constitution unconstitutional..... they cannot formalize any reasoned argument for why they would do such a thing. If they could do that, then what is stopping them from claiming that the First amendment is unconstitutional. Once something is added textually to the constitution, unless it strictly goes against what is stated previously. For instance, stating that there is no right to bear arms, there is preceding legal code for that. It would not work unless it was a repeal of the second amendment.

[Robert DeLong]

I’m talking about before it becomes an Amendment. During the process.

[PA-LU Student]

Yeah, I thought of that just now also, but the legal standing for that I would imagine would have to start before the amendment convention was convened. If it was brought after there would be no grounds to bring it forth. It would I believe be the first time an article five convention would be actually called for. With that being the case no legal precedent being there to stop it.