Posted on 07/04/2013 8:23:48 PM PDT by dagogo redux
I listen to whatever I can in the way of talk radio when I drive around, and Mark Levin is the least unpalatable choice on the drive home from work each day. He was on one of his bulging-neck-vein rants the other day, this one about the history of the Supreme Court’s overstepping their limited Constitutional role over the past several centuries, leading us to the “judicial tyranny” we see now, which was never the intent of the Founders.
He implied that the ultimate remedy was the restoration of the original intent of the Founders, rather than merely electing conservative Presidents who could appoint more conservative justices. He also implied that this would be a multi-generational task, but did not give any specifics.
I know what the Constitution says, and what the Founders’ concerns were, having read James Madison’s notes from the Convention and several of the best commentaries about that summer. But I know little of how We the People might peaceably get out from under the judicial tyranny that has evolved.
Do any Constitutional scholars here or legal experts see any feasible pathway to eventually restore the proper and original powers to the Congress, and to We the People who elect them, and to the States, and get these nine lawyers (and a literal army of Executive branch tyrants) back to their proper limited roles in our lives?
You are quite correct. The problem is not that we’re not winning elections, it’s that we are losing and arguably have already lost the culture.
Elections are simply a consequence of what happens in the society at large. Breitbart was apparently the only person who really understood this and had a clue what to do about it.
His death was a true catastrophe for America.
Actually, you and I understand it. I just don’t have a clue how to counter-attack. I hope you have one.
Unfortunately, in that case Marshall was right, morally and legally, and Jackson was wrong.
Sadly, I have no clue either. Our opponents are ill-minded when it comes to policies and values, but they were clever enough decades ago to start work that would guarantee their control of the educational system, pop culture, the legal profession, etc etc. Their investments are paying dividends today, and their roots in these elements of society will not be easily removed.
In fact, I’m more and more convinced that we will collapse from this unsustainable path before we’re able to un-do the cultural entrenchment they’ve established. We might be better off creating what I call “islands of sanity” that will weather the tumultuous times to come. Those isles could be local jurisdictions, family units, neighborhoods of like-minded/sensible/moral people, etc.
I’ve all but lost hope for a national solution. We’ll be starting each presidential election where the Democrat nominee starts so close to 270EVs that the deck is incredibly stacked against the Republican nominee. And even if the Republican nominee wins.. what kind of Republican would it be that wins in this kind of environment?
After much thought over the past few months, refocusing my efforts on a more local level - where success is much more likely and where I’m much more likely to see the tangible results of those efforts - might do wonders for my sanity/blood pressure/etc.
Constitutional Convention.
First change would be direct election of Senators
Second change would be eliminating the vote from people that receive welfare.
Third would be Voter ID as good as Mexico’s (Google it)
Fourth would be the end of corporate welfare
Fifth would be a balanced budget
Six would be the end of ‘entitlements’
I love those and I would add that house and senate members stay in their districts and states 360 days a year and vote electronically . This would take so much power away from the lobbyist’s. This would also keep them grounded as we could give our input and visit them locally when these issues come up.
But .... repealing the 17th amendment would be a good start to restoring the U.S to what our founders wanted.
This is elemental, I can hardly believe it appears to be beyond the comprehension of so many thoughtful freepers.
Our Framers knew, and expected the House of Reps to have its share of loony-tunes. That is the nature of popular political bodies. It was pure idiocy to turn the senate over to the same desires and keep six year terms. The outcome, tyranny, was as predictable as sunrise tomorrow, as James Madison said in so many words to Patrick Henry at the VA ratifying convention.
The way to keep radical, anti-10th amendment Leftists off the courts is to return to a Senate of the States. Our framers did not rely entirely on sending virtuous men to govern us. They relied on separation of powers and the first, THE most important separation was vertical, the division of enumerated power residing with the feds and everything else left with the states. This vertical separation was to be enforced with the Senate of the States.
All other reforms will be just lipstick on a pig until the states are returned to the national government, when we will once again have a FEDERAL government.
It truly is the key. Another benefit to repeal is to prevent our Senators from being Trent Lott-isized.
When you get a yahoo that is against the repeal of the 17th click on their page. Almost always they turn out to be from a Northern state. Rarely is it a southerner or mid westerner against the idea. Think about it.
Interesting point.
good post. we should do this
27 posted by Lancey Howard
I don't think it was JUST cowardly. A Freeper friend was in Fla for that whole deal, traveling up and down the State. Jeb Bush didn't stand around "helplessly wringing his hands", she said she could feel EVIL coming from him during this and didn't stop it.
Never vote in another Bush, done with the Bushes for President! There must be other people who can serve, not just one or two families.
+1
Dream on. In this day and age you will never get more than a handful of informed people to vote to reform, as demonstrated by the last two elections (actually more than that), so sadly without some sort of external urging nothing will happen. Unless of course the country goes completely belly up and there is much suffering, ironically this will also more than likely usher in some sort of conflict that will start as a class war and turn toward a rebuilding exercise once the weeding out occurs.
That image would be even more true if it depicted the Senate.
Because he was talking about their own duty, in their own legitimate sphere, in their own courtroom, in the individual cases that come before them. Of course they must say what the law is, and judge what the Constitution requires, in order to fulfill their own sacred oaths. That does NOT equal judicial supremacy, nor lawmaking power, nor the veto power, that the courts today, with the cooperation of the legislative and executive departments, lay claim to in our country today. Not even close.
> “Is there any constitutional way to hold a limited convention?”
Yes of course.
A few things in play here to understand first.
Congress vs. State legislatures vs. State Conventions.
PROPOSING AMENDMENTS
Only Congress can call for, or legislatures can apply for a Constitutional Convention (CC). Two-thirds is required for both options. For state legislature application to require Congress to act in our time, 34 states are required.
When either Congress calls for or legislatures apply for a CC, they apply for proposing amendments and they submit their ***proposed*** amendments for ratification.
Nothing prohibits a state legislature from proposing any amendment it wants. However, each amendment must have a minimum 75% of the states (38) ratify the proposed amendments. Only states are allowed to ratify amendments but Congress can offer ratification to states in two ways: either via legislatures or via state conventions.
RATIFYING AMENDMENTS
Either state legislatures or state conventions can ratify amendments, and there must be in our time a minimum 38 states to ratify then amendment into our Constitution.
Congress can choose whether they offer legislatures or state conventions as the mode of ratification. The only time state conventions were ever chosen was to repeal the 18th Amendment that banned drinking alcohol.
STATE LEGISLATURES VS. STATE CONVENTIONS
The idea of Congress allowing state conventions rather than state legislatures was to allow a more direct people process be involved for issues that are sensitive to the public.
If Congress chooses state conventions for ratification, then the conventions are organized at grassroots level and can be recognized by popular referendum allowing voters to have direct participation. Delegates are chosen by voters to attend the state convention in which already proposed amendments are considered in a vote for ratification.
Importantly only Congress or state legislatures can ***propose*** amendments.
And only states can ratify proposed amendments, and Congress chooses whether states ratify via legislatures or conventions.
LIMITING A CONVENTION
To answer your question about limiting the convention, it is already built into the process by requiring at least two-thirds of Congress or states to approve which amendments to consider for ratification. This is the limiting mechanism for a CC.
By the way the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) may be chosen by legislatures to coordinate the wording and limitation of amendments. It is not required to use ALEC but the states already use ALEC for other purposes and they have talked in the past about using ALEC to coordinate states for a CC.
STATES CALLING FOR CC
A state like Massachusetts can propose 100 amendments from Homosexual marriage to Repealing the 2nd Amendment to Universal Everything for Everyone, whereas a minimum of 17 other states can shoot down Massachusetts’ amendments one by one.
Only amendments that have a minimum 34 states backing them will be submitted for ratification.
SUMMARY
Here’s the flow:
1. CC requested
1a. Congress calls CC by two-thirds of House and Senate
1a(1). Amendments proposed by two-thirds of House and Senate
1a(2). Amendments sent to states for 75% ratification
1a(2)(i) Amendments sent to state legislatures, or
1a(2)(ii) Amendments sent to state conventions
OR
1b. Two-thirds of State legislatures apply for CC
1b(1). Two-thirds of state legislatures propose amendments to Congress
1b(2). Congress sends amendments proposed by two-thirds of state legislatures back to states for 75% ratification
1a(2)(i) Amendments sent to state legislatures, or
1a(2)(ii) Amendments sent to state conventions
My thinking as well. Nicely put.
You would be correct if it were up to the national voters.
But it’s state by state and that makes a big difference.
There are many more conservative states than there are liberal states.
Good post.
The reason the Supreme Court has become so powerful is because Congress allowed them to...in order to avoid responsibility for unpopular laws.
And while I agree the 17th Amendment (along with just about every other Amendment passed during the Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson era) was bad for the country, I’m not sure it’s possible to walk it back. There’s an incredible amount of mischief that could occur at a Constitutional Convention, especially considering how hapless Republicans are when they go up against Democrats at the federal level.
There’s a good chance we would wind up in worse shape than we are now.
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.