Posted on 07/04/2013 8:23:48 PM PDT by dagogo redux
In our time a minimum of 38 states are required to ratify an amendment. What kind of mischief do you foresee that could cause 38 states to ratify?
All your states belong to us... :)
After amnesty it won’t matter there won’t be any red states anymore.
If amnesty passes, there will still be plenty of red states, more than enough to stop an out of control Constitutional Convention (CC).
Most of the illegal aliens are in either border red states or make their way to blue state urban areas where the freebies are easier to obtain.
But there may not be enough red states to ***ratify*** amendments from a CC.
So there is no danger of ‘reshaping’ the Constitution by CC. But with amnesty there may not be enough states to ratify red state proposed amendments. With amnesty, any CC may be just a wash and not worth pursuing.
The "mechanism" is simple; demand that the representatives you elect honor and respect their oath to provide us with a constitutional government. The beauty of this solution is that the Constitution provides the right to demand a constitutional government.
However, as Ross Perot wisely observed, there are unlimited offers of solutions but very limited implementation of solutions.
Pointing out that the river is dirty doesn’t clean the water. “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” Edmund Burke
Here’s a site listing states with a standing call for a CC. The list looks Red State heavy to me.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
Thx.
If John Marshall had actually made the kind of claim to power that modern leftists attribute to Marbury vs. Madison, the founders would have probably hung him. Or, at a minimum, tarred and feathered him and run him out of town on a rail.
As I see it there are differences, sometimes very significant, between laws passed and the intent of the Constitution. The SC has power over ‘laws’ but no power over the Constitution. The Founders gave us a frame of reference but warned us of abuses by politicians. The Nation is mired in the abuses by/of all three branches of Constitutional government.
I think state legislators will seriously consider it once they realize they will once again participate in national affairs (statutes, treaties, appointments). The idea of having the power to disembowel the abusive administrative state that crushes state prerogatives, has to be enticing.
As for the danger of a constitutional convention, we have little to lose. Our consolidated government ignores our unalienable rights, separation of powers and is arming itself to put down mass confrontation. If Congress ignores the threat and the states convene a convention, we risk no more than where we are already headed, a consolidated government of unlimited powers bent on creating a perfect social justice Utopian hell.
Yes, the media, rats and rinos will come down hard on an amendment to repeal the 17th. So what? Gee, will they start to call us names? When was the last time we set the terms of the debate? The last consistent time was during the Ronald Reagan era. Today we get an occasional reprieve from, for instance, Senators Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. In the course of defending this amendment, we would educate a couple generations of Americans purposely kept ignorant of the magnificent bequest of our ancestors, the Constitution. This is an idea that conservatives should flock to.
Imagine a Senate composed of people who don’t give a rip what the left-media say about them. Imagine a Senate immune from popularity polls and whatever spews daily from Obama or Chrissy Mathews. Imagine a Senate that flips the bird to a President who even considers anti-10th Amendment radicals to the federal bench. Would such a Senate put up with an EPA or HHS that pushes their States around?
As a PhD in Statistics I have encountered all the non-response responses of those that hold to fashionable diversions such as ‘Occam’s Razor’, ‘Perfect is the Enemy of the Good’, ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ and so on.
These are not serious responses, they are lazy distractions or at best armchair smoke-blowing tongue-in-cheek expressions that fill dead air with nothingness.
If you are going to respond, be serious and specify what would subvert the requirement that 38 states ratify. What do you say it is in ***specificity***? A Coup of some sort? What?
bm
Okay, here’s why a Constitutional Convention or amendment is a bad idea.
Democrats are better at government than Republicans. Unless they’re taken by surprise (i.e. the 2010 Tea Party phenomenon), they. always. get. their. way.
There’s absolutely zero, zip, nada chance that a repeal of the 17th Amendment would pass. Or even make it through the process of bringing up for a vote.
Unless/until we develop a party that is willing to stand for something.
Yes they do, but the do not have authority to act as legislators, which they have been for some time.
Sadly in my opinion, they have been doing things that many in congress want, but instead of taking an unpopular position they get to blame the courts. Win, Win for the gutless congress.
Jefferson warned of a Superior Court, because it takes absolute power from the people which negates any notion that we are a Republic ruled by a democratically elected body of representatives, headed up by a President that has vast but limited powers. He also stated plainly, the cure for this situation.
> “Unless/until we develop a party that is willing to stand for something.”
If we don’t for something, we stand for nothing.
We have far greater control of statehouses than we have in the House.
By applying for a CC, we are STANDING FOR SOMETHING!
By having our statehouses apply for a CC, it will be seen in the press, especially as we make progress in signing up more states and approach a critical mass. From post #66:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
I agree that the repeal of the 17th is a hard sale because people are not informed why their vote should be taken away. I have had discussions with Jacquerie that a better approach to the 17th issue would be a new amendment that permits state legislatures to recall their wayward US Senators effectively compelling them to account to state interests which was the original intent.
However, a marriage amendment would be easier as there are now 38 states that have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
A repeal of the 16th would be easier because there is brilliant legislation in the FairTax HR25 that appeals to people at all levels.
The bottomline is a CC would shake up the political class in Washington badly.
It’s been done before. Ironically it was done regarding the 17th but Washington was so scared that the people would take matters into their own hands that they cut a deal with the states to propose the 17th via Congress. Of course they gutted key provisions of the 17th Amendment’s intent.
So we have to watch out for Congress to step in and take our state level CC efforts away from us while promising ‘they will do it’ instead. But in our time we have so many more ways of reaching and communicating with people, the internet, the townhalls, video participation etc. that it is unlikely that Congress will misconstrue and subvert our intent without our knowledge. Exhibit A is the immigration deal. It’s DOA now in the House and we are watching their every move.
Congress and the political class are deathly afraid we will use the weapon the Constitution gives us, which is to convene a CC from the statehouse level.
Everyone who uses scare tactics to discourage a CC is in cahoots with the political class.
Every poster or person I have met that is opposed to convening a CC has no clear explanation other than raising fear of something they cannot clear describe.
To say don’t do it because the democrats always get their way is nonsense. This is the state level we are talking about, not the political class in Washington. And there are many more red states than blue.
A good first step would be Senatorial campaign finance reform to wit:
Let’s examine the fact that Senatorial candidates receive campaign donations from entities outside their respective State and ask the question ‘Why does a Senate candidate from say New York receive campaign money from a group of California Liberal Hollywood elite? Or perhaps a North Dakota Senator receive campaign money from a group of New York Financiers?
If this was disallowed we certainly wouldn’t be denying either their right to representation as they have their own state senatorial candidate to support.
A Senator should be elected exclusively by their State constituency using campaign money raised soley within that constituency. Ditto for Governors and Congressmen.
Without those, the repeal of the 17th amendment or at the minimum limiting campaign money to within the constituency, Senators will still consider themselves as 1/100 of a President and as the Federal Governments representative to the state rather than the States representative to the Federal government.
Marbury vs Madison is where the Judicial system found it’s voice.
It’s valid and it works. Though often we don’t like the results. The real culprit is the 17th amendment. It’s no wonder that the judicial appears to be broken ... It’s because it’s stacked with politically minded judges rather than judicially minded judges.
Repeal the 17th amendment and Senators would be a little more cautious as to whom they support with their advice and consent role.
That’s an excellent proposal. It would have the effect of nullifying the worst of the 17th by focusing Senators on their own states. We must ask, “Then what?”.
What is the natural flow from this change? Will it lead to the desire of a state’s citizens to relinquish the power and authority back to their state elected officials? Can you corral enough elites to have them work it out?
It is only valid because they say it is. It works because a spineless Congress refuses to demand the power to legislate.
The fact that they get away with it does not make it right or legal, but it is what it is.
I stated before I believe that Powerful People in both parties are thrilled that the Supreme Court can take the heat for some of the cr@p that they secretly want. The Court is never running for re-election.
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.