Posted on 03/30/2013 11:22:05 AM PDT by Q-ManRN
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that if the federal government were to become self-destructive, it would be the right of the American people to alter it. In Article V of the Constitution our founders preserved that right by empowering the states, as those that originally established the federal government, to bypass and reform it by convening an Article V Convention, which permits the states to amend the Constitution.
Participants in the UCF Article V Convention Conference will decide whether to recommend this course of action to the state legislature after discussing the financial policies of our government. If the Article V Convention is recommended, a constitutional amendment will be proposed which would:
Implement major economic reforms, and optionally, empower the state governors and legislatures with the right to veto and enact federal legislation. This does not require approval from the U.S. Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at ucfavconference.org ...
“Implement major economic reforms, and optionally, empower the state governors and legislatures with the right to veto and enact federal legislation.”
Does this mean Texas can finally secede?
Not every FReeper knows what UCF stands for. I know I don’t.
Works for me! Go for it.
Good point. UCF= University of Central Florida
Yeah - that’s just what we need.
The Constitution open to modification by a bunch of liberal wankers.
You think things are bad now?
The road to calling a convention is long, difficult, and fraught. But on many issues where Congress won't pass real reforms—like Wall Street regulation, government spending, immigration, campaign finance, and countless others—an Article V Convention offers a way forward.
5.56mm
Unfortunately I think unless a majority of the states follow suit it will go no where. Even then I have my doubts considering the corruption infesting Congress.
Which way did he go...? :-D
That concern is addressed on Loren Ennis’ website. An Article V Convention is not the same thing as a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention would actually be required to change the Constitution.
I think this course is worth trying as a less dramatic predecessor to state succession in limiting the power of the federal government. I might add that this is the alternative that the framers of the Constitution suggested for limiting an overbearing federal government.
Robert- I see your point, but consider that a majority is 26 states which is not as outlandish as you may think. In addition, the 10th Amendment clearly gives states broader Constitutional power than the federal government.
If the federal government ignores the Constitution, then people and the states are to replace federal government with a lawful government according to the Framers.
The real questions is: What prohibits the states in that situation from denying or ignoring the federal government? Here is a better question: is the Constitution the Law of the Land or is the federal government?
It seems that the Anti-Federalists predictions may have been right after all!
Both were right. We don't need a new Constitution, but an amended one. Repeal of the 17th will restore the 10th.
An Article V Convention would allow the states to amend the U.S. Constitution without the approval of the federal government.
Patrick Henry and the Anti-Federalists believed the broader Constitutional power of the states would eventually be centralized in the federal government. Madison believed that the limits set forth in the Constitution through separation of powers would prevent that centralization of power.
Look at the influence that the federal government exerts over the personal lives of individual citizens today. For example, people would rather get a colonoscopy than get audited by the IRS.
States like Arizona are told to watch while their citizens are raped and murdered by Mexicans. Meanwhile, the citizens of Arizona are expected through federal taxation to pay for these Mexican’s healthcare and food.
Ask yourself who really had it right, Madison or Henry?
The Senate has been as complicit as any federal agency in the 20th Century. We can agree on the repealing the 17th Amendment.
However, I would focus more on the 16th Amendment which was exempted from Constitutional limits on direct taxation. The 16th Amendment funnels huge amounts of money out of the states to the federal government. And guess who gets to decide who gets all that money: the federal government; thus, the federal government can effectively bribe the states and local communities.
Look at the major infringements of our Constitution and ask yourself if they were likely to have happened without the 17th.
For instance, would Scotus have stolen intra-state commerce power from the States in Wickard v. Filburn? Would DOJ challenge states from implementing voter ID? Would Arizona be told it could not defend its border? Would Congress be involved in public education? Obamacare? Would Senators be afraid of what the media said about them if the states were their constituents rather than the mob?
Ultimately, would Presidents bother to nominate justices hostile to the 10th? Would such justices ever get out of the Senate judiciary committee if their past was riddled with hostility to the states?
The 17th was a disaster; it enabled the tyranny both Henry and Madison feared.
If people would just get it through their heads that an Article V Convention to propose Amendments IS NOT a Constitutional Convention, this could be our route to salvation. I would demand that representatives to such a Convention would be openly chosen by their respective states, if not elected to serve by the general public. Other than that, let’s do it!
The valid point that our Constitution is in trouble cannot logically be denied. And continuing along our current course cannot make things any better, only worse. Demands, requests and threats to get our so-called “representatives” to uphold the Constitution hasn’t done much good either, has it? It’s time for stronger medicine.
I for one do not believe that our fellow citizens would allow massive, destructive changes to the Constitution. Any proposed changes would require a three-quarters vote from the legislatures of the several States, which IMHO would disallow anything silly like erasing the Second Amendment, etc.
As for Congress refusing to call a convention should two-thirds of the states ask for it, the Constitution clearly says Congress SHALL call and not MAY call such a Convention. That settles that.
I wish people would get their heads wrapped around that! You make great points.
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.