Skip to comments.Donít Expect Reform From Washington
Posted on 08/11/2013 10:46:57 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Its no secret that one hundred years of progressivism has twisted the American mind. A once proud and independent people have become increasingly meek and dependent on the decisions and goodies disbursed by faraway masterminds.
Part of that twist shifted our attention and expectations from the dispersed power in our states, and toward a single focal point, Washington, DC. For any real or imagined problem, the perceived answer no longer resides within our communities or states. No, there must be a national program to deal with and regulate everything. This top-down imperial approach, that treats the fifty states no better than subservient soviet republics, is not only incompatible with, but hostile to a once free people.
Arent you tired of pleading like a serf with your rep and senators to comply with the constitution they swore to protect? Im not saying we should stop communicating with them, but as a group, they will never reform the system that serves them so well. Just a week ago, they quietly exempted themselves and their families from ruinous Obamacare.
If we are to save our republican freedoms from runaway tyranny, we must take the initiative, and stymie the radical onslaught, but how?
Voting for conservatives to national office is necessary, but history has shown it is insufficient. Conservatives will never set the terms of the debate in Washington, DC. The left simply owns it all. Big media are Obamas shield, and the DOJ is his sword. If we are to be winning generals in this long battle against despotism, we must select the best terrain, and that terrain is not in Washington. It is distributed among fifty state capitals.
Yes, the states. It is there our framers direct us, in Article V, to begin the process they planned for, to take back our republic from the forces of darkness and despair. We do not have to put up with consolidation of all power into the hands of the few. We have the means, we must use them.
This new tactic requires a new perspective.
Do you know your state rep and senator? From you, do they know they have the constitutional muscle to restore republican freedoms? They know very well the heavy hand of DHS, EPA, HHS, etc. and unfunded mandates too numerous to count. They know that over half of the states stood in court to oppose Obamacare. They know radical judges alone prevent Arizona from defending its southern border. They know of DOJ intent to hijack elections for democrats, and how the statists are ultimately nullifying the constitution. Do not discount their collective loathing.
These are the politicians we must motivate, because they are the men and women who will hopefully, eventually, send delegates with detailed commissions to an Article V amendment convention and wrest power from our oppressors.
Thinking outside of the box ping!
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council and is about 90% accurate. Its available in a downloadable PDF.
The second fills in some holes from the previous document.
Take the two documents together, and you have a good picture of how an Amendments Convention would work.
While the party has become an ineffectual weakling on the national level, it remains an effective force at the state level -- controlling thirty of the fifty states.
Let several of the more important state parties -- say, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina -- declare their independence from the national party. Then, see how quickly other state parties might follow suit.
The only states we need to concern ourselves with are the states that lean Republican at the national level. I.e., how the California Republican party reacts is of no consequence.
An intra-party insurrection at the state level is the best way to achieve reform of the national Republican party. There is no need of a third party if such an insurrection is successful.
Here is one of the big problems:
Currently, in the U.S. House of Representatives...
... the representatives from the 4 largest U.S. cities
can out-vote the representatives of 15 states entirely.
... the representatives from the state of California
can out-vote the representatives from 21 other states entirely.
representatives were about 2 1/2 times in number as senators (65 vs 26).
there are 435 representatives vs 100 senators, or about 4 1/2 times in number;
the 2 1/2 to 1 ratio would translate to 250 members in the house of representatives.
representatives were 1 per 30,000 in population.
that would require 10,000 members in the house of representatives.
An Amendments Convention has exactly the same authority as Congress with respect to proposing amendments, no more and no less. Article V states that amendments may only be proposed "to this Constitution" which implicitly forbids the abrogation of the current Constitution and the writing of a new one. Yes, an Amendments Convention could propose 80 amendments to the states for ratification that would reshape the Constitution, but, no, an Amendments Convention could not start all over again.
The decision to restrict an Amendments Convention to a single subject or to open it to all possible subjects is a decision for the states, and the states declare their desire in their petitions to Congress for a convention call. Each document has a different view as to enforcing this decision of the states, which is why the ALEC document should be read first, and then the ABA document as a rebuttal.
This is why Thomas Jefferson and others supported the idea
of a peaceful secession.
Christians and those who believe in a small and limited
government are greatly outnumbered.
Could you imagine 10,000 members of Congress?
All of them with high priced benefits and staff. It’d be insane.
A House of 10,000 members would meet virtually on the Internet, and the congressmen would never leave their (small) districts. It would make bribery and corruption a much more difficult task than it is today where everybody is centralized in one location.
That's ok; the House of Representatives is supposed to be proportional to population [but with a minimum of 1]: so then, a heavily populated state like CA should have more reps. than a collection of sparsely populated states. — the biggest problem with the HOR, I think, is that there aren't enough Representatives as each represents something like 700,00 people. (50k would probably be pushing it.)
The internet would make bribery and corruption harder?
I really doubt that.
The sheer number of them might.
That’s the point I’m trying to make. Bribing 435 congresscritters all stacked in one place is easy. Bribing 10,000 congresscritters in 10,000 locations would be a challenge.
I'm not sure having such a large body would be a bad thing. It would make it easier to hold them to account, as well as making it harder [or at least more expensive] to buy favor.
Nice sentiment, but it's not going to be peaceful. The silver lining is that although we may be outnumbered, but we have three things going for us:
1) God is with us
2) we have the moral courage of our belief in freedom and self governance, and
3) most Americans are lazy, cowardly, and/or believe in nothing but their next welfare check, and therefore will be too worthless to get up off the couch and actively participate.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
An additional benefit of many more reps is that each could ACTUALLY represent the views of his constituents. At 1:30,000 or so, you or I could reasonably visit the homes of perhaps most of the people of our district.
It would also reduce the courtroom baloney over racial gerrymandering every two years.
I read most of the ABA review. The ruling class of 40 years ago argued the judiciary should be involved, and “one-man-one-vote” be the criteria for convention voting. Nonsense.
Starting in 1971, there were attempts by various people in Congress to enact legislation that would regulate the choosing of delegates and operation of an Amendments Convention. The ABA Report itself was a reaction to that state of affairs. The Supreme Court had ruled in Dillon v. Gloss (1921) and Coleman v. Miller (1939) that Congress had wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process, and this was Congress' attempt to exercise the powers granted by those decisions.
No bill ever got through both the House and Senate, and the last attempt to do so came from Sen. Orrin Hatch in 1991. Hatch was unable to get his bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he hasn't re-introduced it since.
If 34 states request an Amendments Convention on any topic -- my favorite would be a Convention to repeal the 16th Amendment -- you can be sure that Hatch's old bill and others will come out of dusty filing cabinets and see the light of day. Once Congress decides to honor or not honor Reynolds v. Sims, you can be sure that the Supreme Court will have the last say as to whether Amendments Convention delegates should be based on population or by states. (Walker argued for both, using a model resembling the Electoral College.) The Court will also end up deciding whether the legislatures should appoint delegates or whether there should be elections for delegate positions. (If they rule for elections, I will run for the position of Convention Delegate from the 1st District of Georgia without hesitation.)
How will the Court decide? I would go for appointment by state legislature and the number of state delegates being immaterial because each state would only have one vote. But the arguments of the ABA Report strike me as being equally as good as my own. I wouldn't venture to predict the Court's ruling on that.
Reynolds v. Sims may apply after all.
Scotus has as much to do with an Article V convention as it has in determining presidential electors and how they vote . . . zero.
Despite the scotus power grabs of these last eighty years, not everything is justiciable, and how the states conduct a convention is one of them.
If so, I get it.
That is a picture of the “reform” that is needed in DC
Political and Legal Fact of Life #1: If two-thirds of the states petition Congress for an Amendments Convention on a given subject, Congress absolutely will attempt to regulate the Convention using the precedents of Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller. Congress will attempt to expand those precedents into granting itself wide latitude to regulate an Amendments Convention.
Political and Legal Fact of Life #2: At least one state will go to federal court to argue that Congress overstepped its bounds and trespassed on the prerogatives of the states. This case will make its way to the Supreme Court, and new precedent will be set.
I happen to agree with you and hope that Scalia writes the majority opinion in favor of the states, but it may go the other way. This is new territory for everybody.
Please see the Bill of Federalism by Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown:
Something like this is our only hope—and we need to do it NOW, before the AMNESTY TSUNAMI TURNS ALL RED STATES BLUE!!!
I gotta run right now and will respond to both of your thoughtful posts tomorrow.
And I fully expect that the Supreme Court would try to forestall its adoption by moving toward the original meaning of the Constitution . . . No doubt!!
In his resolutions, the states don't ask congress or scotus for anything. They tell them what they are going to do and why. Nice.
Amendment #1 income tax. Gone
2. Restoration of the commerce clause.
3. Unfunded mandates. Gone.
4. Treaty power may not supplant Art I Sect 1. (Anti-Federalists had warned of treaty abuse.)
5. Clarification of free speech.
6. Formal state nullification of regulations.
7. Rotation in office. (Mark will add judges)
8. Balanced Budget.
9. (My favorite) Explication of our 9th Amendment rights, the presumption of liberty!!!!
10. Our constitution means what it says. Yipppeee!
Yes, but if we could get just one, it should be term limits. What motivates normally sane, moral individuals to abandon all integrity and toe the totalitarian line? RE-ELECTION. Our electeds throw us under the bus every time to stay in first class.
I can give you a 95% guarantee that at least one state will challenge Congress' authority to legislate in this area.
As to how the Supreme Court will resolve it, I don't know.
Given the known and certainly increasing rat infiltration and corruption of statehouses, it will be something of a miracle for 2/3 of them to agree to some amendments.
If they do, that means we'll be very close to the pitchfork, and storm the Bastille stage. At that point, if the people and states are that disgusted, I doubt they'll be prone to listen to baloney from the institutions that brought us the point of crisis.
Bullshit statist precedent that you cite will be irrelevant.
Repeal of the 17th would be most excellent—but it still doesn’t purge the system of incumbents.
It's hard to avoid the gag reflex when one considers that the likes of Chuckie Schumer are incredibly wealthy without a single honest day's work in the private sector.
Do you believe that you can communicate with your Congresscritter or Semator? Then you must believe that you can communicate with the CEO of Exxon. Or some Hollywood celebrutard. How many staffers does a Semator or Congressperson have? What do they do all day? My advice: go talk to your local dogcatcher if you want to get somewhere.