Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Twenty-Six States Pave the Road to Freedom
Convention of States ^ | October 24th 2013 | Laura Fleming

Posted on 10/27/2013 3:07:35 AM PDT by Jacquerie

In early September, the Convention of States Project began searching the country for citizens who recognized the brokenness of D.C. and were ready to be a part of the solution. Since the release of its Volunteer Leadership Application, the Grassroots Team has reviewed hundreds of names. Each application highlights a common desire to serve the nation and defend its freedoms for future generations.

We are excited to announce that twenty-six states now have active leadership in place.

One recently-appointed leader explained, “I don’t want to take the chance of sitting aside thinking that perhaps someone else will jump in and do it – and then not have it happen. So I am putting myself out there and am offering my time and my talents to help get this going.” Every day, citizens, no longer willing to sit on the sidelines, stand up and take tangible steps to return rightful power back to the states.

State Directors are now active in: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, IA, KS, MD, MA, MN, NJ, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, and WV.

Legislative Liaisons are working in: AZ, DE, IA, NH, NC, TX, and VA.

Coalitions Directors are looking for organizations who will partner with COS in: AL, AK, AZ, CO, GA, IA, KS, MD, MT, NY, OH, SC, and TX.

It’s not too late to join the growing ranks of citizens who are taking their place amongst the great leaders in American history. United we will stand. Undivided we will be successful. Together we will save the future of our homeland.

Join us.


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: articlev; constitution; conventionofstates; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
It is time to act!

It is time to go around the consolidated government. It is time to use the Article V power we reserved to ourselves in 1787.

On October 16th, the GOP couldn't find the courage to stand foursquare against an immensely unpopular and unconstitutional outrage, Obamacare.

Even worse, for practical purposes, the GOP surrendered its power of the purse to Obama. That was the last weapon we had to stop the runaway train wreck that is Washington, DC.

1 posted on 10/27/2013 3:07:36 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Girlene; Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; Political Junkie Too; jeffc; ..

Article V ping!


2 posted on 10/27/2013 3:09:02 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

This is FANTASTIC!! I see there isn’t one in my blue state of CT - but of course what good would it do here? Still, I am SO happy and encouraged that Mark Levin’s suggestions in “The Liberty Amendments” are being acted upon. Wonderful!!


3 posted on 10/27/2013 3:16:12 AM PDT by madmominct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Ping!


4 posted on 10/27/2013 3:19:05 AM PDT by basil (2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
I wonder if under article V's last sentence and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I wonder if this can be used against foreign campaign donations to State politicians .... It dilutes the states voter influence of which campaign donations are part of. So, if you can't vote for the politician you should not be allowed to contribute to their campaign. Once you repeal the 17th amendment, some states may still opt for statewide elections of the Senator.

5 posted on 10/27/2013 3:20:11 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madmominct

If you’ll note, MA is on that list. If they think it can work in ultra-blue MA, then there’s no reason it can’t work in CT.


6 posted on 10/27/2013 3:42:59 AM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Interesting idea...

Something to study...

The only thing I have at this time is why does anyone think anyone in elected office is going to listen, much less alter their approach to the political operations (shinanigans) being perpetrated by both sides (political parties) in D.C. today???

This is going after everyone, not just the democrats...

Now, don’t get me wrong there are a TON of republicans that need to be replaced...And telling them these neat littel details about the Constitution, is all well and good, very few will gove more than lip service to your efforts...

The only thing we really have is to keep everyone engaged and ready to strike in November of 2014...Nothing done until those polls open/close that day will matter...

I’m not throwing rocks at the organization, some of these people (leaders) I have heard of,and know their works...They will have NO allies in D.C. when they really turn up the heat...Not that that really matters...

So what really is their endgame???

What will really be a product of their efforts that November 2014 cannot produce, IF WE KEEP THE CONSERVATIVE VOTING PUBLIC ENGAGED!!!

I do not see that as anywhere near a practical focus, or implied jeopardy to what is sitting in those kush offices right now...They do not feel threatened at all, their longevity is secure, as long as they keep the politically atuned voters in the dark as long as possible...

Just my initial opinion, and it doesn’t mean I will not get involved...I just involve myself in things I know will put pressure on where it needs to be applied...If we have enough people doing that...There is nothing that cannot be accomplished...

Just my opinion...


7 posted on 10/27/2013 3:57:23 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Obama should be worried. Only 31 states left in the dark.


8 posted on 10/27/2013 4:23:47 AM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The way this works is if Palin / Cruz succeed in 2013, and then get fully invested in pushing the idea once in office—making for a truly historic Presidency.


9 posted on 10/27/2013 4:32:01 AM PDT by LALALAW (one of the asses who's sick of our "ruling" classes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Right on the short term. However, they are corrupted faster than we can vote them out. The system itself is corrupt and the Constitution MUST be restored or the US is toast—no matter how many RINOS we primary. So, the long term fight must be undertaken NOW— and won. Term limits is tops on my list—but repeal of the 17th Amendment, Balanced Budget, states rights, and the other LIBERTY AMENDMENTS all have to be addressed.


10 posted on 10/27/2013 4:36:13 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

according to Mr itelligencia “I can multi task many different problems on many different levels” obama 31 states out of 57


11 posted on 10/27/2013 4:38:47 AM PDT by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
Voting for conservatives is necessary but insufficient. As per Woodrow Wilson's dream, the vast majority of government is out of the hands of our elected reps and senators. One hundred years of experience under popularly elected senators has proved the inadequacy of elections. When it comes to conservatives’ focus on national elections, I'm reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity. As in banana republics, elections here are becoming the Left's tool to legitimize tyranny. "Obama won, get over it."

Obama is consolidating all powers. He makes laws, executes laws and increasingly can adjudicate law through administrative courts or his corrupt DOJ. In 2012, every administrative agency was, or potentially was, of service to his campaign. It is way past the time to return un-enumerated powers to where they belong, to the states.

Levin's amendments are superb. They would make the government much more federal than our framers’ design.

Until the national/state division power is once again secured by a senate of the states, there is no hope.

12 posted on 10/27/2013 4:47:11 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
They will have NO allies in D.C. when they really turn up the heat...

Senator Mike Lee on Levin's show last week said a return to federalism is our only hope. I don't put it beyond the possibility that a few Tea Party senators on the floor of the senate might call for repeal of the 17th.

The national media could not ignore it. Wouldn't it be great for the good guys to control the debate?

13 posted on 10/27/2013 4:57:44 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

(copied and pasted from the website)
-Frequently Asked Questions-

Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?
Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground,
seizing power from the States and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a
stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The
Founders gave us a tool to fix Washington, D.C. – Article V of the U.S. Constitution. We must use it
before it is too late.

What is a Convention of States?
A Convention of States is a convention called by the state legislatures
for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution.
It is not a constitutional convention.
It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution.

How Do the State Legislatures Call a Convention of States?
Thirty-four State legislatures must pass a bill called an “application”
calling for a convention of states.
The applications must request a convention of states for the same subject matter.
They submit these applications to Congress.

Can Congress Block a Convention of States?
No.
As long as each States applies for a convention that deals with the same issue
(i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government),
Congress must call the convention.
Congress can name the place and the time for the convention.
If it fails to exercise this power reasonably, either the courts
or the states themselves can override Congressional inaction.

How Do States Choose Their Delegates?
States are free to develop their own selection process for choosing their delegates,
who are properly called “commissioners.”
Historically, the most common method was an election by a joint session
of both houses of the state legislature.
Despite how many delegates are sent, each state has one vote.

What Happens at a Convention of States?
Commissioners from each state may propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to the Constitution.
Amendments the convention passes by a simple majority will be sent back to the states for ratification.
Again, each state has one vote at the convention.

How are Proposed Amendments Ratified?
Thirty-eight States must ratify any proposed amendments.
Once States ratify, the amendments become part of the Constitution.

How Do We Know How a Convention of States Will Work?
Interstate conventions were common during the Founding era,
and the procedures and rules for such conventions were widely accepted.
Thus, we can know how a Convention of States would operate by looking at the historical record.
Dr. Rob Natelson has done extensive research on this topic,
and more details can be found in the Handbook.

Is a Constitutional Convention Safe?
Yes!
The ratification process ensures no amendment will be passed
that does not reflect the desires of the American people.
Additionally, there are numerous safeguards against a “runaway convention,”
all of which can be found in the Handbook.

If the Federal Government Ignores the Current Constitution,
Why Would They Adhere to an Amended Constitution?
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians
who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology.
Even though the federal violation of the Constitution is obvious to all reasonable Americans,
Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language.
Amendments at a convention of states will be written with such politicians in mind.
The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal.
There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations,
and no way for them to be broken.
In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated
the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld.

What is the Convention of States Project’s Plan?
The COS Project’s plan is twofold:
1. To call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment,
i.e., to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Instead of calling a convention for a balanced budget amendment
(though we are entirely supportive of such an amendment),
our convention would allow other federal limiting amendments to be brought as well
(such as Term-limits, Tax reform, etc.).

2. To energize the grassroots support!
We are building a grassroots operation in a minimum of 40 states,
getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75% of the state legislative districts.
Volunteers will contact their State legislators, show up at hearings,
and support the campaigns of those legislators who support COS.


14 posted on 10/27/2013 5:26:20 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

Bttt


15 posted on 10/27/2013 5:45:43 AM PDT by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks for posting! Checking it out now.


16 posted on 10/27/2013 6:28:18 AM PDT by leapfrog0202 ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

it takes 38 states.

If united, this amount can throw out the POS POTUS, all of Congress and the Supreme Court.

Nothing can stop them. Nothing.


17 posted on 10/27/2013 6:37:58 AM PDT by bestintxas (Anyone who votes for Obama after these 4 miserable years needs to take a mandatory citizenship test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Excellent note.

But I believe there are already laws on the books that would more precisely oppose campaign contributions from foreign origin. However, it would take a campaign to fund the legal battles to enforce the law.

States themselves are able to pass laws disclosing and restricting outside state contributions. It need not be confined to foreign origin.


18 posted on 10/27/2013 6:38:57 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
The only thing I have at this time is why does anyone think anyone in elected office is going to listen, much less alter their approach to the political operations (shinanigans) being perpetrated by both sides (political parties) in D.C. today???

I think the important point you are missing is that this procedure COMPLETELY bypasses the political elite running the District. The States are the ones that will amend the US Constitution - not the elected buffoons destroying our liberty from DC. ONE of the amendments must impose term limits for Congress and another should return election of Senators to the state legislators.
19 posted on 10/27/2013 7:32:11 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: basil

Definitely something to keep an eye on!


20 posted on 10/27/2013 7:37:16 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas

36 states right now do not have obamaumaocare exchanges run by them— only the screwed up federal ones. Match up those with the ones listed here. Similar. States Rights!! Deo Vindice.


21 posted on 10/27/2013 7:42:39 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
The only thing I have at this time is why does anyone think anyone in elected office is going to listen, much less alter their approach to the political operations (shinanigans) being perpetrated by both sides (political parties) in D.C. today??? IIRC, the U.S. Congression role is to administer, and record the proceedings of the convention of state delegates...they have no say so on any amendements brought forth. Oh, they can bitch and moan about it, and they will, but they can do nothing. FReepers, correct me if I'm wrong...no opinions, just facts.
22 posted on 10/27/2013 7:46:15 AM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Do you have a list of the state coordinators?


23 posted on 10/27/2013 8:13:14 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I have an argument based on the wisdom of the founding fathers, who realized that written changes to the constitution or the law immediately result in efforts to ignore, avoid or evade them. So the solution must be for independent bodies of people with competing interests, who will continually vie with each other to prevent out of control government.

They set up the constitution to be filled with these balances. The one most people are familiar with is the balance of the three federal branches. But there are many others, including the balance between the federal government, the state governments, and the people.

The House of Representatives was meant to be the sole democratic body in the government. The Senate was to represent the interests of the states. The POTUS was to be selected by a college of electors, and the justices of the Supreme Court were to be nominated by the POTUS and approved by the Senate (and thus indirectly the states.)

The 16th Amendment terribly imbalanced this equation, by making US senators effectively “free agents”, who do not have to be responsive to their states. However, the senators themselves adore this amendment, because it gives them power without responsibility. So they would fight to the death any effort to repeal it.

This imbalance, however, is out of control and causing tremendous harm, so it must be restored in some way.

The way to do this is to create a new body, composed much like the original senate, except strictly tailored to be responsive to the state legislatures, *not* the people, and *not* the federal government.

The place to put this new body is not in congress, or the executive branch, but in the judiciary.

Right now, each year, the federal circuit courts send some 8,000 appeals to the Supreme Court, which can only hear a few dozen cases. It is a tremendous bottleneck in justice.

So the idea is to create a “Second Court of the United States”, superior to the federal circuit courts, but inferior to the Supreme Court. But while it hears cases from the federal courts, *it* is *not* a federal court.

It is composed of 100 appointed state judges, 2 from each state, appointed by a majority vote of their state legislature, which cannot be bound to vote in any way.

It is *not* a constitutional court, though it reviews the decisions about the constitutionality of appealed cases. It is a *jurisdictional* court, that after hearing the constitutional arguments, decides if the case rises to the level of a federal case, or if it should be returned to the states for a decision by their courts. That it is *not* federal business.

This means that this court can short circuit any number of federal judges efforts to enact new laws on their own. That the states can overrule these federal judges, if enough states agree to do so, and say “It is not your business.”

Importantly, cases *can* be appealed to the Supreme Court from the Second Court of the United States, but if a majority of Second Court judges, as representatives of their states, find against it, the Supreme Court can only overturn with exact constitutional text, *not* interpolations, extrapolations, or the decisions of other courts, judicial precedent, aka ‘stare decisis’.

If two thirds of the Second Court of the United States decide something, it is in effect saying that it has the authority of a called constitutional convention. And if three-fourths of the judges find in one way, it is a de facto constitutional change.

The other purpose of the Second Court of the United States would be as having original jurisdiction to all lawsuits between the federal government and the states. As it is now, such lawsuits must tediously go through a half dozen *federal* courts before making it to the Supreme Court. But the Second Court would mean that the *states* hear the case first, and decide who is in the right, that state or the federal government.

The bottom line to all of this is that the Second Court of the United States acts like a continual federal government pruning mechanism. Slowly, deliberately, and methodically trimming the federal government down to size, and forcing them back into their constitutional mold.


24 posted on 10/27/2013 9:34:45 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Welfare is the new euphemism for Eugenics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Interesting idea...

Something to study...

The only thing I have at this time is why does anyone think anyone in elected office is going to listen, much less alter their approach to the political operations (shinanigans) being perpetrated by both sides (political parties) in D.C. today???

This is going after everyone, not just the democrats...

Now, don’t get me wrong there are a TON of republicans that need to be replaced...And telling them these neat littel details about the Constitution, is all well and good, very few will gove more than lip service to your efforts...

The only thing we really have is to keep everyone engaged and ready to strike in November of 2014...Nothing done until those polls open/close that day will matter...

I’m not throwing rocks at the organization, some of these people (leaders) I have heard of,and know their works...They will have NO allies in D.C. when they really turn up the heat...Not that that really matters...

So what really is their endgame???

What will really be a product of their efforts that November 2014 cannot produce, IF WE KEEP THE CONSERVATIVE VOTING PUBLIC ENGAGED!!!

I do not see that as anywhere near a practical focus, or implied jeopardy to what is sitting in those kush offices right now...They do not feel threatened at all, their longevity is secure, as long as they keep the politically atuned voters in the dark as long as possible...

Just my initial opinion, and it doesn’t mean I will not get involved...I just involve myself in things I know will put pressure on where it needs to be applied...If we have enough people doing that...There is nothing that cannot be accomplished...

Just my opinion...


25 posted on 10/27/2013 9:52:46 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

bump


26 posted on 10/27/2013 9:59:29 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Producing Talk Show Prep since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Ping List me, I’m all about the 17th.

If Congress can’t control the ‘convention of states’, they will try to co-opt the effort in order to corrupt it.

We all know how it should go, this convention of States, but is it really defined enough in the USCON that the States can do it exclusively on their own without the Congress going along with it?

How do we limit the convention to the single issue at hand, the problems caused by the 17th? What’s to stop a stealth candidate trying to overload the convention and mire it down by piling on other controversial ideas?


27 posted on 10/27/2013 10:15:58 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
>>Do you have a list of the state coordinators?<<

No, but that sure is a logical question.

I asked the director of communications, Jordan Sillars (jordansillars@selfgovern.com) about that last week and was told he would be putting out that info soon.

Don't hesitate to contact him. He answered my emails promptly.

28 posted on 10/27/2013 10:21:47 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks for the Ping!


29 posted on 10/27/2013 10:22:03 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

I’ll add you to the ping list.

Please visit the website. Mark’s latest book is also a great resource to answer your questions.


30 posted on 10/27/2013 10:24:09 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I'm not exactly sure I follow the last half of your post. I'd not doubting the obvious time you spent in developing the idea, but wonder if the judiciary is the place department to introduce state interests.

Without attempting to shortchange your idea, wouldn't a senate of the states prevent anti-10th Amendment lawyers from becoming judges in the first place? The outrageous court decisions we've had to live under began with FDR, when his popularity steamrolled the elected senate of the 1930s. State appointed senators could politically flip off presidents without fear.

31 posted on 10/27/2013 10:36:51 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
A constitutional convention is a long term attempt to reign in the federal government and in some ways state government. I just signed up for emails to see what this group is up too, but after quickly reviewing the website it appears to me the general focus presently are Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments. These are an excellent start but do not go far enough to guarantee our freedoms. In this process however there is no pre packaged end game available. States, through their delegates at the convention can propose amendments as they see fit. If passed by the convention the amendment(s) is/are sent to the states for ratification. I think the Liberty Amendments should be bolstered in some areas. For example to control the tyranny of the Supreme Court we should amend the constitution to eliminate judicial review in toto. To reign in the power of congress and the states to enslave us via taxation we must eliminate their power to write tax law. This means elimination of all forms of state and federal taxation except a retail sales tax fixed at 10-15% by the constitution. Guess they will have to be more prosperity oriented if the gubmint wants more money. Another item needed is the complete elimination of transfer payments. No more vote buying with the treasury. Adding these changes to Marks Liberty Amendments would fix the problem of monstrous federal and state governments. As to another one of your questions, if we are successful I believe the federal and state governments will refuse to follow the new constitution. Call me jaded. Still have to try though. The CC is a long term action which does not mean we loose focus on elections. I suspect this process will help focus the electorate upon what is happening to their freedom and why local, state, and federal elections are an important responsibility that is not to be taken lightly. Anyway my Sunday morning two cents.
32 posted on 10/27/2013 10:56:32 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

Concur.


33 posted on 10/27/2013 10:57:31 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

That is very interesting. The repeal of the 17th is one of the keys to protecting our freedom. We would have to be ready for the debate as the dims would say we are against democracy but...we would catch them flat footed and would be able to control the narrative at least for a while. Do you think any of our conservatives would have the guts to broach the subject?


34 posted on 10/27/2013 11:06:08 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

Senator Mike Lee on Levin’s show last week said a return to federalism is our only hope. I don’t put it beyond possibility that a few Tea Party senators on the floor of the senate might call for repeal of the 17th.

The national media could not ignore it. Wouldn’t it be great for the good guys to direct the debate for once?


35 posted on 10/27/2013 11:14:58 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

Thats what concerns me...

Levin certainly understands the risk of conviening a Constitutional Convention could bring to the process...I believe we are seeing the end of Levin’s patience on the nonsense of DC...And thats not necessarily a bad thing...Lots of people are there already...He is in good company, and I say to him, “Welcome to the party”...

So even though my confidence in the elected caste of nincompoops is very low...Leaving an option for the states to load up a convention of this importance, at this time is extremely dangerous...

Like you, I will be monitoring the progress with extreme scrutiny...


36 posted on 10/27/2013 11:23:20 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

The scope of the CC cannot and should not be limited. The check on foolish amendments is the state ratification process after the CC passes and sends the amsnement to the states for ratification. The 17th repeal is only a part of the problem. You could argue that the constitution properly amended would not require repeal of the 17th.


37 posted on 10/27/2013 11:34:02 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

It sure would!


38 posted on 10/27/2013 11:37:27 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

I am glad too that Mark came to the party. IMHO we are forty years too late.


39 posted on 10/27/2013 11:42:09 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1
I believe the federal and state governments will refuse to follow the new constitution.

Mark's suggested amendments are structural. They cannot be ignored. Check 'em out.

40 posted on 10/27/2013 11:44:42 AM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

It would be easy to see the word State as referring to the State Government, rather than its people.

But you James Madison argued the State referred to both its people and the State Government as a single unit as far as Washington was concerned.

If you wish to make that argument, and I would support such a case, you will have to make it in one of the states that did not ratify the 17th amendment.

Those States would be:

Utah (explicitly rejected)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia

Do we know anyone to carry our cause in any of theses States?


41 posted on 10/27/2013 11:47:04 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I do understand that. My concern is that the pols will simply ignore the changes. In much the same way that the pols do now. Regardless I fully support making the changes and, as a patriot, making the gubmint follow the amendments if necessary. Hopefully it won’t be necessary.


42 posted on 10/27/2013 11:52:41 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Seeing the word freedom is so rare it caught my attention. I cannot remember the last time the topic came up.

Of course the related words are responsibilities and rights.


43 posted on 10/27/2013 11:53:59 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

The equation is really quite simple really.

The reason Washington doesn’t listen to us is they have a vested power interest in the spending and growth of their government.

Frankly everything we conservatives have been asking them to do has been to tie down their hands with the chains of the Constitution and cut down on the amount of money they can spend buying votes. That quite obviously runs against the grain of politics which makes Our political efforts 3 times harder than the left’s.

By targeting our States instead with specific demands which have the potental of increasing their power and influence(Be it at the cost of Washington). Our arguments become far more effective. We have only to find clever ways to uses their power to cut down Washington’s. (Something that uses to be a lot easier prior to the 17th amendment).


44 posted on 10/27/2013 11:55:49 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

Washington is the problem; the state legislatures provide the only solution.


45 posted on 10/27/2013 11:57:03 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1; Jacquerie

“I do understand that. My concern is that the pols will simply ignore the changes. In much the same way that the pols do now. Regardless I fully support making the changes and, as a patriot, making the gubmint follow the amendments if necessary. Hopefully it won’t be necessary.”

I agree, we may want to look into pushing more structural changes to Washington to make it more accountable to the powers protected by the Constitution.

Hence the repeal of the 17th amendment, preferably with a replacement of a more ambassadorial type system.(recall & replacement of senators by State legislators, and Governors)

In the interest of political expediency(in an institutionally ignorant america) we might just target that aspect alone. Making senators recall-able by their Respective State legislators, and leave elections up to the state.


46 posted on 10/27/2013 12:07:37 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The senate would never agree to again become appointed, and the left would endlessly holler that it was “anti-democratic”, with most people not understanding the issue.

In fact, the left is still at it, now trying to attack the electoral college in the same way they began to attack the appointed senate, by calling it “anti-democratic”. A few blue states have even banded together with the idea that all their electoral votes would be given to the national candidate with the most total votes.

Another issue is that while we see congress engaged in anti-state activities, as well as the POTUS doing so, what is not seen is what rogue federal judges do as well.

A great example is the giving of civil rights to corporations, which was done, of all things, by a Supreme Court reporter in the time of Lincoln. After a hearing, he approached the Chief Justice of the time to ask him if the court meant to give corporations civil rights. The Chief Justice said that is what the members of the court think, so the court reporter put that out as a commentary to all federal judges, that corporations now had civil rights.

Since that time, this idea now dominates business law, and is an issue in vast amounts of litigation. But it was not passed by congress or signed by the president.

My point is that federal judges effectively create federal law just as much as does congress. They appoint Special Masters to dictate to state legislatures how much money they must appropriate for something the judge wants, usually funding of education.

They also judicially prevent states from carrying out their own laws, like the death penalty, because the federal judge doesn’t *like* it, personally.

In any event, putting the Second Court of the United States just beneath the SCOTUS would give the states something that woefully was omitted in the constitution—a pruning mechanism to cut the federal government down to size in an orderly and peaceful manner.

A perpetual pruning mechanism, so that every castle some president and congress want to build can just as easily be torn down if the states do not approve of it.


47 posted on 10/27/2013 12:33:35 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Welfare is the new euphemism for Eugenics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The senate would never agree to again become appointed . . .

???? The whole purpose of Article V is to go around our oppressors in Washington. They don't have a choice.

I understand your subsequent points. There is no guarantee of success. FWIW, Levin's amendments would subject Scotus decisions to repeal upon three fifths vote of the states.

I also know that most state legislators are part time politicians. They have lives outside of the political realm. Many are businessmen who know the horrible effects of our consolidated national government. They have pride in their states and chafe at the endless outrages coming from DC. Unlike our oppressors, state legislators cannot create money and actually have to deal more or less with budgets.

I think it is shortsighted to not realize the contempt our state legislators have for DC. The time to utilize the power we reserved to ourselves in 1787 is now.

48 posted on 10/27/2013 1:03:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie (An Article V amendment convention is our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Well, liberals/socialists created this hill, this upward challenge that for some reason some conservatives feel the need to climb...Why???

There are other ways to handle liberals than trying to climb the un-Constitutional obstacles they create...

Some of the political ilk on our side somehow believe it is politically correct to meet them on their home turf...

I do not believe it is necessary...Everytime we do manage to get a win, it is because the folks on our side of the aisle allow us to join them in the battle...We lost, the latest battles because the GOPe’s thought they could handle the liberals on their home field...And they ignored and lambasted the Tea Party grassroots conservatives...

I predict they will fail every single time doing that...

They will lose the immigration battle coming up, then when the debt ceiling is looming again in January...That has already gotten to be a weaker situation for conservatives before it is even joined from the laast battle...

Who knows what will happen and who will show up next November...I don’t think the conservative base will show up...

I hope to be proven wrong...


49 posted on 10/27/2013 4:06:55 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thank you for posting! I’ve been meaning to post something from the Convention of States organization and was so glad to see this post.

I’m hoping FR can be another avenue of publicizing what is happening regarding the Article V convention process.

We don’t have much time but as you said, at the state level there is so much loathing of the overreach of the Federal government, that I believe we really have a chance of moving forward with this.


50 posted on 10/27/2013 4:28:17 PM PDT by boxlunch (Psalm 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson