Posted on 11/19/2013 8:49:19 AM PST by Kaslin
Is this guy a part of that groups effort you were talking about last week???
I would recommend printing off both reports to which I linked and reading them carefully.
In the end, Congress can do certain things to blunt the efforts of the states:
So how do I think it will play out?
Thank you.
Article V ping!
Senator Long and the Indiana legislature got going last July, about a month before Mark’s book went public.
I’m not aware of any connection between Long and ConventionofStates.com.
BTW, Convention of States is looking for state volunteers and leaders. (hint)
BTTT
Each time, congress stepped in to sidetrack the process.
There is no doubt congress will attempt the same.
I expect rat and rino skulduggery behind the scenes. Individual state legislators will be cajoled/bribed/threatened.
If that does not work, congress will attempt to compromise the amendments, by offering their own watered down versions.
Twenty six states went for Obama in 2012. What are the chances of most of those calling for the convention, much less ratifying anything that comes out of it?
I would like to see Washington decentralized with senators and congressmen operating from offices located in their jurisdictions and conducting legislative business through teleconferences.
But this time I don't think they'll be able to pull it off. It's a combination of the American people's low opinion of Congress and the ability of the Internet to disseminate information without the usual corporate filters. I see that old 1991 bill of Orrin Hatch's as the way they'll go to "tame" the Convention, but it may not survive the House or the Supreme Court.
Although I would support repealing the Progressive Movement 16th and 17th Amendments, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution per se.
The real problem with the “Constitution” is low information voters who don’t understand that the Founding States made the Constitution to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers. And the remedy to restoring the constitutional republic is to get citizens up to speed on the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. When that happens voters will be less likely to be tricked into voting for corrupt federal politicians who promise constitutonally indefensible federal spending programs to win votes.
But patriots are going to have to get citizens up to speed without the help of the media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, because the corrupt media is protecting the unconstitutonally big federal government.
Note that if patriots can organize to elect 2/3 conservative majority control of both Houses of Congress in the 2014 elections then the Obama tyranny will effectively be water under the bridge. This is because Congress will have the constitutional authority, under Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I, to override presidential vetoes. In other words, Congress will be able to repeal unconstitutional Obamacare, for example, without Obama’s signature.
Congress will also be able to impeach federal government “leaders” who are not upholding their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, particularly when it comes to respecting the federal government’s limited powers.
You would need 34 states. Which ones? My state is lib statist central (CA).
My suggestion is move to a red state
Founders wanted the states to be able to amend the Constitution as a means of checking a runaway federal government. They understood human nature and its lust for power.
***Can you please add me to your Article V ping list?
Done!
bookmark
Thank you Jacquerie.
Repeal the 16th. Strip the congress of the ability to writ tax law. Institute a national retail sales tax of say 15%. I would fight against more but support less. Constitutionally prohibit property taxes. Constitutionally prohibit transfer payments of any type. Repeal the 17th amendment. Constitutionally prohibit judicial review. Require a balanced budget. There are more but these are the heavy hitters necessary to protect against government mendacity. Pass all of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. Some of which may seem negated by the above but you can’t trust the damn government.
Well said.
This is a comment worth disputing and debating. I'm not sure where it will end up, but let me tee it up.
Are we sure that a "liberal state," by virtue of its electing Congressmen and Presidents who align with the Democrat Party, are also saying that they agree with the direction that Nancy Reid and Barack Clinton are taking the country?
Could it be that "liberal states" just want to be left alone to allow abortions, marry anything, and restrict guns in much the same way that "conservative states" want to be left alone to hunt, raise their families, and participate in faith-based organizations?
I think that, aside from the New Deal as a national solution with socialist (nee liberal) tendencies to get the country out of the Great Depression, today's "liberal" agenda stems from the lessons learned from Roe v. Wade.
In Roe, the question in its simplist form was whether it was an undue hardship for a woman who resided in Texas to have to travel to Louisiana to get an abortion. She wanted to have the abortion in Texas. SCOTUS ruled, in essence, that it WAS an undue hardship for someone in a "conservative" state to have to travel to a "liberal" state for a "liberal" activity, and that the "liberal" activity must be available everywhere.
The reverberations of that line of thought have brought us gay marriage, gun bans, and environmental regulations from liberal states to conservative states, as well as restrictions on faith-based organizations and school prayer from liberal states to conservative states. It is hard to think of cultural flows the other way -- what conservative values have been forced onto liberal states? Voting reform? Immigration enforcement? Right-to-work reform?
So, is it axiomatic that "liberal states" would attempt to disrupt an Article V Convention because they want to be a part of a larger national agenda of centralization of liberal principles from Washington DC? Or would they also want to go back to a time of localization of politics?
-PJ
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.