Posted on 01/23/2014 12:59:18 PM PST by Jacquerie
Sorry but I’m not willing to push a dangerous agenda on my state reps just so Mark Levin can sell a few more books.
I listened to him blather on about this for 3 hours on CSPAN all the while snarking callers who disagreed and preferred the 10th ammendment as the way to go. Mark Levin is just wrong on this issue.
V
No apology necessary... Waiting for state government to assert & resist is an option that IMHO will never come to pass...
Levins’ arguments and book has some flaws... I have done my own research from many resources and this is a viable option...
NO agenda is much more dangerous... Rome burns and we fiddle... We will be 20+ TRILLION in debt by 2016...
Loss of 2A as a concern. I agree.
However, the right arm of the 2A is missing, the left arm is paralyzed, it can’t see out of the left eye and is blind in the right eye. It has a palsy that makes aiming suboptimal. The direction of the libs is to take away our rights by microstamping, fees, limits of all kinds.
If the courts determine that “shall not be infringed” means all of these infringements are allowed, I think the people need to speak, as they will not long have the ability.
The new and double meaning of “V.”
I am not against the idea of it; I just do not trust it can be successfully implemented, and I think the disastrous potentials are something that should be very, very carefully considered.
I most certainly dislike the glib assurances I've been getting from proponents with an air of “holier than thou - we gotta do something, even if it's wrong” attitudes because we are currently living under a tyrant.
These are all things that the convention of 1787 did.
-PJ
You can’t control any of that. Once the hoodoo starts, everything is out the window. You people are dreaming that honest people are in charge here.
“Am I the only one who thinks a convention would be a bad idea in today’s environment?”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
NO!
I have in other threads on the subject compared it to someone who goes to a doctor and asks him to prescribe a different medication because the prescription he was given has not helped him and in fact he feels worse than before he was given the prescription. The doctor asks if he is taking the medicine according to the directions and the patient says, “No, in fact I never went to the drugstore to fill the prescription.”
In other words we are totally disregarding the original constitution, why should I think that modifying it is going to help the situation? I am not Solomon the wise nor am I a prophet but I am not the dullest knife in the entire drawer either and I see no good coming from this.
How come those who wanted to stay a part of England in 1776 didn't prevent the Continental Congress of 1776 from declaring independence? Was it that, even though they disagreed they were still fundamentally honest people?
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Wikipedia says of the delegates:
Are you saying that it is impossible today to convene a body of fundamentally honest people of similar stature as before? I'm not talking about people who agree on all issues, but people who agree to abide by a governing principle of debate and deliberation.
The states had originally appointed 70 representatives to the Convention, but a number of the appointees did not accept or could not attend, leaving 55 delegates who would ultimately craft the Constitution.Almost all of the 55 delegates had taken part in the Revolution, with at least 29 having served in the Continental forces, most in positions of command. All but two or three had served in colonial or state government during their careers. The vast majority (about 75%) of the delegates were or had been members of the Confederation Congress, and many had been members of the Continental Congress during the Revolution. Several had been state governors. Just two delegates, Roger Sherman and Robert Morris, would be signatories to all three of the nation’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.
More than half of the delegates had trained as lawyers (several had even been judges), although only about a quarter had practiced law as their principal means of business. There were also merchants, manufacturers, shippers, land speculators, bankers or financiers, two or three physicians, a minister, and several small farmers. Of the 25 who owned slaves, 16 depended on slave labor to run the plantations or other businesses that formed the mainstay of their income. Most of the delegates were landowners with substantial holdings, and most, with the possible exception of Roger Sherman and William Few, were very comfortably wealthy. George Washington and Gouverneur Morris were among the wealthiest men in the entire country.
Are you saying that America has turned the corner, and no such people can be found anymore to try to take back their country?
-PJ
Newt Gingrich told a story of dissidents in Soviet Poland who used the political slogan of "2+2=4" to counter the communists. The communists could not refute the logic, nor math. See tagline.
What if we had a chance and did nothing?
I support your efforts and hope they are successful!
These are the days that I’m so happy I live in Texas! Our
governor understands states rights!
In recent years, probably half of the Tea Party conservatives we've elected and sent to congress have gone wobbly or full rino. Why? Are they bad people? Maybe a small percentage were deceitful and had no intention of fighting the liberals. I believe the vast majority were truthful.
What turned them was the structure of congress. In a popularly derived congress, the way to remain in office is to, well, remain popular. In general that means robbing one citizen to give his wealth to another. Giving in to mob demands isn't outrageous, it is what is certain to happen in popularly derived institutions.
Back to history. Only eleven years had elapsed from our revolt to drafting the constitution. The confederation was totally inadequate to promote our collective happiness, our general welfare. As you pointed out, many of the same men who drafted the constitution, also had extensive experience in state and confederation government.
Most of them would go on to serve in the new constitutional government.
So, in a short period of time, much the same men served in our early state governments, the confederation, and our early constitutional system, yes?
Under the confederation, the people were hurting, our debts were massive, and European nations looked forward to picking up the pieces of our soon-to-fail revolution.
Under the constitution we spread across a continent, and within a hundred years became a second tier industrial powerhouse.
My point is that the structure of government is more important than the people we send to govern us. Under the Articles we were weak and at each other’s throats. The same people prospered under the constitution, because the structure of the constitution protected and promoted freedom and property.
THAT is why I regard repeal of the 17th as the keystone to our possible revival. Our framers knew that democratic republics always fail. They created a lasting structure that Americans of 101 years ago foolishly threw away.
As long as it is in the interest of individual senators to vote for more goodies, they will do so. They will personally prosper as they get rich in office, while their nation suffers and dissolves.
By all means elect conservatives, but it is insufficient if we wish to save what remains of our republic.
Since you seem to be so well read up on history then you know that the reason for the 17th ammendment in the first place was because the senators being appointed by the state legislators was resulting in the same problems we have now.
The only answer to that particular problem is term limits and restricting the amount of time the legislators actually spend clubbing it up together in DC. Sadly legislators will never vote to limit themselves. Delegates to an Article V convention won’t either.
The solution to the problems of this country went beyond the ballot box the first week of Nov 2012. Taking back the Constitutional repulic will require a more significant shakeup. And it is coming.
But I see the GA rules committee has sent a resolution in favor of an Article V convention to the floor of our legislature.
???? How so? The government largely stayed within its constitutional bounds before 1913. What problems did the 17th correct?
If term limits are the answer, how do you propose to get the constitution amended?
You imply violence rather than a peaceful Article V amendment convention to correct what is wrong with our nation. That view isn't uncommon at FR, but no one has explained how that would work. If you have thought it out, I'd like to read it.
I suspect you haven't read the free Chapter One of Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments. It is available here: http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=The+Liberty+Amendments&id=4183&is_corp=0
Well dream on and wake me up when the Article V convention convenes.
Meanwhile you should contact Mark Levin and tell him to put you on commission for selling his book. :-)
ff
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.