Posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger
Two months ago, Emma Roller and I wrote about the possibly historic Assembly of the States in Mount Vernon. Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass amendments.) The reaction: Largely just a lot of doubt that this would come to anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.
I'm sure that every state in the Union would pass a Constitutional amendment. The trouble is that it would not be the same amendment.
In related news, Jon Ward talked to retiring Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who'll be a private citizen in 10 months. His plans? "I'm going to be involved with the Convention of States. I'm going to try to motivate so that that happens. I think that's the only answer. I'm just going to go around and talk about why it's needed, and try to convince state legislatures to do it."
That would be helpful to the cause. Glenn Beck has his audience, but the mainstream media sees him as a duplicitous clown. (Really, how many times can he make news for apologizing about his tone, from back when he was famous?) Mark Levin is an icon on the right, but a shrill radio host who refers to the next Democratic presidential nominee as "Hillary Rotten Clinton" and "her thighness" might not be an ideal intellectual ambassador. But Coburn? There's a chair molded to fit him on the set of Morning Joe.
IMHO this is big news and no one is discussing it.
A former Senator leaves a dysfunctional body to champion it's ultimate fix...
Be careful what you wish for. In this era of the low information voter and the ascendency of the entitlement mentality an constitutional convention could backfire big time. Once started there’s no way to predict where it will go.
It is NOT a free-for-all.
/johnny
It’s a convention of the states, where 2/3s of the states have to send delegates on a specific subject. Any amendments have to get approved by 3/4ths of the states. It’s highly controlled and highly unlikely left-wing ideas would get through that process. Hell, it’s tough to get wildly popular ideas like term limits through that process.
But a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution But this is Slate; that explains the misinfomation. I don't believe anyone is calling for a Constitutional Convention.
Article V
ping-a-ling
IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!
IT IS A CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS!
The senator needs to add an amendment to the existing constitution not have a constitutional convention. Opening up a CC will open all the constitution up to revision to include changing existing amendments as there is no control over want can be reviewed in a CC (loss of the second anyone?).
The progressives want this more than any other method as they will likely do anything pack the convention vote as this is simpler than changing the minds of the many to get what they want.
This will let our enemies do their best to undermine and influence the changes to our constitution; I believe that the kleptocractic politicians and “social leaders” will take great amounts of money for their vote and screw us in the process.
If this is the best idea, then the dissolving of the United states is certain.
What I've been confiding to my wife in private is that it's time to just shut this country down and start over.
Either we can get back to the Constitution or something else can happen. "Let it begin here."
Call everyone else in the world and ax them if they wouldn't mind if we just took a time out lasting a year or so and get back to them.
I'd never say such a thing in public forum, of course. /s
Thank you for clarifying the situation that it is not a CC. whewwwww!!!
Once a national convention is convened by 2/3’d of the states then they can offer any amendments to the constitution they want. If 3/4 of the states vote to pass any such amendment then it becomes part of the constitution. Once that convention has been convened everything can be on the table. Very risky in this day of the LIV and entitlement crowd who may be the majority.
Well said!
The real problem that we face was illustrated in the post that you replied to.
Uninformed individuals need to be brought up to speed.
The founders, particularly Madison, pushed for and got this option into the Constitution precisely because they feared one day that the Federal body would become corrupt and without such an option, there would be no means or avenue for the states to respond and remedy the issue short of by force of arms.
That day has arrived.
Yes, certainly it is an option which the very same progressives, socilaiists, marxists, etc. will try and coopt. First they will try and have it absolutely ignored. But should it appear to be gaining traction, they will then try to demonize anyone associaed with it, and failing that, they will try desperately to get their own people in there to use it as a means to continue to advance their agenda.
However, the current course we are on has shown a not only increasing allowance for uncosntitutional acts by the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative branches of the Federal Government (IOW, by the entire Federal Government), but at an accellerating rate.
There is little hope that an appeal to those bodies will result in any meaningful halt...though we must oursleves, through good candidates and movements like the Tea Party continue to avail ourselves of that option as well.
But, at this point, I have more faith in the states themselves controlling the attendees, than I do in the Congress...and particularly the Senate at this point.
IMHO, we need to put the pressure on, and heavily, from both directions, and pray to God in Heaven, as our founders did, for His help as we give our all in maintianing our liberties and restoring our constitutional government.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
I don't know why that's so "unlikely" in a country that elected Obama twice. Especially one that reelected him despite his terrible track record. I think its a VERY risky proposition.
The main problem with the Constitution, imo, is actually dishonest pro-big federal government interpretations of it which the crooks running DC get away with as a consequence of inexcusable, widespread ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
What needs to be done to restore state sovereignty is to impeach a bunch of crooks in DC. The problem is that the "leaders" in DC who have the power to impeach the crooks are themeselves crooks who also need to be impeached.
What patriots need to do instead of crying for the Constitution to be amended is the following. They need to work to elect a 2/3 conservative majority in each House of Congress in the 2014 elections. If they succeed then Congress will be positioned as follows.
Congress controlled by a conservative supermajority will have the power, under the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I, to override presidential vetoes. In other words, Congress will be able to repeal Obamacare Democratcare, for example, without Obama's signature.
“If this is the best idea, then the dissolving of the United states is certain.”
I have some news for you, neighbor. It has already begun.
The question is, are you prepared to stand in defense of our Freedom and Liberty?
You really need to do some research on what has been going on for several years.
/johnny
No disrespect taken. I'm just making the point that such an event would be very, very risky and we could lose big time. BUT, have we reached the point where taking such a risk has become absolutely necessary? - I think we very well may have. I'm not saying don't do it, just make sure your eyes are open to the stakes at risk before you do.
And why would you think that liberal states won't participate and send very liberal delagates to such a convention? How are you going limit such a convention to just the conservative state delagates you prefer? The libs could certainly co-opt such a convention.
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.