Posted on 02/18/2014 1:39:08 PM PST by Jacquerie
The John Birch Society describes itself as a constitutionalist organization, yet it is highly critical of a very important component of the Constitution. The JBS does not like Article V’s provision that allows the States to unilaterally propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution.
George Mason demanded that this provision be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.
Current conservative solutions to the problems of federal abuse of power fall into one of two general strategies: (1) try to elect more conservatives to federal office; or (2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.
Our plan is to use the Constitution’s own formula—a Convention of States under Article V—to give us real solutions that are as big as the problems.
Here are our answers to the sixteen JBS questions:
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
“...it would be great to make the Supremes elected positions...”
I couldn’t disagree more on this point. The last thing we need is judges holding their fingers in the air prior to ruling. Oh...wait...I see what you did there!
May be a minor point, but at the time of the Constitutional Convention at which Mason was active, there was no Washington, D.C. yet, so the author should substitute "federal government" in place of "Washington, D.C."
IIRC, Mason was among the Constitutional Convention participants who left early and did not sign the final document.
The only way to correct the case law under which the Living Constitution is interpreted is to amend the Constitution so as to sharpen the language and reduce the ability to write case law that misinterprets the actual language.
An Amendments Convention is nothing more than a tool, and it's the tool that needs to be used when an entrenched system battens off the case law that gives it more power than the Constitution intended.
What are your fears and more important what other options would you propose?
Freepers constantly trumpet the Founders and their wisdom and I agree... Then WHY Article V?
Ponder for a moment the inclusion of Article V and where we are today...
Not necessarily. Congress has the job of determining whether an amendment will be ratified by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions. Should Congress choose state ratifying conventions, the people of a state would elect delegates to that ratifying convention whose job would be to vote up-or-down on the amendment.
Here is my usual boilerplate for these threads.
-- BEGIN --
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
(a) They do, if Congress votes to have the new amendments ratified by Conventions; and (b) they vote for their state legislators. The 17th Amendment was originally ratified only because there was a mass movement to vote out state legislators who refused to ratify it.
“(2) promote theories like “nullification” that are not grounded in the text of the Constitution and have no realistic chance of success.”
Yeh just ignore the 10th ammendment which is the only peaceful way the constitutional republic will be restored.
The Constitution does not need to be ammended it just needs to be enforced.
Mason attended to the end of the convention and did not sign. He was blind angry at what he regarded as an aristocratic house of reps and the lack of a bill of rights.
The current Constitution is being ignored, violated, openly raped, used as toilet paper.
What makes anyone think that an amended Constitution will be treated any differently by the nihilists in charge?
Even Farris thinks the courts may get involved in setting the ground rules for the Convention (see paragraph 4(c) of his PDF). I am not as sanguine as he is that the courts will rule the way he wants them to.
It actually needs to be simplied by getting rid of about a few damaging amendments.
Return the states to the senate and miracles of constitutional enforcement will occur before our eyes.
I guess the first part of my post wasn’t clear... Let me type slower...
Offer solutions... There are PLENTY of bitchers who jump on Article V threads and tell us how it won’t work and how the 10th is going to solve all our problems... Look around
Voting ALONE won’t work... A repeal of the 17th and a TERM LIMIT amendment would go A LONG way in restoration...
Please read the pdf.
We don't have a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. Our issue is not too much executive power or a runaway judiciary. It is not too few amendments or too many.
Our problem is with the electorate. We currently have the government we deserve. At the end of the Mitt documentary he says something to that regard. He says Obama is not an aberration. He is the mainstream of American politics. He is what we deserve.
Elections don't affect outcome as much as they do reveal the character of the electorate. If the electorate makes a mistake and votes for someone or some group who is outside the mainstream they will make a correction in the next election. We didn't do that in 2012. Obama is mainstream and the ruler that Americans want and deserve.
Furthermore, your point about the constitution is spot on.
I can't tell you how much it bugs me when I hear conservatives lecture liberals about the tenth amendment or the second amendment. LIBERALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. You might as well tell them how the Klingon rules of warfare relate to the subject. Then they might actually listen. They feel that the constitution is outdated, was written by a bunch of racist white men and is in no way relevant to anything that happens today. The only time a liberal (or a RINO for that matter) will discuss the constitution is to use it as a weapon against those who still hold it in high esteem. They will then disregard it in any areas in which it is inconvenient (which is most areas for them).
Interestingly, this same thing happens with the Bible and non-believers. They will point out seeming contradictions or passages that appear to support their argument when it is convenient. Other than that they want nothing to do with it and don't use it at all to help form any of their other opinions. Again, they simply use it as a weapon to fight those who actually do believe in it.
So, after all of that complaining, here is the solution...
Pray. Go to church and invite your neighbors. Talk to people about Christ.
Learn. Don't learn what the framers wrote in the constitution. Learn why they believed what they believed. Those philosophies are timeless. They can still be used to make converts to the cause of liberty. We just no longer have the luxury of pointing to the constitution and saying "See that is what we need to do". We now need to go back and explain WHY those principals are correct.
It would be a disaster, and wholly ineffective.
I have spent hours researching the Article V COS proposals, and information. I immediatly noticed a truth error mixture, in their information, it continued through all the information I studied. A few mistakes are understandable, but after that it becomes a pattern of deception. I have attended their webinars, (Convention of States The Real Deal, Parts I & II.) they were also filled with misinformation.
If they have such a wonderful plan why are they going to such great lengths to deceive us into believing their plan is the solution to all our problems, with no risk involved.
See 37
I will read the pdf when I have more time. Thanks.
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.