Skip to comments.Florida Senate Passes COS Application to State Amendment Convention
Posted on 04/03/2014 3:02:31 PM PDT by Jacquerie
That the Legislature of the State of Florida does hereby make application to Congress pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States to call an Article V convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States which:
Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government. Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
An identical resolution will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
COS is truly the last hope of saving the Republic.
Go for it, Florida!
Get on board the Article V train!
Article V ping!
Well intentioned Article V advocates must guard against unwittingly becoming pawns of radical persons. The radical I speak of Larry J. Sabato of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Sabato came to my attention after investigating a series of articles which appeared in late March touting Jeb Bush. These articles all originated with the prognostications of Sabato. I wanted to see if there was any connection between Bush and Sabato. I did not find any, but did find quite a lot of other interesting information about Sabato.
Who is Larry J. Sabato?
He wants a Constitutional Convention (his words) to, among other things:
* Appoint all former presidents and vice presidents to the new office of National Senator
* Lengthen the terms of representatives from two years to three years, and set Senate terms to coincide with all presidential elections so the Senate would be elected at the same time as the President. (say good by to diffused power)
* Universal national service
See his book A More Perfect Constitution
See also his video from Nov 5, 2007, captioned:
This is my introduction to the National Constitutional Convention, held on October 19, 2007 in Washington, DC. The event featured past vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, Justice Samuel Alito, and former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole, along with a myriad of constitutional and political experts. We discussed the possibility of calling a second Constitutional Convention and what changes are needed to fix our broken system of government.
As both the book and the video make clear, Sabato envisions this under Article V.
He has labored to prepare the ground for his radical seed by conducting a National Youth Leadership Initiative where students engage in a mock Constitutional Convention. This is conducted by The Center for Politics, which he founded, http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/youth_leadership_initiative.htm
Sabato is very well connected and has the prestige of the University of Virginia behind him. He should not be underestimated.
Article V advocates need to know who they allying themselves with.
a decent bill with appropriate safeguards
It is a smear, a gratuitous insult for you to accuse me of an alliance with him.
I have not accused you or anyone of anything. I am only bringing attention to Sabato.
Although a balanced budge amendment has not been mentioned with respect to SM 476, a balanced budget amendment per se will not be enough imo. Such an amendment will also need a provision which enumerates Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
A balanced budget amendment should also include a provision requiring all three branches of the federal government to police against constitutionally indefensible appropriations bills by doing the following. "Leaders" of all three branches should be required to clearly reference in official documentation specific constitutional clauses in the language of the bill to justify claims that a given appropriations bill is either constitutional or constitutionally indefensible.
Note that patriot lawmakers have tried, with limited success, to introduce legislation which would require Congress to police its official actions by specifying constitutional clauses in the language of bills which justify official actions.
Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
While I would support a term limits provision, once patriots force corrupt Congress back into its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power cage, crook politicians who get elected just to follow the tsunami of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes to DC are going to lose interest in getting themselves elected to federal office anyway.
Article V advocates need to know who they allying themselves with.
ok. I have made no attack on you or anyone. Calm down.
It is unwise to dismiss the motivations of high-powered people who advocate what you also are advocating. All I am saying is keep your eyes open.
“... He wants a Constitutional Convention (his words) ...
... Article V advocates need to know who they allying themselves with ...”
Both you and Larry Sabato can bite me.
I think part of the issue is that if you follow every Article V thread (like Jacquerie) you will see a common thread :-}
There are multiple versions of Henny Penny screaming how the sky is falling and something must be done. Only when a solution is offered all they can do is constantly warn of the dire consequences of an Article V Convention of the States.
Keep in mind this a solution that is derived straight from the Constitution. A solution straight from James Madison. A solution that has some of this generations greatest minds thinking and planning through this process. A solution that is gaining steam at the states level. A solution that will overwhelm any individual(s) seeking to sabotage this effort for personal gain.
It is as if these critics are somehow more enlightened on this topic and their pessimism is somehow going to come true. Meanwhile, everyone else trying to take steps to regain control over our federal government and all they can offer are criticism and absolutely no solutions of their own. Just criticism and supposed insight.
I can understand the frustration of freepers tired of defending something that is actually moving (23 states this year alone) forward.
And keep in mind. This is just the first step of this plan. We understand what may play out in the near future and will react accordingly. History has shown the pitfalls to avoid going forward.
Someone has to do something more than just complain. And I trust the people leading this boat more than the one that is sinking that you may be on.
Come on aboard. You are welcome to ride along.
WELL DONE FLORIDA! Keep up the good work!!
The goals are general with little mention of the means to achieve those goals.
from the Florida bill:
(a) Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government.
(b) Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
(c) Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
Went to school with Sabato, Jr. High or High School don’t recall exactly, maybe both. He was an OK fellow at the time. I wouldn’t worry too much about his positions. Even if he was able to get something through the Convention of States, it would still have to be ratified. And I for one don’t want to see expresidents or any other government operative do anything but go away and shut up. I doubt I am alone in that. So, I am not a bit worried about his suggestions. I want to eliminate the ability of the congress to tax at all. This includes repeal of the sixteenth amendment, eliminanation of all forms of taxation nation wide, imposition of a national sales tax at a rate of 15% or so. States will be able to impose a state sales tax to fund their governments but that is all. No other forms of taxation allowed. Some may call that a radical position. But I don’t. Regardless, my proposal would have to be approved by the CoS and ratified by the states. Same as any other proposal. There is plenty of protection against any run away proposals or the somewhat silly proposals of Mr. Sabato. I am not a. It fearful of any CoS.
I am not necessarily opposed to the idea per se, however I believe the problem has more to do with the occupants of our government than with the structure of our government. Certainly, Amendments 16 & 17 need to go, but the deeply entrenched highly organized and well funded organizations that have a stranglehold on our government are the primary culprits. I speak of course of the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats are openly subverting law and promote and institutionalize anti-American ideologies. The Republicans have shown themselves to be ineffectual in combating the Democrats. In recent decades they are simpatico with many of the goals of the Democrats differing only on method, invariably a socialist scheme enforced by an authoritarian big government bureaucracy.
These parties are who put us in this mess.
A.it=a bit. Blasted auto spelling correct!
I generally agree with your post. I would add that the reason both parties follow the marxist mantra is that progressivism has been the dominate political philosophy for the last eighty or so years. So not really so surprising that both parties generally follow the progressive line. They truly know nothing else. Our great challenge is to replace these folks with people who know better.
In both repsonses you are explaining what is wrong, as if the rest of us are ignorant to what is happening. We see the same thing you do. Long recitations of what you also believe caused our nations problem do not resolve our issues.
We cant fix this by going to the polls. We cant fix this by hoping that the better angels of our leaders appear one day. What can fix this is the insertion of state government back into a side by side relationship with the citizens of this country back to ruling our federal government rather than as is today. How do you propose that happens?
You even mention that you are unsure of the means of a convention of the states. Many others understand how this can occur. Read the links posted to the ABA paper from the 1970’s on the subject. Refer to the paper written by ALEC. Ask people who are involved in the movement rather than attempting to pursued others when you even admit you do not fully understand.
Please take the time to understand before you offer others advice that could be flat out wrong.
>> You even mention that you are unsure of the means of a convention of the states.
That is not at all what I said. I said, “The goals are general with little mention of the means to achieve those goals” and then listed the goals enumerated in the Florida bill. The Florida bill does not describe the means by which those goals will be achieved.
Bringing attention to well connected high-powered people who advocate what you also advocate but who may have entirely different motives for doing so is not “bad advice”. Know who you’re getting in bed with. Do your due diligence.
I wouldn’t worry about it
I don’t care about term limits.
I care about restricting the fedgov to ONLY its constitutionally mandated duties. IOW, they should only be doing about 20% or less of what they do. Then the fiscal will be solved simultaneously.
BTW I was thinking about what we were discussing last night. Maybe you could offer to give classes, formal or not, in survival type stuff like canning, gardening and so on - to people via Craigslist, or people in your area, maybe even the people who work in your immediate area, younger people.
Remember Clara’s youtubes of depression era cooking? A lot of younger people have no grandparents or parents to help them learn things.
I was thinking that last night.
Ray76, the first patriot generation, the ones who drafted state constitutions beginning in 1776 agreed with you. To varying degrees, the thirteen new plans of free government were very democratic. Representative assemblies were elected annually, and the upper houses (if they had one) and governors were either appointed by the assemblies or people and kept very weak.
As opposed to our recent experience as royal or proprietary colonies, The People were in charge of the new independent states.
Democratic republics have a way of turning into majoritarian tyrannies. That is what happened, and by the mid-1780s, most states were rewriting their constitutions to provide for means to cool the passions of their lower houses of representatives. It was with these experiences in mind that the framers met in 1787.
There was never any serious consideration whatsoever for a popularly derived senate. The framers knew too well what an overdose of democracy meant for freedom. Federalist 39, 46, 62, 63 go into the details of the importance of a federal senate.
So, back to your point. No republic can suffer a government composed of crooks. The framers knew this, and by creating a senate of the states, they divided power such that it was unlikely a bloc of self-serving men could form to line their pockets or perpetuate themselves in office for life.
Make no mistake, a popularly derived senate is no small tweak of the constitution. The 17th is a monster, a political Frankenstein purposely designed to turn our federal republic into a democratic republic. All democratic republics eventually turn on themselves and end in tyranny.
It is where we are today, and no effort to send “good” people to congress can correct the problem. With repeal of the 17th, restoration of freedom is possible. Without repeal, there is zero chance.
In 1775, the American colonies did not have peaceful means to secure their freedom. Resistance, horrible and destructive revolution, eventual separation were inevitable.
Not so subtle suggestions as to extra-constitutional, violent measures to cast off oppressive government are common at FR.
History will not look favorably on a people who gaffed off the peaceful means to seek redress of grievances and restore republican freedom.
We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.