Posted on 04/25/2014 7:27:02 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
Both Article V bills, HB2305 and SCR1016, passed through all committee hurdles, and passed floor votes in the House, the latter doing so twice. But they died an inglorious procedural death in the senate because that chamber’s president, Andy Biggs, exercised his pocket veto power and refused to allow either bill to come to the floor for a final vote, despite considerable pressure brought by sponsors and supporters. Yesterday, the legislature adjourned for the year.
So, we lost. Most are quietly licking their wounds, trying to rationalize the irrational. And some are asking some pretty hard questions. Unfortunately, right now, today, there are few answers. There are, however, some undeniable truths that do help us understand some of the underlying dynamics at work behind our defeat, and those will inform us in the run-up to and during the next legislative session.
We’ve decided that we have to adopt a new attitude. Politics is a game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Then you play again.
I am advised that Andy Biggs just barely won the Arizona senate presidency this last term by one vote. It now appears likely that his last-ditch alliance with the anti-Article V extremists of the John Birch Society against SCR1016 and against the will of the majority of the people of Arizona – as evidenced by its passage just last week in our House of Representatives – will most certainly assure his defeat if he vies for president again in the next legislative session. And when he goes, so go his sycophants & psychophants – good riddance.
Regressives like Andy Biggs, whose reasoning on this particular issue is clouded by fear, cannot be allowed to continue preventing Arizona from taking her rightful place in the fight to return this nation to the ideals envisioned by our Founders.
In the short term, we must strive to remind those who have been busy channeling Phyllis Shlafley’s decades-old paranoia, and haven’t had a chance to check the news lately, that many great conservative thinkers and leaders have recently joined us in support of one or both of the most popular conservative movements for an Article V Convention - the Citizens for Self-Governance COS, and the Goldwater Institute’s Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment... people like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, George Will, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mike Church, David Barton, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Alan West, among others... hardly a "Soros-funded globalist" in the bunch, and none of them members of the low-information crowd typically unfamiliar with the truth about our Founders' history.
Between now and the next legislative session, we will undoubtedly run across – actually we should actively seek out – those regular folks, initiates who have only heard the negative, anti-liberty, fear-mongering lies, misrepresentations and hate speech of the Birchers on this issue. We should tactfully suggest that they take a moment to read the plain language of Article V, explaining that it specifically and deliberately assigns the power to propose amendments to the constitution equally to both Congress and to the States. We should tell them that it’s only 143 words, and warn them ahead of time that it won’t tell them word-for-word, step-by-step how to do it… the Framers, as in so many other fundamental matters, didn’t believe that they had to spell it out for us… what it will tell them is that IT CAN BE DONE.
Once they understand the original intent of those words, all anyone needs is the courage and the trust that our Founders had in the American people, without neither of which, no one deserves to consider themselves a Constitutional Conservative.
A5 - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
CSG COS - http://conventionofstates.com/
CFA BBA - http://www.compactforamerica.org/
This is a minor setback. Mark Levin’s book came out only last September and already 3 full states have passed applications and its in the works in at least a dozen other states, working it’s way through both bodies of their respective legislatures.
This train has already left the station and a convention is coming. One legislator in one state will not stop it. There are elections in November and there’s always another legislative session (or another state to take Arizona’s place).
If the politicians hate this concept of an Article V Convention, they must be reminded that they asked for it, over and over, in the manner of Speaker Pelosi, and in a thousand other such careless and reckless abuses of the People and the Constitution.
Do not be discouraged; this is going to be a multi-year process, and we knew that from the git-go.
Article V ping.
Thanks... as I mentioned to Jacquerie in another thread, you guys have been a terrific resource... a wealth of factual and current information, unstoppable confidence, moral comfort and tactical support. We learned so much, and have even more yet to learn.
They may have beat us this time, but look... here we are... we’ve lived to fight another day.
Yes! This effort directly targets the $4 TRILLION FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, the most insidious and greatest threat to our lives, freedoms, way of life and future generations, by substantially CUTTING the size, spending, and taxation of this monster and getting it back into its Constitutional cage where it belongs.
and the Goldwater Institute’s Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment
NO! Misguided, misses the mark, and potentially disastrous. The big issue of the day is the size and spending of the gorilla government. Cut government substantially (I say it should be at least an 80% cut, time-phased, but not too long a horizon (=$800 Billion - still too big but it's a start). The deficit is a byproduct of out-of-control spending. Fix the spending problem and the deficit becomes a minor issue.
The best way to deal with deficits is through the vote. As Milton Friedan said,
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”
A balance budget amendment gives power to politicians to justify raising taxes which would be an economic disaster. Give politicians power and justification to raise taxes and they will be very happy to do so. No, instead do what Friedman says, create a political climate whereby it is profitable for politicians to not line their pockets and create deficits. If they behave themselves, MAYBE we'll keep 'em. If not, they know we'll THROW THE BUMS OUT.
” - - - Andy Biggs, exercised his pocket veto power and refused to allow either bill to come to the floor for a final vote, - - - “
Reads just like what “Stonewall” Reid does with his own personal US Senate!
Maybe we should call this pocket veto power Reid’s Mortis?
sad.
Senator Biggs chose the right path on this. He is the only one in Arizona who did his job! He was elected to uphold and defend the Constitution and that is what he did. He had every right to block the bill and he did so because he knows that amending the Constitution will NOT restore the Republic. If the people aren’t willing to do the work now, to stand behind our Constitution, they will not do it when it has new wording either!
The Constitution is NOT the problem and amending it has zero results. This is a push by the global neocons to destroy our Constitution and we should be thanking Biggs for the hero he is because he stood on principle and doesn’t give a crap about whether he wins the next election or not.
We need more oath keepers, like Biggs, and less oath breakers. Stop listening to the lies from the paid talking head neocons like Beck/Meckler/Palin/Rand Paul/etc...they work for the govt not the people!!!
Learn the truth (with all references so you can look things up for yourself) at www.defendnotamend.com
We need the Constitution fixed.. So guys like McConnell, McCain, Graham are not living fixtures to our Capital in Washington D.C.. There is a reason the Founders wanted a way to amend the Constitution.. We need it fixed so we can get back to the way our founders visioned.. As long as these weasels in Washington D.C. can vote themselves privileges they will and most of the voters are too lazy or too stupid to realize what is going on.. Of course you have a willing media that covers for them... If we had informed voters do you think Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi would have been voted in? I think not...
Welcome to Free Republic. Did you recently join just to plug your website AND to tell us that Sarah Palin and others are "neocons who work for the govt and not the people"?
No thanks!! You need to understand that folks here do our own research on things and don't need n00bs to tell us how and what to think.
FWIW, here's a repost of one sent to you on another thread:
I find the Bircher BS particularly troubling. Way too many freepers have picked it up. We still see freeper attempts to connect Article V supporters with Soros. I visited some Soros websites, and as expected, found zero support for COS.
As you wrote, we have a lot of notable talent in support of Article V; it is sure to increase.
I think some of the conservative reluctance to embrace Article V is related to cognitive dissonance. Simply put, an American dictatorship is felt to be a contradiction. It can't happen. It is an impossible inconsistency.
By refusing to accept the seriousness of our situation, one can stick to the comfortable and American belief in elections. Election of the right people is all that is needed, and that belief is consistent with our tradition.
OTOH, if one accepts the fact that Obama’s official conduct and power is closer to that of Hugo Chavez than Ronald Reagan, that what little freedom we have exists at the pleasure of a few hundred people in DC, one has to decide what to do about it.
For us, there is one peaceful option, so it must be pursued. It is as simple as that.
There are two constitutions, the written one and our Frankenstein Constitution.
I never expected this to happen over night. We are having some “bumps” in Missouri as well. We shall overcome. ;)
I like it for two reasons, but I'll address your complaint first. You say it gives Congress the power to raise taxes, which they already have, so I'm going to assume you mean in order to balance the budget. They way I read the proposed legislation, it's a two-pronged approach that severely limits spending first, with any variations requiring approval of a super-majority of state legislatures. Congress would no longer have unilateral control of the purse strings. And the same with tax increases for the purpose of complying with the new amendment - they'd have to run it by the states first.
Now it's a LOT more complicated than that, but that's the gist, and I wasn't clear on whether or not you were aware of that.
One other little jewel is that the president would be required to submit a balanced budget at a time certain, and failure to do so (or using a gimmick to get around the requirement) would be an impeachable offense. Now, you gotta love that!
But the main reason I support it is that 49 states already have BBAs written into their own constitutions, so the concept of not spending more than you have is something that virtually all legislatures and even low-information types can get behind. That single issue, according to exhaustive polling, has the best chance of quick ratification in the requisite numbers over any other of the biggies, like term limits, repealing the 17th, etc. The BBA will lead the way for all later Article V efforts, having shown a history-deprived populace what the term "states' rights" really means, what it looks (and feels) like to finally stand up to the federal government and say "Stop! We brought you into this world, and we can take you out!"
Well, not literally, but I hope you take my point. (Apologies to Bill Cosby)
Not exactly - I'm saying it gives Congress justification to raise taxes. They will say "we're forced to balance the budget so we must raise taxes."
No, I think the BBA misses the mark. It generally has not worked in the states.
http://www.statedatalab.org/library/doclib/50_State_Final_2008.pdf
It is predictable becasue left alone, politicians can't be trusted (even if they're not left alone). Amendments should not and must not take the place of voters hold politicians' feet to the fire. The accountability factor is huge - make them feel the heat by THROWING THE BUMS OUT if they line their pockets and don't keep spending, taxes, and deficits down.
Let's rather focus on slaying the beast and getting it down to size, expressly limit taxes, and get this beast back into its constitutional cage. The deficit will be a minor annoyance if we do that.
The big economy killer is TAXES, both directly and through government spending. As Milton Friedman pointed out, high government spending is a tax becasue it creates inflation. The BBA is unnecessary if we cut government spending and it would be a mistake to give them that great an excuse to raise taxes.
He chose to align himself with a small but vocal faction of the John Birch Society and the Eagle Forum who, on this particular issue, are about two decades out of step with the majority. He denied my senator and every other senator their right to cast their vote. Instead, he chose to count his vote as superior to everyone else's, and he did so not even a week after the House of Representatives - here in Arizona that's the house of The People - had just easily passed both bills, one of them twice, with even a bi-partisan vote in at least one committee.
Now, if on the other hand you are from Arizona, then I'm just going to assume that I've met you before on one of our local forums. I can do this with a fair amount of certainty for two reasons: 1) Your screen name and the site that you promote are very familiar to me. And, 2) Your arguments against an Article V Convention of States are the same archaic, factually wrong and patently ignorant ones that we've all heard before, or at least I certainly have.
And if I've learned one thing in this campaign, it's who to engage, and who to ignore. Those whose arguments are not original, are blatantly false on their face, that offend by false association, that in no way lend themselves to a logical, point-by-point exchange, but are rather all over the map in a shotgun blast of ad hominem non sequiturs... those are to be ignored.
...
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.