Posted on 03/14/2015 8:43:48 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
Of the many people I've met over the last two years who are opponents of an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, one of my greatest regrets is that there are many with whom I would most likely agree on virtually every other issue in modern-day political discourse. Many of them, however, almost proudly admit that their positions on a COS are rooted in a decades-old fear of the unknown and an inability to trust their fellow citizens, while most COS proponents put their faith in stringent, new safeguards and an optimistic view of the future. The irony of it all is that we are ostensibly striving for the same outcome… a safer, stronger, more democratic republic of sovereign states.
I am corresponding with one such COS opponent who is involved in an eMail campaign in another state, attempting to defeat our COS legislation. I’ve told him that I cannot wish him good luck in his attempt to scuttle the efforts of good, strong, constitutionalists who only want a free and open national debate in a forum guaranteed to introduce conservatism and Originalist thinking to a public starved for such concepts, starved intentionally by a left-leaning media. I hear opponents of a COS deride their fellow citizens for not having sufficient knowledge in civic matters, rendering them unqualified, the opponents say, to participate in something as critical as the amendment process, while they themselves blindly follow an outdated strategy of obstructionism that prevents the public from receiving the very education that they say is lacking. I find no sound logic in that, nor do I see a genuine concern for educating the public. I see a smoke screen, a straw man, an excuse to justify their knee-jerk resistance.
A national forum such as a COS would not only garner wall-to-wall attention from our own media, but from political observers the world over. We don't pretend to expect positive coverage from the Alphabet Networks, but the truth is that they no longer have a monopoly on the news. Even negative coverage of conservative principles is better than no coverage at all… it just might be enough to spark curiosity, to start people thinking, some of whom admittedly aren't accustomed to thinking for themselves.
If it makes them curious, then that’s good. Curious people do curious things… curious and predictable things. They will seek out the other side of the story… they will find FNC, they will find C-SPAN, they will find Drudge and Lucianne.com and Free Republic and Breitbart and Red State and countless Facebook pages and Twitter accounts where they will learn about the Founders' vision for America, unvarnished and unfiltered by Big Government or its lackeys in the public schools and in the mainstream press.
Just one hour of debate between an eloquent proponent of a balanced budget amendment and an equally passionate big spender would be the equivalent of a PhD in economics for the low-information viewer… and which argument do we honestly think would prevail with the majority?
Or, how about listening to a red state legislator who can clearly illustrate the terrible waste, fraud and abuse caused by overlapping and redundant federal, state and county regulations, one who is conversant in the Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction and can elaborate on state sovereignty and the simplicity and efficiency of single-authority subject-matter jurisdiction… up against a less liberty-loving blue state delegate who finds himself in the untenable position of trying to justify federal intervention into matters such as public education, energy production, medical and health issues, possession and sale of firearms, land use and building codes, water resources, liability insurance, lending practices, and voting rights, just to name a few.
In trying to make the point that any effort to pass an amendment would be futile because our current crop of politicians would simply ignore it, my correspondent asked for an example of a proposed amendment that would “turn oathbreakers into oathkeepers,” which I took to mean cause legislators to live within the law, rather than above it. I provided him with the following list of just the raw topics, the headlines, if you will, of some of the various proposals that could be introduced and publicly debated at an amendments convention. I challenged him to try to think, as he read down the list, of the last time he heard any of these issues debated or even casually discussed in any kind of public forum, and to then think about the reaction that such ideas would invariably have across the vast majority of the Heartland.
Since he claimed to want public education, I provided him with a syllabus:
- A proposal to clarify the Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes Congress to enact laws that are "appropriate" and plainly adapted for carrying into execution Congress's enumerated powers; it does not authorize Congress to enact any law that Congress thinks is "reasonable." In other words, to invoke Necessary and Proper, a law must be "plainly adapted" to an enumerated end, a valid constitutional exercise of power by the Federal government.
- A proposal to reduce federal spending by clarifying the General Welfare Clause. The original view was that the federal government could not spend money on any issue that was naturally within the jurisdiction of the states.
- A proposal to reduce federal regulatory power by clarifying the Commerce Clause. The original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines - not ALL the economic activity of the entire nation.
- Similarly, as mentioned earlier, a proposal to establish the doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction, whereas one level of government - either state or federal, but not both - would have "subject matter jurisdiction" over any issue, eliminating overlapping and redundant regulation. If an issue can be properly and effectively regulated by the state, then the federal government would have no say in the matter.
- A proposal to prohibit the use of international treaties and international law to govern or guide the domestic law of the United States.
- A proposal to limit the use of Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact rules with the force of law, since the Constitution states clearly that Congress is to be the exclusive agency to enact laws.
- A proposal to impose mandatory lifetime term limits on members of Congress, all federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court.
- A proposal to require the sunset of all existing federal taxes, and require a super-majority vote of both chambers of Congress to re-instate or replace them.
- A proposal to outlaw "omnibus" bills, requiring only Single Subject bills.
- A proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that our United States Senators once again represent and are answerable to our state legislators.
- And lastly, a Balanced Budget Amendment proposal requiring that the federal government spend no more than it takes in. The proposed amendment would also place an upper limit on federal taxation, requiring the states, not Congress, to ratify any request from the president for a debt ceiling increase. The proposal would redefine "debt" to include spending plus liabilities, would include an override waiver provision for national emergencies which would require a ¾ vote of Congress and would last for only one year. Any third consecutive National Emergency waiver would prohibit any member of that year's Congress from running for re-election.
But, since my questioner had asked for a single example, I told him that if I had to choose from that list just one proposal to be ratified as an amendment, one which would meet his requirement of turning “oathbreakers into oathkeepers,” it would have to be Term Limits.
The very prospect of an amendment to impose lifetime term limits on all federal officials is the primary reason that I support this movement. Since the Supreme Court ruled that the voters of a sovereign state don't have the right to impose term limits on their own locally-elected federal delegation, I can see no other way for us ever to bring an end to career politicians, including those who wear black robes to work.
Resolving that one issue, I believe, would go a very long way toward eliminating many of the most pressing issues that we face. Washington, DC, without a doubt, has become the most powerful and one of the most corrupt cities in the world, and no one who enters its enormous sphere of influence can help but be changed by it... and rarely for the better.
Virtually every politician's top priority, regardless of party, platform or principle, is to get re-elected. As soon as they arrive, they are surrounded by and steeped in the career mentality that pervades Washington, D.C. It is imposed on them, infused into them, particularly by the old dogs, the veterans, the party leaders, and soon the urgency of becoming a part of that culture of power supersedes anything they may have promised during their campaign. The wants and needs of the people who sent them there - the folks back home - all take a back seat to the new imperative - raise money for the Party, and ultimately for re-election.
In order for a newly elected candidate to maintain the party's financial support come election time, deals are made that have nothing to do with what's in the best interest of the voters back home. Legislation is passed at the direction of the party leadership, for instance, without a single legislator having read it. Does any of this sound anything like what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they coined the term, "Citizen Legislator"?
Meanwhile, we keep doing as we're told by The Establishment and the near-sighted automatons of The Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society… we throw the bums out… we vote in another conservative. We keep sending good people to Washington, only to see them disappear into the meat-grinder that is Congress, and come out the other side just so much baloney! If there were Term Limits and the candidate knew going in that their term was limited by constitutional edict, I firmly believe that they would think twice before casting a vote on legislation that could have a severe impact on the very communities to which they themselves will soon be returning… to live among the rest of us, to work at a job like a normal person again, outside of the Beltway Bubble, forced to bear the burden of whatever damned-fool laws Congress might pass with little or no concern for the unintended consequences they have on the daily lives of real people throughout this country.
And before anyone says that removing the "perks" of congressional service will cause a brain drain, and that no one of any consequence will want to run for an office that they can only hold for such a short amount of time, I would submit to you that if the folks up there running things right now are the best and the brightest that money, power and prestige can buy, then I think it's time for their de facto defenders, the opponents of a Convention of States, to open their eyes, join our ranks and help give some of us poor, stupid, uneducated people a chance… we couldn't possibly screw it up any worse!
And as for my anti-constitutionalist pen-pal, we truly are allies separated by a common goal.
I pray you are doing well, my friend.
Why yes, we are all well in spirit, as I trust you and your extended family are.
Good summary.
I would only add that anything ratified by three fourths of state conventions should be in the constitution. It is the nature of republican government.
As opposed to what our oppressors in DC would have us believe, it was supposed to be relatively easy to convene state conventions. The difficult part was thought to be getting three fourths of state conventions to ratify.
My experience has been that our most vehement opposition comes from folks who self-identify with either The Eagle Forum, the John Birch Society, or both.
With but one exception back in the mid-60s when they supported using Article V to pass The Liberty Amendment (to abolish income tax), they have opposed every attempt by any group to use the Article V path to amendment proscribed in the Constitution, regardless of the issue.
They have actively fought Article V efforts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, a Congressional Term Limits Amendment, a Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion Amendment, and an anti-flag burning amendment.
The interesting this is that, like most hypocrites, they were for it before they were against it!
I have to admit to having spent YEARS on countless bulletin boards and chat forums doing nothing more than sitting at the keyboard identifying, defining and re-defining the world's problems... and bitching about them, of course.
It wasn't until the COS movement caught my attention that I realized, as you have, that my time can be much better spent actively pursuing a positive agenda, actually doing something about the problems instead of all that negative navel-gazing.
This year, the primary activity of many A5 activists has been public education... getting the word out... or in the case of the JBS, debunking decades of their disinformation and RE-educating the public.
And I would reply, no more so that your response.
You imply that our COS movement includes leftists. You are either badly misinformed, or being deliberately disingenuous. There are several COS efforts out there, but ours is a "small government" project, completely separate and distinct from the Left's "big government" push. You would do well to set aside the JBS talking points, inform yourself and discover the difference.
You then ask three questions, all virtually the same, inquiring as to the federal government's likely response to individual state nullification actions. I am tempted to suggest that they are rhetorical, that you know as well as we all do what the fed's would do... but I will not take that chance and give you the benefit of the doubt. You may actually believe that the states, either individually or in concert with each other, might have a chance of success in such extremist pursuits.
The answer to all three is this: The Federal government will murder as many American citizens as it takes to quell any illegal, extra-constitutional attack on its sovereignty, and we have our own history as precedent.
I believe you when you say that you don't oppose the Citizens for Self-Governance Convention of States Project because you are a defeatist. Frankly, I suspect that you oppose it out of ignorance... and I use the word in its least pejorative sense.
Your claims clearly demonsrtate to me and to everyone familiar with The Project that you have not read anything other than the lies promulgated by the John Birch Society.
Do yourself and the nation a favor... check out Convention Of States.com... then get on board. We love Patriots with Passion!
I haven't seen the language of the Texas bill, if there even is one yet, but I have seen Arizona's and I doubt that it would vary much.
Unless you can show that Texas will approach it differently, there will be a very strict and closely watched PUBLIC DEBATE and selection process, either in the legislature by vote of the duly-elected representatives of the people, or by a delegate selection convention. Which method of selection will be up to the discretion of the legislature.
Once chosen (or elected), each delegate will operate under a mandate issued by the legislature, sworn to support only those proposals that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
Since this is 2015, not 1776, and full-time communication is a reality, every delegate will be subject to immediate recall by a specially-appointed officer of the state legislature, and most states already have or will pass sister legislation classifying failure to perform as a crime under penalty of law.
So... unless you have contrary information to go along with your contrary implication, I'd say that Texans have nothing to fear. You, however, are free to fear whatever you want.
This is not only about Republicans... as a matter of fact, it isn't about Republicans at all. Neither is it about Democrats, for that matter.
It's about the ever-widening pool of good, strong, Constitutional Conservatives from which the delegates to the convention will be drawn. Not only will they be conversant in Originalist thought, they will be devoted to it.
Please don't make the same mistake that adherents to the John Birch Society continue to make... the Founding Fathers were not fools, and neither are we.
You misread what I wrote. I characterized his argument. I agree with you.
Too many irons in too many fires!
Forgive me...
Glad to hear it. I, too, over the years have moved from negative cursing the darkness to finding what light I can shine to help the situation.
Right now while we wait for what will hopefully be a successful Article V effort, I’m trying to influence people to support state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts while there’s still time and freedom left to do so.
For those who think the Article V process is too risky, I repeat what other posters have said, "What other options do you see?"
To summarize from a previous post by Grace G, I see it as:
1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence.
2. Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the the federal leviathan.
3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back from the federal monster, though by this point it may be too late...
4. State Secession - Could either end up peaceably like the breakup of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 or a brutal:
5. Civil War II like the first one.... The longer we wait on #2, the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. .
Quick review: We need 34 states to pass an application, then Congress shall, by law, call a Convention of States as soon as it receives applications from 2/3 of the State Legislatures. That's 34 states. We now have 30 working on it. Amendments are proposed and voted on at the convention. Each Amendment must be ratified by ¾ of the states in order to become part of the US Constitution. That’s 38 states. “There are far more political and legal constraints on a runaway convention than on a runaway Congress.” Robert Natelson
Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.
Please see this summary video from Alabama first: Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A great introduction!
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
The Case for an Article V Convention. Great explanation of an Article V convention to the Massachusetts State Legislature.
**** Convention of States Lots of information here.
Call a Convention A call for a Convention of States
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
Convention of States model Resolution
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin: “The Liberty Amendments” - Complete Sean Hannity Special + other Links
List of Mark Levin You Tube Videos
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Mark Levin’s ALEC Speech, Dec 4, 2014
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” Sean Hannity Special
States, the Natural Second Party by Jacquerie
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention:
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part I)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a convention. (Part II)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part III)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part IV)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part V)
Congress’ Failure to Call an Amendments Convention. (Part VI)
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th. Shorter Abstract here: Ulysses at the Mast, one page Abstract
****For those of you that still have doubts about the Article V process, please review: Responses To Convention Of States Opposition My initial concerns were resolved after reading these articles. My attitude now is Go For It!
Update: Convention of States by the numbers The current State count
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Most State Legislatures are in session now. Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Let’s all work together to get this going.
<>The longer we wait on #2, the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. <>
That's for sure! So go for it people. Contact your state senator and representative! Send an email today and get the phone number 'ready' for a quick dial tomorrow.
IMO we are already at #3 while #2 is trying to get started.
As for nullification, I would simply advise caution... efforts should focus on states refusing to allow their resources to be used to enforce or facilitate Federal laws, policies, regulations or programs that they find objectionable, redundant or unconstitutional.
To go beyond that and try to “take” power or property is dangerous and extra-constitutional, inviting the most serious response imaginable.
Nullification, like other forms of political protest, must be used, but well within the bounds of the extremes. As has been said countless times, if we fail to learn from history...
Many leave out or add to THE critical element here. It is not “state nullification of objectionable, redundant federal acts.” The states have no legitimate power to do such.
It is “state nullification of UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal acts ONLY.” Otherwise, as has been said, you are creating more anarchy than the feds are already creating.
The Supremacy Clause supports and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm that the Constitution is OURS. It belongs to US. It is up to We the People to own this precious document which is the Supreme Law of the Land and the only legal bulwark of the freedom by the Rule of Law against the tyranny of the Rule of Man and his ever-changing whims.
Therefore, we are bound to support the feds within their constitutional limits and but resist the feds outside the same limits. The founders never intended nor is there anything in the Constitution demanding that only the feds interpret the Constitution. Every citizen should know and understand the text of this document as best they can and search out how to rightly interpret the Constitution based on its text and original understanding and intent with the help of sound commentary (I highly recommend Judge Robert Bork) and Court decisions from constitutionally-based (not personal morality-based) opinions.
The practical way to do this on the state level would be either the state legislature or state court demonstrates a good-faith effort to take the Constitution as written and intended and begin applying it to the most egregious and far reaching of questionable federal acts. If after doing so, the state finds the federal act unconstitutional, it should nullify and reject the act because it violates the Constitution as best understood by that state. But the nullification process could have several steps.
One step could be presenting a clear brief of the state’s constitutional research, reasoning, and decision to the feds (probably to all three branches, since all three are charged with “preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution” and, therefore, all three (not only the Supreme Court) are bound to apply sound Constitutional interpretation to their acts and decisions) maybe asking them to reconsider the act in the light of the state’s findings or make a case for why the act is in fact constitutional.
Another step could be reaching out to the other states to find either constitutional-based agreement or opposition.
There are ways this could and should be done in a manner that reflects the desire to uphold the Constitutional Rule of Law in this country as a last ditch effort to avoid cessation and physical conflict and bloodshed. But short-sighted, self-interested politics will have to be put aside for the sake of re-establishing the Constitution and our God-given and constitutionally-protected freedoms from government oppression.
All of this could and should be done right now as we wait and hope for Article V COS to get off the ground and actually succeed which, IMO, is a long-shot. But we should not continue to let the feds ignore our Constitutional rights and illegally pursue unconstitutional acts that take away more of our freedoms by installing government oppression and tyranny.
I don’t have a problem with nullification and Article V BOTH proceeding.
I only have a problem when advocates pursue a one-or-the-other approach.
Or advocates of one approach bad-mouthing the other approach.
It seems to me that the States could easily just refuse to offer any support to enforcement of federal laws.
If the feds want to enforce them, then let them do it,
but don’t expect any local or state cooperation.
Whatever eventually transpires, SOMETHING must be done!
Yes, we should use every legitimate means at our disposal. A successful Article V COS would be less disruptive than state nullification, but we’re at the point where state nullification needs to be implemented now while we wait for the Article V process.
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.