Posted on 03/14/2015 8:43:48 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
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.