Imma pizza slice.
Posted on 07/09/2015 2:07:13 AM PDT by markomalley
The process is simple. You ignore them, but of course you must also have a plan and be prepared for retaliation.
States could have ended abortion by simply affirming existing statutes against murder and arresting abortionist and their accomplices. If you think through the scenario and actions that could have been taken, the states would clearly have had the upper hand and we wouldn't be where we are now.
Can you imagine a president of the United States defending an order that federal troops protect the right to commit murderer and guard abortion mills? But where were the governors, legislators and state officials? All hiding it seems. Obviously power was more important to them than innocent life. Damn them all.
The answer is secession.
I don’t disagree with you in the substance of what you say but unfortunately, we live in a country that has been thoroughly corrupted because it abandoned religious principles long ago.
You mentioned the 17th Amendment but I see the 16th as a major religious turning point. The income tax was passed because the politicians promised it would only the rich and for a small amount. That was a betrayal of biblical principle and a direct violation of two commandments. The road to hell has to start somewhere.
Look if it keeps your mind active to dream and write about an Article V convention be my guest. Its a pike dream and also a poor substitute for just using the remedy that the Constitution has already given us. The 10th Amendment.
Just like the remedy the Constitution gives us for an out of control President is Impeachment.
The 10th Ammendment is for an out of control Judiciary and Congress.
The 10th Amendment is a statement, that all that is not granted is retained. James Madison regarded such proclamations that aren't backed up without institutions to enforce them, as "parchment barriers."
In post #37 I asked you to "name the process, the mechanism, the tangible way and procedure a state legislature can invoke the 10th Amendment during the course of actual law making in DC."
You cannot, because the 10th doesn't provide for it. OTOH, Article V is a distinct grant of power.
While waiting obediently for impeachment/conviction of Obama and his ministers, our once republic cries in misery for redemption, for renewal of corrupt institutions to protect, rather than assault our liberties.
Article V. Petition.
As good a place as any to start.
http://www.cosaction.com/petition
But they are paid considerably less than the people fired...I’m surprised none of these groups has tried a civil rights lawsuit...is firing Americans to hire foreigners at a lower wage, any different from firing a minority or other person, to hire a white or a relative?
Why are you obsessed with mechanisms where none are needed? The only mechanism needed is to disobey and not comply with anything illegal that emanates from the federal government.
The greatest folly is that liberals will sit back quietly while you have your Article V convention and get everything your way. IT AIN”T NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!
He is in need of an education.
Thanks.
I’m a regular listener of Mark Levin. I don’t need an Article V education. Mark is wrong but so invested in his idea he won’t see any downside to it. I agree it is legal but I think people are extremely naïve to think they can control the ends or that new laws will make lawless people into lawful people.
So what are you going to do? Tell liberals they can’t attend, or have opinions? Quite frankly, if this convention is as well controlled and orchestrated as you believe, then is it not you trying out for tyrant?
Well, I am ready to invoke the 2nd...
Ultimately, the Constitution iterates over very few of our inalienable Rights; being as it is a throttle upon the Federal govt and what it SPECIFICALLY can (and mostly NOT) do.
In the end, this time there was a full frontal assault on the 9th and 10th by a single sentence of the ~150 yr. old 14th.
Unfortunately, I find more and more on these boards falling into the debate fallacy setup by the Left...and losing because of the same.
And, worse still, even more here believe at LEAST one of the current 2016 crop will do *anything* about this travesty and injustice (EG: Senators not even STARTING the ball rolling for impeachment, or any bill to tell SCOTUS to F* off...”.
Do the people have a God given right to design their government?
Yes they do, but considering how corrupt the "people" have become, I doubt they would allow other people their God given rights. At some point, if the government they create based on their God given rights goes wrong, am I supposed to just roll over and do as they demand? While you seem certain an Article V convention will work, I remain concerned about the time it takes and even more so as to the honor and integrity of the people who would attend. I don't see any equals to Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Franklin and on and on. We were blessed but that time has passed. The few very good ones we have are not enough to counter all the clever attorneys who think they are so smart.
Yet, even IF the 16th was passed successfully/correctly, it still tramples upon the 4th, 5th, 6th and 13th in its being and enforcement....
Yet, the whole of lawyers in D.C. and out can argue that, SOMEHOW, this is legal and Constitutional.
Social Security, Welfare, O’Care...all antithesis to the the Takings clause (in the least); again, seem as ‘legal’.
Still, these and more were passed in their day and, some would say, championed by the We the People of that time (where education may still have produced clear, logical thinking).
But, since the 1910’s, I recall nothing until the Civil Rights Act where ANY State attempted to assert its authority, and very few at that!
I suspect not even an Art. V would restore our Republic...its memory has too long passed from the minds of its people.
We have the right to frame our government, BUT you would deny it.
Never, in any process designed to create or amend a government, from the English parliament in 1688, the thirteen state constitutional conventions beginning in 1776, nor the federal convention of 1787, did any people EVER set themselves up to be slaves. Go back further and you'll find that the Roman Republic amended itself often enough to last 450 years. It did so not by declaring rights on paper, but rather by setting up institutions whose natural, structural interests tended to secure the liberty of the people.
Article V opponents equate a state amendment convention with our corrupted congress, a congress in which our freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.
They are wrong. Article V opponents are stuck in static analysis.
Few people are not shaped by the institutions in which they participate. Without the federal convention of 1787, most of the delegates to it would be unknown to us. Not all were by any means virtuous, but in convention they set regional and personal interests aside to design good government. The 2015 congressman who would sell the rights of millions today for campaign cash would never think of harming his family. Michele Bachmann was run out of congress for being virtuous in a corrupt institution; she refused to conform. Had she joined the sleaze and venality that typifies congress, she could be there today. What I describe is identical to the behavioral difference between men in strip clubs and church.
The states will send serious men/women of character and judgment armed with commissions to promote their state supported amendments. Delegates to an amendment convention will be unconcerned with that which drives congress: money, personal power, and reelection will not be their focus or interest.
We can have every expectation that state delegates will rise to the occasion. They will understand the gravity of their assignment and conduct themselves in a manner precisely opposite that of congress.
We, the people are just that - people, and not all that different from those that came long before we did.
Imma pizza slice.
Where did I deny anyone the right to frame their own government? I only contest your claim of certainty that a particular process will produce a good result.
I can also think of numerous times when people have supported governments that made them slaves, including the mobs of the Roman Republic cheering Caesar, the Weimar Republic appointing Hitler Chancellor, and the colony of Brazil anointing Dom Pedro I emperor. That is three of many that turned to monarchs and dictators to “amend” their governments. We were blessed, not lucky that we had good Christian people framing our government.
You are supposing that similar good people will assemble for an Article V convention. Where they come from, how they are elected, or appointed, we don’t know but you are sure these will be good people. And they will all rise to the occasion - health care for all, eliminate starvation, end cruelty to animals, abolish fire arms - and they will think they are good people, perhaps even better than our founders.
If we were a country that had just emerged from oppression and bondage, I would agree good people that cherish liberty and justice could be found. No, the people that will attend your convention will cherish their security and vanity more and work harder than ever to make a name for themselves. The fires of struggle that temper a good people burned out long ago. It is only the will of force that will preserve a corrupted republic, for better or worse.
So yes, it is your God given right to support an Article V convention, and it is my God given right to question its wisdom and oppose it if I find the wisdom lacking.
So, you don’t need an education on the Article V process because you’re a regular listener of Mark Levin’s? Obviously you’ve been sleeping through class because your fallacious arguments have been addressed many times before by Mark.
You’re misrepresenting the situation regarding Article V and trying to pass it off as analysis. First your false contention that, to make the case that the Article V process will not be a ‘runaway’ process means that it must therefore be a form of tyranny, is absurd. Tell that to the framers who created the provision. So it will be a form of tyranny to propose amendments that still need to be approved by 3/4 of the states? Even those that would be approved by the convention would still have to be agreed to by 2/3 of the state delegations present. On a state by state basis, we are much more Red than we are Blue.
By the way, are you against any new amendments to the Constitution or just those that are proposed through Article V?
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.