Mark is wrong! Golly, did that ever occur to you that he is not infallible. I’ve read the liberty amendments and see many flaws. Mark thinks he can make amendments so good that no one could possible subvert them. I like Mark but I also know vanity when I see it.
Have your convention. I’m certainly not stopping you. I just think you, Mark and many others are foolish and expect to find virtues that are terribly out of fashion. I’m not worried about a “runaway” convention, but I am worried about the level of cowardice in our own camp and how that will cave under media pressure.
As to how I feel about amendments, I am not against them but I will question why anyone believes an amendment will prevent bad behavior. Term limits and Balanced Budget are, in my opinion, foolish and unnecessary. Its an outright admission we don’t have good people in government but instead of doing hard work of raising and finding good people, we will attempt to bind bad people. That’s the argument for gun control: ban guns and criminals will obey that law.
Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.
Since 1913 our two popularly derived houses of congress, and one with six year terms, have served as the foundation of the progressive’s jihad against freedom.
The 17th must go, and only an Article V convention can possibly recommend its repeal.
BTW, and speaking of virtue, Scotus entirely repealed republican government less that three weeks ago.
In post #61 I asked, “What then in your opinion is the remedy to our head first dive into tyranny?”
“Mark is wrong! Golly, did that ever occur to you that he is not infallible?”
My defense of the arguments put forth by Mark, and others as well, is not based on the fact that Mark made them. It’s based on the substance of the arguments. The specific criticisms you bring up have been addressed many times, substantively by Mark, who you say you listen to all the time, as well as others. When I substantively try to engage you on specific points you raise, you change the subject.
So lets address these points individualy:
Point # 1
“As to how I feel about amendments, I am not against them..”
Well, it sounds like you are if your basic argument is that it would be foolish to expect that they would accomplish anything. It sounds like your saying, ‘I don’t have a problem with them, it’s just that I think they’re pointless’. If that’s your position then you’re making a basically meaningless distinction.
If I’m mischaracterizing your position on amendments, then fair enough. Tell me which amendments you would be in favor of and which amendments you wouldn’t. If you don’t believe there are any amendments worth passing at this time, then was there ever a time in our history when you feel it WOULD have been worthwhile to pass certain amendments? Is your belief in the futility of passing certain or any amendments at this time, whichever the case may be, dependent on whether they were introduced through a convention of the states or through congress?
Point # 2
“I’m not worried about a “runaway” convention, but I am worried about the level of cowardice in our own camp and how that will cave under media pressure.”
What exactly does that mean? Please clarify.
Point #3
“...but I will question why anyone believes an amendment will prevent bad behavior. Term limits and Balanced Budget are, in my opinion, foolish and unnecessary.”
and
“...Its an outright admission we don’t have good people in government”
The main premise of the Constitution is that we don’t have good people in government, or at the very least, that we shouldn’t assume or count on it.
The Constitution was a painstaking effort by the framers to divide power, and to provide independent, and to some degree antagonistic centers of power that would provide a check on one another so that the acquisition of power, and the ambition and greed that is inherent in human nature would not be allowed to get out of hand. It was an attempt to try to tame the worst parts of our natures and encourage the best.
They knew that a strategy of just electing ‘good’ people was a futile strategy that couldn’t be counted on to prevent tyranny from gaining the upper hand. Even the people’s ability to see clearly and make perfect decisions at all times, when electing their representatives could not be counted on.
Something more, a legal restriction on power from without was needed so that we wouldn’t have to rely on angels governing us to have good government. The main structural problems we see now are the result of new centers of power emerging which the framers hadn’t anticipated - the hyper-politicization of the courts and the career Congressmen and women who spend 30 years in Washington. If they had forseen these problems perhaps they would have devised a means of preventing them.
Their system worked very well for a long time, but almost from day one, there were those who worked to try to undermine the system. They found weaknesses in the system and over time exploited them. The framers gave us a good, solid and robust legal structure in the Constitution but understood that there was no way they could foresee all the specific strategies that the enemies of Freedom would employ to subvert the system. They left it to future generations to address this through the amendment process.
I can’t think of two more important amendments than Congressional term limits and repeal of the 17th amendments. These are specific amendments which would go a long way to breaking up the concentration of power in the hands of professional politicians. And yes, they could be enforced. The states control the election process.
Point # 4
“Actually, I would love to see an Article V convention, right alongside nullification by states and committees to explore secession.”
I don’t entirely disagree with you there, but I would hope that we could right the ship through amending the Constitution before the other options become necessary.