Skip to comments.Florida Gubernatorial Candidate and Congressman Endorses Convention of States
Posted on 03/03/2018 2:23:16 PM PST by Jacquerie
The Convention of States Project, a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, is pleased to announce an endorsement from Florida Congressman and Candidate for Governor, Ron DeSantis.
Rep. DeSantis stated, Ive spent years fighting the DC Swamp, and as a candidate for Governor of Florida, I know the states need to use Article V to take the power away from D.C. The permanent bureaucracy will never voluntarily give up an ounce of its power. Florida was the third of twelve states that have already passed the Resolution, and I encourage all other state legislatures to support the Convention of States Project and pass the resolution today.
A native Floridian, Rep. DeSantis grew up in in Dunedin, FL, and worked his way through Yale University and Harvard Law. The former Navy lawyer continues to live in Marine, FL with his wife and daughter and is endorsed by President Donald Trump.
Ron became a member of Congress in 2013 and has worked on issues ranging from enacting term limits, national security, government fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget, government accountability, and the Constitution.
Congressman DeSantis understands firsthand the dangers of an out-of-control federal governmentevery day, he is on the front lines, fighting the deep state from inside the beltway, explained Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and the Convention of States Project. Florida COS activists are educated and engaged in the political process and appreciate Rep. DeSantis commitment to the grassroots, in their fight to take power back from Washington and return it to the people and the states.
(in before the ping)
Remind me again as to who it is that has the role of counting the applications
and determining when the threshold has been reached.
Next, to make Pres. Trumps vision for MAGA last as long as possible, we need to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (17A).
And speaking of the 16th Amendment, the following excerpt from Gibbons v. Ogden needs to be amended to the Constitution imo.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Next, consider repealing the 22nd Amendment, the two-term limit for POTUS.
The bad thing about term limits, evidenced by the lawless Obama Administration, is the following imo.
Corrupt, post-17A lawmakers let corrupt last-term presidents get away with doing all kinds of unpopular and unconstitutional things.
In fact, I hope that patriots support Trump in not only politically forcing corrupt Congress to surrender all state powers that Congress has stolen from the states back to the states, but that Trump is the last president to be elected by the constitutionally undefined popular vote process.
As you relate, I hope President Trump knows his efforts to permanently drain the swam depends on reformation of our institutions, beginning with repeal of the 17A.
note that the product of a ConCon is never a new amendment to the Constitution, but a proposed amendmentWhat kind of lunatic double speak is that?
If you want to know why this will never get anywhere look in a mirror.
You can't repeal an amendment with out having/adding a new amendment.
The first amendment on the COS agenda will be the 2nd...Then the 1st.
I hope you don't think conservatives will be the only players in this scam.
Conservatives would get shouted down and steam rolled by RINOs, progressives and liberals
“... The first amendment on the COS agenda will be
the 2nd...Then the 1st ...”
If you really think that 38 of the 50 states would approve of such nonsense,
then you must think the U.S.A. is already irreparably lost; in which case,
the results of a Convention of States should be of no consequence to you.
Otherwise, you are either trolling, or uninformed, or drunk, or delusional.
I just have no patience with the nattering nabobs of negativism.
I hear Mark Levin talk about this a lot. Is this different from a Constitutional Convention? If it isn’t, then I’ve heard bad things about this. Ross Perot used to talk about a Constitutional Convention and I felt that he had some nefarious reasons for it. Never trusted him.
I pretty much with you on the other points, but after FDR ditched Washington's Cincinnatian example and became president-for-life, I don't think tradition is superior to explicitly proscribed.
It’s getting old.
I thought the 10th Amendment was supposed to rein in the Feds and leave the States with much more individual powers.....we have the tools to do what they want if we decide that “judges” who “interpret” the Constitution with “John Roberts Logic” can be ignored, we don’t need the convention.....I was originally intrigued with such but decided that if we can’t follow the Constitution we have had for a few hundred years, what make some think we will follow anything new?
On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are soft in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.
On closer inspection, well find that hard Constitutional clauses have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category and be soon disregarded.
To keep the entirety of our Constitution in force requires institutions designed for the continued defense of hard clauses and renewed defense of soft clauses. For instance, the scotus infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn opinion regarding interstate commerce did enormous and continuing damage to state sovereignty. Despite the clear wording of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, Wickard or a similar ruling was an eventual certainty since the states had not been in the senate to defend their interests since 1913. A senate of the states had previously ensured the commerce clause remained in the hard clause category.
The 17th Amendment doomed many previously hard clauses into soft clause irrelevance. There are other examples. To the extent that the Second Amendment is intact is not due to its enumeration in the Bill of Rights. The 2A remains in force due to attentive citizen groups who stand ready to render electoral hell on politicians who waver on this fundamental right.
It works the same way with freedom of the press. The old media defend it to the extreme, even to the point of endangering national defense.
The list goes on. So, if we are to restore a free government that respects the letter of our Constitution, we must begin restoring a senate of the states, repeal the 17th Amendment.
"I pretty much with you on the other points, but after FDR ditched Washington's Cincinnatian example and became president-for-life, I don't think tradition is superior to explicitly proscribed."
OK, let's also amend the Constitution to give the states the power to recall bad-apple lawmakers.
Regarding repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments (16&17A), consider that the crooks get themselves elected to federal office to follow the money and secure their "fair share" of unconstitutional federal taxes.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." me
But after 16&17A are gone, and patriots support Pres. Trump in putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, the crooks are going to lose interest in getting themselves elected to DC imo.
In other words, as opposed using term limits as a way to limit corruption which it arguably helps to foster, after unconstitutional federal taxes are stopped, voters may have problems finding people to serve as federal elected officials.
In fact, I understand that finding people to serve as federal senators was an issue before 17A was ratified.
On the other hand, I think that serving as federal lawmaker would be a good way for former / retired military personnel to continue to serve the country. After all, the plurality of clauses in Section 8 are military related.
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.