Full title: Missouri Court Ruling Supports Convention of States as a Constitutional Option for Restraining Federal Power
A victory for federalism is not a good thing. So, is this ruling a victory for federalism or a victory for states’ rights? The article is contradictory.
Under a correct reading of the Second Amendment - or even disregarding that, under a correct understanding of our natural rights, referred to in the Ninth Amendment - armed rebellion is also a Constitutional option.
Of course, our founders only intended the Article V “supremacy of the state legislatures” or the Second/Ninth Amendment “armed rebellion” options to be considered and used rarely, only under the most dire circumstances, and I’d imagine also in that order. And as no court can do anything about the latter, they most certainly should never try to stand in the way of the former.
The wheels of freedom and justice turn slowly, however, those wheels do indeed turn. We The People....
Is it stated anywhere who or what brought the challenge to SCR4? Those senators who voted against it? Some citizen org (euphemism for group of liberal Dems)?
BUMP!
COS Amendment
1. Repeal Amendment 17
2. Repeal Amendment16
3. Term limits for congress
4. Override abortion
5. Eliminate welfare
5, Balance budget amendment
6. Reinstate 18 enumerated powers on congress
I’m not convinced that in the current political climate the amendments that would likely come out of such a convention of states would be amendments I would support. I suspect they would be amendments that would explicitly give the federal government the powers that it has arrogated to itself, making it nearly impossible to undo.
That being said, the court made the right decision.
Just like Bush v. Gore, every time a court takes a case which is outside of it's limited and defined powers, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME, it increases the illegitimate increase of the judicial power.