Posted on 04/03/2014 3:02:31 PM PDT by Jacquerie
That the Legislature of the State of Florida does hereby make application to Congress pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States to call an Article V convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States which:
Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government. Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
An identical resolution will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
I generally agree with your post. I would add that the reason both parties follow the marxist mantra is that progressivism has been the dominate political philosophy for the last eighty or so years. So not really so surprising that both parties generally follow the progressive line. They truly know nothing else. Our great challenge is to replace these folks with people who know better.
In both repsonses you are explaining what is wrong, as if the rest of us are ignorant to what is happening. We see the same thing you do. Long recitations of what you also believe caused our nations problem do not resolve our issues.
We cant fix this by going to the polls. We cant fix this by hoping that the better angels of our leaders appear one day. What can fix this is the insertion of state government back into a side by side relationship with the citizens of this country back to ruling our federal government rather than as is today. How do you propose that happens?
You even mention that you are unsure of the means of a convention of the states. Many others understand how this can occur. Read the links posted to the ABA paper from the 1970’s on the subject. Refer to the paper written by ALEC. Ask people who are involved in the movement rather than attempting to pursued others when you even admit you do not fully understand.
Please take the time to understand before you offer others advice that could be flat out wrong.
>> You even mention that you are unsure of the means of a convention of the states.
That is not at all what I said. I said, “The goals are general with little mention of the means to achieve those goals” and then listed the goals enumerated in the Florida bill. The Florida bill does not describe the means by which those goals will be achieved.
Bringing attention to well connected high-powered people who advocate what you also advocate but who may have entirely different motives for doing so is not “bad advice”. Know who you’re getting in bed with. Do your due diligence.
I wouldn’t worry about it
I don’t care about term limits.
I care about restricting the fedgov to ONLY its constitutionally mandated duties. IOW, they should only be doing about 20% or less of what they do. Then the fiscal will be solved simultaneously.
BTW I was thinking about what we were discussing last night. Maybe you could offer to give classes, formal or not, in survival type stuff like canning, gardening and so on - to people via Craigslist, or people in your area, maybe even the people who work in your immediate area, younger people.
Remember Clara’s youtubes of depression era cooking? A lot of younger people have no grandparents or parents to help them learn things.
I was thinking that last night.
Ray76, the first patriot generation, the ones who drafted state constitutions beginning in 1776 agreed with you. To varying degrees, the thirteen new plans of free government were very democratic. Representative assemblies were elected annually, and the upper houses (if they had one) and governors were either appointed by the assemblies or people and kept very weak.
As opposed to our recent experience as royal or proprietary colonies, The People were in charge of the new independent states.
Democratic republics have a way of turning into majoritarian tyrannies. That is what happened, and by the mid-1780s, most states were rewriting their constitutions to provide for means to cool the passions of their lower houses of representatives. It was with these experiences in mind that the framers met in 1787.
There was never any serious consideration whatsoever for a popularly derived senate. The framers knew too well what an overdose of democracy meant for freedom. Federalist 39, 46, 62, 63 go into the details of the importance of a federal senate.
So, back to your point. No republic can suffer a government composed of crooks. The framers knew this, and by creating a senate of the states, they divided power such that it was unlikely a bloc of self-serving men could form to line their pockets or perpetuate themselves in office for life.
Make no mistake, a popularly derived senate is no small tweak of the constitution. The 17th is a monster, a political Frankenstein purposely designed to turn our federal republic into a democratic republic. All democratic republics eventually turn on themselves and end in tyranny.
It is where we are today, and no effort to send “good” people to congress can correct the problem. With repeal of the 17th, restoration of freedom is possible. Without repeal, there is zero chance.
In 1775, the American colonies did not have peaceful means to secure their freedom. Resistance, horrible and destructive revolution, eventual separation were inevitable.
Not so subtle suggestions as to extra-constitutional, violent measures to cast off oppressive government are common at FR.
History will not look favorably on a people who gaffed off the peaceful means to seek redress of grievances and restore republican freedom.
We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
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.