You should use this vanity repeatedly as context permits.
Posted on 04/16/2014 2:47:01 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A common concern among Article V opponents is fear that a convention of the states to propose constitutional amendments will result in an oppressive constitution. All we need to do is enforce the constitution we have. Elect the right people to implement our written constitution and all will be well.
As logical and appealing as that approach appears to be, it ignores some horrible realities, and actually promotes our headlong dive into tyranny, for the anti-constitution, the unwritten Frankenstein constitution rules.
First, aside from the occasional heat politicians take from an outraged populace, our legislative and executive branches in the aggregate do not acknowledge any limitations on their power.
Second, and perhaps worst of all, the branch charged with adjudication of disputes arising under the constitution has rewritten the constitution such that instead of securing our freedoms, their constitution, the Frankenstein constitution, welcomes tyranny.
The United States has two constitutions. Freepers read, study, and revere the brilliance of our framers’ plan of government, and support like-minded politicians. Meanwhile, federal courts, when they adjudicate within any limits at all, are guided by the Frankenstein constitution, the one they and their predecessors amended at least dozens of times these past eighty years.
There is no need to attempt to list here at FreeRepublic all of the illegal judicial amendments that created today’s Frankenstein constitution. Suffice to say that a counter-revolution to the American Revolution has occurred. A compact between We The People, via our states, and the government we created has gone wrong. Rather than secure our rights, the unwritten constitution secures the power of our oppressors. When cases come before Scotus, the starting points are previous, typically unconstitutional decisions, and not the supreme law they swore to uphold.
The executive branch has gleefully swept up powers discarded by congress. In fact, the very first clause of Article I, Section 1, the one in which a free people assigned all legislative authority therein granted to congress, now resides within the executive branch. This authority will pass on to the next president. Unless these powers are formally retrieved, ALL subsequent presidents will have Obama’s unwritten, unconstitutional, despotic powers. That is tyranny which no even year election alone can reverse.
When freepers ignore the reality of the unwritten Frankenstein constitution that is the actual framework of the ruling class, there is little hope for freedom’s restoration. It means we have turned a blind eye to our situation, for elections long ago stopped serving to choose who will faithfully perform their constitutional duties on our behalf. It means the ruling despots have a constitutionally free hand to aggrandize more power and wealth, to continue sapping our liberty. In order to possibly restore republican freedom, we must first come face to face with our enemy, admit the dominance of this Frankenstein constitution and the increasing irrelevancy of the written constitution.
Only the very hard and fast provisions of the written constitution remain. Representatives serve two years, senators six, and for the time being at least, presidents are limited to two four year terms. Nearly every other “soft” clause that has gotten in the way of progressive goals is either gone, misapplied or turned upside down. Think commerce clause, equal protection, taxation, abortion, fag marriage, our Bill of Rights, Obamacare, Common Core . . .
An unwritten Frankenstein constitution rules. If we are to kill this monster and return to republican freedoms, it is way past time, if time remains at all, to grasp a clause from Article V that George Mason demanded at the federal convention of 1787.
Unlike so much of the written constitution, the state amending authority of Article V still exists. We must act while we still have the power to peacefully correct the mistake of the 17th Amendment, thoroughly re-federalize our government with structural amendments, and subsequently reverse the oppression that no election can correct.
Which is why I have lose your job, and all retirement-benefits
as consequence of the violation a few amendments I have worked on (esp. confiscation).
You should use this vanity repeatedly as context permits.
It was in response to thoughtful questions.
Your #44 from yesterday was the foundation. Thanks.
I have not seen a better summary of the problem and the only possible solution anywhere. Thank you so much for doing this.
BOOKMARKED!!!!!
America can be saved—but it is Winter at Valley Forge.
Excellent!
My question to the “antis” is: If a convention is too risky then when will it be time to take a risk?
There is no other reasonable option. History will not look well on a people who gaff this off.
Who will require it? How would you implement it?
Good question, for Obama is simultaneously the strongest and weakest president in history. No president has gathered more raw power, yet to my knowledge, no president has faced lower approval.
This is THE TIME to stomp on rampaging tyranny!
Well first it would have to be law, preferably a constitutional amendment.
Then it could be invoked - as a court defense, as a mandatory administrative policy, as a regulatory requirement - whatever.
Given today’s American demographics a Constitutional Convention would be a potential disaster.
“Freepers read, study, and revere the brilliance of our framers’ plan of government, and support like-minded politicians.”
It’s my personal belief that posters who incite or invite insurrection and who refuse to abide by and accept SCOTUS decisions as the final arbiter on Constitutional matters should be relentlessly chastised. Note: This does not mean to agree, it means to abide by and seek change from within, rather than change from without.
When SCOTUS makes a ruling that was outside their jurisdiction to 'hear' in the first place I will not acknowledge it as a legitimate finding! I WILL 'incite', I WILL 'invite', and such actions are not not 'insurrection'........ it's defending the Law.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
You want to *chastise* me, go for it! And you can call your buddies to help you if you think it will do you any good.
“You want to *chastise* me, go for it! And you can call your buddies to help you if you think it will do you any good.”
I have no buddies. Read my profile.
"It’s my personal belief that posters who incite or invite insurrection and who refuse to abide by and accept SCOTUS decisions as the final arbiter on Constitutional matters should be relentlessly chastised. Note: This does not mean to agree, it means to abide by and seek change from within, rather than change from without."
You change the meaning by leaving out the bold face. I'm not saying the SCOTUS is infallible. I'm saying that it's the last resort of judicial review.
I had another reply, but it seems to have disappeared. Need I bother posting it again or will it be deleted, or did I mess up in "post" button. I didn't send it as a private reply.
When you abide by something, you are agreeing to it, so the notation makes no difference.
Compliance IS consent.
Via convention or congress?
No one on this thread has proposed any such thing. We propose the exercise of the alternate amending procedure in Article V of the Constitution.
The disaster we are witnessing before our eyes on a daily basis is not "potential", it is fact.
By definition the alternative to Congress proposing amendments is a Convention of states. You had better read Article Five of the Constitution.
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.