Posted on 11/06/2014 10:22:11 AM PST by Jacquerie
The states need to amend the Constitution to permanently move tax day (April 15) to the Monday before Election Tuesday, even in non-election years.
FYI - Article V post and thread.
One of the problems is that there's no 'teeth' or punishment for government that violates them — one way to fix things would be to reaffirm the powers of the Grand Jury in the Constitution. There's one such proposal here.
I get what you are saying, BUT...ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE. If that DOESN'T work, then Article V. The laws we have now are adequate, and non-negotiable. They MUST be enforced. Those that fail to enforce them must be punished to the harshest extent. The answer to a failure to enforce laws IS NOT to pass more laws. The laws on the books are just as "un-ignorable" as any other. ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE. When that's done, and it fails to work, then we can talk Article V.
It makes as much sense under our constitution to boot the states from the senate as it would to boot the people from the government . . . no sense.
The 17th left behind a federal constitution without a federal government.
Take a slow read through the constitution or just the Bill of Rights. The only clauses obeyed are the structural clauses which establish a congress, president, supreme court and little else aside from those which have a strong interest group to protect them.
For instance the 2A is relatively secure despite the moonbat left because there are strong gun groups that promise to rain electoral hell on any politician stupid enough to oppose gun rights.
For the same reason, our religious rights will soon evaporate unless we take power from Rome-on-the-Potomac and return it to the states.
I did take the discussion out of context for which I’m having a bit of an Emily Litella moment. I would support amendments to the existing Constitution that, for example, established reasonable Congressional term limits, established presidential line item veto, and repealed the 16th amendment. But I also have to admit to a certain queasiness about what today’s politicians might do to damage the first and second amendments if they were given a clear shot (pun intended).
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
To get power back to the states
There is one good reason to support this... The libtards HATE IT
This is NOT a “Constitutional Convention” like the one that Rush hates 9and I agree with him there) - this is an Articlae V “Convention of the States”- The STATES have a vested interest in protecting their rights and stopping the federal government
For example - no unfunded mandates. Mark Levin’s book is AN AMAZING list of items.
After the surprise ratification of James Madison’s 27th Amendment in 1992, Congress passed a law changing responsibilities for the various tasks of the amendatory process so that Congress would never be blindsided again. Bush signed it into law. You need to look that law up. I’m not completely sure the Archivist still has the responsibility of tabulating state petitions for an Amendments Convention. That responsibility may have been moved to the office of the Speaker of the House.
There has never been a better time to take out the IRS.
THE FAIR TAX WOULD BE THE BIGGEST TRANSFER OF POWER FROM DC BACK TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY’S HISTORY.
The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
The FairTax brings jobs back to America by allowing companies to operate on our soil tax free rather than paying the current corporate income tax of 35 percent. Under the FairTax, various economists have predicted higher economic growth ranging from 7 to 14 percent over the current system, more jobs, and higher wages.
With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent.
As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.
I'd sure like to know how many there are. As for the 27th, that is ignored, for congressional pay was placed on autopilot to account for inflation. The 27th is another nonstructural winked at clause of our constitution.
Alexander Hamilton's analysis in #85 is quite supportive of an amendment process far easier to initiate than that of today's statists. It contradicts and refutes the popular opinion of him as neoabsolute monarchist.
I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree, for the most part. I certainly am not opposed to an Article V convention, I’m just saying to enforce what we have now. I’m sorry, I’ve got a TON of respect for Levin. He and Limbaugh are about all I listen to anymore, IF I happen to turn the radio on and they are on. I love Levin’s history. But the fact remains: we have laws on the books. They are not being enforced, despite the fact that they are non-negotiable. Enforce what we have. If that don’t work, then convention. Calling for a convention at this point is the very same thing as the leftists trying to pass amnesty. Secure the border FIRST - enforce the laws we have - THEN we can discuss what to do next.
> “What’s the point in adding Amendments if we can’t enforce the existing ones?”
Your question is a specious one.
First, the “we” in “... if ***we*** can’t enforce ...” is not ‘we’ but is rather the ‘federal courts’.
Second, the “can’t” in “... if we ***can’t*** enforce ...” is false because the federal courts ***CAN***.
Third, the “existing ones” in “... can’t enforce the existing ones ...” is not ALL but a selected few such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme decision to use the 4th Amendment to justify killing babies in the womb. That was an egregious blow against the Constitution. But then there are plenty of rulings that uphold amendments such as the 2nd.
So your statement is not one of fact, or of a precise focus on clear egregious harm but is instead one of general frustration and possibly capitulation. That’s Ok because many people feel as you do. But the fact is the federal courts are upholding most of the Constitution’s many parts on a daily basis.
Where amendments are needed now are in those areas where time over a generation has revealed weaknesses in forming strict interpretations with original intents.
Why an Article V process needs to be formalized now is because Congress is not doing its job and the culture inside Washington DC is such that our representation will never recognize and acknowledge our grievances.
HISTORY
History has had one other movement that nearly invoked Article V. In the early 20th century there was a clear majority of states that were in the process of organizing to bring about an amendment that would end the crony corruption in statehouses as to how US Senators were chosen by state legislatures. This led to the 17th Amendment which is flawed but not without addressing a valid concern that underlies it. Let me put it this way, the 17th Amendment was an ax taken to the US Constitution when in fact a pair of tweezers would have sufficed.
The generation of 1913 was carried away with a lot of wrong headed issues in much the same way that the generation of 2008 was carried away with a leftist muslim progressive in Barack Obama. But that generation of 1913 was not so misguided as we might think when we understand more clearly the details of what unfolded (explained below).
The history of this earlier Article V ‘rumbling’ is instructive. Here are a few points:
1. Amendments can be flawed in such a way that future consequences are not factored into amendment language. This is why we need brilliant constitutional experts like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz (and so many others who are not so well-known such as Professor Randy Barnett) to take the helm of scrutinizing the language and crafting language as be maximally effective in addressing the concerns.
There is no risk, no danger in creating a ‘runaway’ convention. There is risk is allowing language that can be abused in future generations. For example, the 14th Amendment was drafted for African-Americans (referred as ‘negros’ at the time) but the final language was generalized to all people which sounds noble and highly moral but .... but no American at the time would think that one day persons that choose homosexuality as a lifestyle would force a redefinition of ‘marriage’ through the courts and create a horror of forcing Christians to serve and recognize sin, and that this movement would be supported by language of the 14th amendment.
So language is important and brilliant minds grounded in a firm knowledge of the Constitution’s history can take our general frustrations and craft language to survive interpretations and challenges.
2. The history of the early 20th century Article V ‘rumbling’ shows that Congress of that era was put into a state of shock; stunned that the People would take it upon themselves to amend their Constitution.
What did Congress do when the shock subsided and cold hard reality set in?
The answer is instructive to what we will most definitely see when our Article V embryo begins to form feet, hands and a beating heart.
Congress of the early 20th century reacted by persuading the leaders of the fledgling Article V movement to abandon it in agreement that Congress would carry it forward and propose an amendment itself.
And they crafted the language in such a way that US Senators were disconnected from their respective state legislatures and therefore could ignore state matters. And we see the results.
And really then why should there even be a US Senate? If they are not there to represent the interests of their respective state legislatures, then why are they there? Their role has evolved into one whereby the US Senator is expected to bring home the pork to cronied interests. And thus, the targeted corruption was merely diverted via other streams to bypass the original provisions of the US Constitution. Oligarchies sprung from the 17th Amendment. The 17th solved nothing.
What I have put out there is the idea of retaining the right to vote for my US Senator because in principle once I have a positive right such as a right to vote, I expect that this right shall never be taken from me.
Instead I proposed amending the US Constitution to allow state legislatures to recall the state’s US Senator. Now some have said this would lead to perpetual recall elections. That specter is false because it will force US Senate Offices to negotiate with their respective state legislatures. In the end the people of the state would have the final say over both US Senators and State legislatures via their votes.
So point number 2 above is that we should expect Congress and its leaders, now presumably Boehner and McConnell, to grab the Article V concerns when the movement appears to have legs, and ‘promise’ to do something about those concerns. In other words they will attempt to take control of it and thereby control its language, its form, its agenda and its schedule. We must not allow them to take control of our Article V movement and make it in their own image; they will corrupt it.
Lastly, many Americans do not feel confident in participating in an Article V process because it requires a high level knowledge of history and law and they think those attributes reside mostly in Congress; they would be wrong to think that. There are brilliant American scholars that can think better than legislators in Congress where there exists a thick culture of corruption. Randy Barnett comes to mind and he is actually involved in the Art V movement. With people such as him (and so many of them exist), Americans will actually begin to feel very confident in the process.
So what are we waiting for?
Funds and Leaders. We have a bit of both already but more are needed.
Lastly I will point out one other thing that follows on the heels of this last comment.
When leaders emerge (many already exist and are working on Art V), when they emerge in the public forums meaning in the news media of whatever effective form, when these leaders start to inspire confidence in ordinary Americans of the correctness and effectiveness of an Article V process, then beware that such leaders will be drafted to run for federal office.
Leaders that would strengthen and correct our Constitution could very well be taken out of the Art. V arena by their own success and the Art. V process could suffer unless the numbers of the Art. V leadership are such that plenty of other leaders would be available to carry the movement forward. In other words, a strong bench is needed.
Because for the sake of American history it is important that a full Article V process be carried to its ultimate completion in amending the US Constitution. Just having one such instance on the history books will change the culture of corruption in Washington DC for a long long time.
Do you mean an Article V convention is the equivalent of Obola's executive, extra legislative, unconstitutional amnesty?
In terms of thinking, in the way I laid it out, yes. I know, it’s different in terms of legality, but the idea is the same. Secure the border, then we’ll talk. Enforce the laws we have, and then we’ll talk. Same idea. Same concept. Different legalities, but same basic concept. Enforce the laws we have. If those laws don’t work, we can talk. But until those laws are enforced, there’s simply no reason to discuss more laws.
“Enforce the laws we have. If those laws don’t work, we can talk. But until those laws are enforced, there’s simply no reason to discuss more laws.”
What a confused person you are.
Enforce laws that don’t work? What?
Enforce then talk? If no work, then talk? But first enforce? What?
Come back when you’re sober.
Nice job on the personal attacks. Come back when you got something worth while to say, instead of incoherent rambling.
Dware, your post was confusing. On the one hand you write that first the laws on the books must be enforced, then people may talk. It’s like you’re appointing yourself over others that are much more learned than you.
On the other hand you write that if there are laws that don’t work, then people may talk. Don’t you think that’s exactly what’s happening here?
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.