Posted on 11/30/2014 3:28:43 PM PST by Up Yours Marxists
That is why all that verbiage of mine about Principals, Agents and Agency Agreements is more than just "insurance". When a delegate from Washington introduces an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment, the Presiding Officer of the convention will honor his constitutional duty and dismiss it due to lack of agreement with respect to the Agency Agreement, which is to redress the balance between the states and the federal government. When the delegate from Washington appeals the decision of the Chair to the floor, the assembled delegates will honor their constitutional duty and vote down consideration of the proposed amendment.
If Congress sends the fruits of the convention to the states for ratification by state ratifying convention, I would be tempted to run for the post of ratifying convention delegate for the 42nd Legislative District. There is no doubt where I would stand on the proposals.
I see more clearly now the purpose for the Agency Agreement. You are right that procedural rules need to be put in place to maintain good order.
I am sending you private mail regarding a COS national position that I think you would fit perfectly with, 30 to 40 hours per month. I will recommend you if you’re interested or available.
You actually imagine that whatever you propose would not be taken over by leftists, anarchists, communists, and all their fellow travelers? You must live in one of the States with legal MJ.
One reason the path Obala and the GOPe have set us on this path is because too many so-called conservatives don’t vote unless the candidate espouses every nit picking detail of their preferences.
Anything that changes the Constitution is bound for disaster. Changes have consequences and those may not show up for years when it is too late. All the nice sounding changes made to the original Constitution have had negative consequences which were not foreseen at the time.
Again, a very very bad idea.
“I can see now you have no clue of what goes on at the State level when you say the Tea Party has no foothold there.”
I don’t know what fantasyland you live in, but the TEA Party has nowhere near a foothold of legislatures in at least 20 states. They include:
1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Maryland
4. Florida
5. Delaware
6. Rhode Island
7. Massachusetts
8. Vermont
9. New Hampshire
10. Washington
11. Oregon
12. Colorado
13. New Mexico
14. Hawaii
15. Louisiana
16. Ohio
17. Minnesota
18. North Carolina
19. Virginia
20. Michigan
Don’t tell me Colorado has a strong TEA Party presence at the state level either. I’m on the ground floor here and have been for nearly 80 years. There’s not control in 20 other states either. Expect at least 25% of “TEA Party affiliates” to be two-faced GOPe Pharisees.
You want a real socialist USSA? By all means let the TEA Party jump the gun and demand Convention now. Do it! Watch as the commie progressives ooze out of the woodwork and destroy our nation right before our eyes.
My advice is to park pride and assess the political battlefield before sabre rattling for the TEA Party.
21. Connecticut
Thanks. Forgot that bastion of socialist swine. Commie carpetbaggers everywhere.
I'll attempt to explain myself. No, I do not trust politicians, period. So I do not trust the notion of an Article V convention. I, perhaps overly cynically, believe that yes, even though that is a State process, the federal types *would* influence it. I think it is naive in the extreme to believe they would not.
Consider, you apparently don't trust the federal government and want a Constitutional convention to have the States rein it in, correct? But I don't trust the State politicians any more than those at the federal level. They are the larval form of the federal level ones. Many of them are great. However, they probably have never had to deal with national level issues, nor national level attention and pressures. Seeing as how we keep sending people "up" to the big leagues at the federal level and once they are subject to those pressures ... well, as I said they have disappointed a little or a lot on various issues nearly 100% of the time. So call me cynical, but I think many of the admirable types in the State legislatures, once faced with an issue as big as Constitutional amendments and the pressures at that national level (real or perceived) many would go along with the party, the GOPe.
So that's one concern. Maybe unfounded, maybe overly cautions, paranoid even. My other concern is why a Convention at all - just what would you have them add to the Constitution? What do we need in the form of an amendment that cannot be done simpler by the elected representatives (legislature and executive) at the federal level simply doing their jobs in a responsible and reasonable manner? Perhaps we agree that so-far, those elected representatives have soundly let us down. (ie. my comment on the trajectory of the Country) But then it comes back to trust/respect as you say. Why trust the elected representatives at the State level with these kinds of pressures and responsibilities either?
I don't. I don't want to open up Pandora's box. I think a "people driven" mandate to update the Constitution is just the kind of mis-direction the criminals in DC are looking for. The feds, in the form of Congress are reluctant to act and attempt to amend the Constitution on their own because it would (rightly) be seen as them vying for more power. However, if the States open up the process... Well then they will be "reluctantly forced to ..." participate and influence as much as they legally can - and then some. How often have we heard that same lame, thin excuse coming out of DC "we had to ..." when no, they did not. I believe a convention would be just the opportunity these people are looking for. I don't want to hand it to them.
So no, I do not support the notion of a convention because I do not trust that the process and the people in it are strong enough to resist the siren's song of the DC criminals. Unfair to the good men and women serving at the State level? Perhaps. But I've been too often disappointed to trust them. If they want that trust and respect, they have to earn it. They can earn it simply by doing their jobs in a reasonable manner and abiding by the limits already in place in the Constitution. If they show that they are respectful (to the Constitution) and reasonable, and responsible enough to govern/legislate well, then we'll see. Then if a case can be made for some needed amendments I don't care whether Congress or the States do it. However, so far none of them have shown that they've earned my respect nor trust nearly enough to be allowed to fool with the Constitution.
Your list is flawed off the bat. Your list is studded with deep blue states and the ones that are red should not even belong on the list.
For example, Virgina where I was born, have you ever heard of Dave Brat?
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/05/who-won-the-midterms/
You’ve been involved in Colorado politics for 80 years? How does being born in a state have anything to do with how a frame of mind aka the Tea Party should influence the political views of people who have been duped (Coloradans)? Are you ignoring the Tea Party Coloradans that gave us documentary film “Rocky Mountain Heist”? (http://rockymountainheist.com/)
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2014-winter/rocky-mountain-heist/
Have you bothered to watch it?
With the documentary film “Rocky Mountain Heist” Coloradans are just starting to wake up to the attempted progressive coup in their state and the result is the ranks of their Tea Party minded members are now beginning to grow again.
The fact you are speaking as an 80 year old in Colorado reveals why you are so pessimistic. Colorado is NOT THE EXAMPLE! Coloradans have been duped and they are just now waking up. Don’t extrapolate what you see in Colorado as what exists in the rest of the country. Colorado barely registers on the Electoral Map; it’s not that important except that some bright Coloradans like Michelle Malkin have uncovered the progressive plan there and are bringing it to light for the rest of the country. In other words, the progressives backed by Bloomberg and other wealthy leftists are using Colorado as their test lab and they are not winning as they would like; we can be thankful for that. But it’s got people like you scared and thinking the rest of the country is the same way; it’s not!
The Tea Party is a ***frame of mind*** focused on issues important to Conservatives. Tea Party issues are exhaustively listed here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm
No Conservative is going to object to the list of issues in the above link. That’s why Conservatives identify with Tea Party political views because it reflects their own views.
If you think yourself a Conservative, then stand up as one and tell your neighbors in Colorado that you are fully behind the issues that define the Tea Party frame of mind and then rattle off the issues in the list in the above link. When people see that the term ‘Tea Party’ is just a convenient way to summarize these issues, they will begin to think the Tea Party is a GOOD IDEA! That is especially true for Coloradans who are just waking up now to having been Grubered.
Your assertion that Article V will witness “the commie progressives ooze out of the woodwork and destroy our nation right before our eyes” is borne out of Colorado fear; answer this simple question:
What’s stopping the progressives from doing so now?
You haven’t got an answer. The only thing you got is fear. I’d take the view of constitutional law professor Randy Barnett over your hysterical fear eight days a week.
“We’re on an unsustainable course, and we have a Congress that recognizes no limits on its own powers.” — Randy Barnett
http://www.kevingutzman.com/articles/assets/ArticleVConvention_04212010.pdf
A thoughtful post, but I must say that while I agree with many of your points, I disagree completely with the conclusion you reach that an Article V Convention would be dangerous, because we can’t trust politicians.
First of all, why should we trust politicians? Answer, we should not. That’s why we have elections - so we can throw the bastards out. But they have rigged the game, and it is next to impossible to eject an incumbent protected by gerrymandering and big money. That’s why a term limit amendment is needed.
That’s just one example. And sure, politicians at the state level can also be expected to act in their own interests. Precisely, and that’s why we can expect them to be amenable to reining in the Federal government. The whole process must be watched and guided, but in the end, the process itself makes inappropriate amendments difficult to get adopted. It is VERY hard to get done.
The likeliest result of an Amendment V Convention is that it will propose several amendments and none will be ratified. Sad but true, but even that result might prove useful merely by instilling the fear of God in the Congress.
By and large, though, it isn’t Congress that’s the problem, it is the army of unelected rule givers that must be reined in. That can only happen if the States are restored to their proper place. And that can’t happen until the 17th amendment - the glory of the Progressives - is repealed. That’s another one.
Most of Mark Levin’s Liberty amendments are worth considering and a few are really needed.
The risk of an Article V Convention is minimal if not negligible, and the potential reward is great.
Moreover, it is the only suggestion currently within my awareness short of a full scale armed uprising that has the slightest chance of affecting the country’s trajectory, as you put it.
> “I, perhaps overly cynically, believe that yes, even though that is a State process, the federal types *would* influence it. I think it is naive in the extreme to believe they would not.”
You’re only at most half right. Federal types as in progressive federal types aka liberals in government will ***attempt*** to influence it. Of course they will.
What you’re missing is the awakening. Yes, it’s happening, finally and just in time.
Once people are awake, the Left skulks off hoping for another Big Sleep opportunity.
The awakening is evident everywhere now since the election. People that have been on the outside and disinterested are now getting involved or stepping forward and asking questions. And I mean in a significant way of numbers; statistically speaking.
The fact that the GOPe has been so silent relatively about the Conservative base is revealing. As Sarah Palin brilliant said:
SARAH PALIN TO GOP ‘BELTWAY BOYS’ ON 2010 ELECTION: ‘YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT; THE TEA PARTY DID’
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/08/Sarah-Palin-Closes-Out-CPAC-Again
The awakening is spreading fast. The documentary film ‘Rocky Mountain Heist’ has exposed the Left for their Gruberesque plan:
http://rockymountainheist.com/
But the proof of the pudding is how the writer of the article that underlies this thread is thrashing about trying to incite fear in an Article V process while pointing out the Elephant in the Room which is that 66 of 99 state legislative chambers are controlled by republicans most of which identify with Tea Party conservatism
What is the Tea Party? It is a set of issues:
Tea Party on Budget & Economy
• Against Bush’s bailout bill & against Obama’s stimulus bill. (Feb 2012)
• Act of cowardice by lawmakers to inflict generational harm. (Feb 2012)
• OpEd: Congress waives PAYGO even when slightly inconvenient. (Feb 2012)
• Fiscal responsibility applies to both Democrats & GOP. (Feb 2012)
• Taxation & regulation replaces wisdom of the market. (Feb 2012)
• Audit the fed: Congressional oversight needed. (Feb 2012)
• Fed’s job has been to print money; that drives up inflation. (Feb 2012)
• Financial responsibility to cut $61B from budget. (Jan 2012)
• 2009: Tea Party sparked by opposing mortgage bailout. (Jan 2012)
• Economic pessimism: Great Recession part of downward spiral. (Jan 2012)
• Don’t raise debt limit; already facing economic Armageddon. (Jan 2012)
• Budget woes more about coming collapse than redistribution. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party made all politicians look seriously at $15T debt. (Dec 2011)
• Tea Party movement reborn based on massive 2008 bailout. (Aug 2010)
• When times are tough, government should make do with less. (Aug 2010)
• Bush’s Wall Street bailout ignited Tea Party firestorm. (Aug 2010)
• Movement born in objection to stimulus plan. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Civil Rights
• Majority oppose gay marriage or civil unions. (Jan 2012)
• More male Tea Party members, but more female leadership. (Jan 2012)
• Racial minorities seen as undeserving, but so are whites. (Jan 2012)
• 2010: Supported two Southern blacks for House; both won. (Oct 2011)
• Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. (Aug 2010)
• OpEd: Few African-Americans at Tea Party events. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Corporations
• Corporate tax rate worldwide declining, except in US. (Feb 2012)
Tea Party on Education
• Vouchers give students and parents the power of choice. (Feb 2012)
• Shut down failing schools; end collective bargaining. (Feb 2012)
• Vouchers work: Schools either get better, or they close. (Feb 2012)
• College kids should get jobs, not Food Stamps. (Jan 2012)
• Dismiss objectionable intellectuals as over-educated elites. (Jan 2012)
Tea Party on Energy & Oil
• Outraged at phase out of incandescent lightbulbs. (Apr 2012)
• All-of-the-Above instead of Cap-and-Trade. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Foreign Policy
• Truth, justice, and American way are needed worldwide. (Feb 2012)
Tea Party on Free Trade
• First principles: individual freedom & free markets. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Government Reform
• Limited role for government; not solution to every problem. (Apr 2014)
• True the Vote: like driving and seeing police following you. (Apr 2014)
• Constitutionalism means the rules are reliable. (Apr 2012)
• Get state legislative “voice votes” on the record. (Apr 2012)
• Government jobs (takers) replacing manufacturing (makers). (Feb 2012)
• Return to original four federal Departments. (Feb 2012)
• Earmarking is an odious practice, even if only a few billion. (Feb 2012)
• Interstate compacts are preferable to federal action. (Feb 2012)
• 2005 Kelo case revises the Fifth Amendment. (Feb 2012)
• The Repeal Amendment: 2/3 of states to overrule federal laws. (Feb 2012)
• We’re gaining control of DC, but just getting started. (Jan 2012)
• Restore constitutionally-limited government. (Jan 2012)
• Insist on legislators actually reading bills before voting. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party supports G.O.P.: Government Of the People. (Nov 2011)
• Invoke Boston Tea Party’s anger against establishment. (Nov 2010)
• Pressure Congress for moratorium on pork. (Nov 2010)
• Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Aug 2010)
• Permanently repeal capital gains & death taxes. (Aug 2010)
• Not about right-versus-left, but about big-versus-small. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Gun Control
• Important goal to safeguard Second Amendment rights. (Jan 2012)
Tea Party on Health Care
• OpEd: ObamaCare & bailouts both just throw money at problem. (Apr 2012)
• Rise up against takeover of banks, cars, & health insurance. (Feb 2012)
• Replace ObamaCare with healthcare interstate compacts. (Feb 2012)
• Tort reform needed to avoid costs of “Defensive Medicine”. (Feb 2012)
• ObamaCare was forced down our throats. (Jan 2012)
• OpEd: Tea Party came from angry “No to ObamaCare!”. (Nov 2011)
• Civil society is reasserting itself at the ballot. (Jun 2011)
Tea Party on Homeland Security
• Outraged by how citizens are manhandled at airports. (Sep 2012)
Tea Party on Immigration
• Oppose use of government services by illegal immigrants. (Jan 2012)
Tea Party on Jobs
• Real unemployment is 18%, counting under-employment. (Jan 2012)
Tea Party on Principles & Values
• Framework for Tea Party in 2002; didn’t ignite until 2009. (Jun 2013)
• Tea Partiers took action and made it up as we went along. (Feb 2012)
• Movement strategy: Prod, Pressure, and Primary. (Feb 2012)
• OpEd: Tea Party won’t become well-organized political party. (Jan 2012)
Anti-Establishment
• 2009: finally confronting big-government leviathan head-on. (Feb 2013)
• OpEd:Tying Tea Party to DC politicians de-energizes movement. (Jun 2012)
• 2011 freshman class felt unambiguous mandate to change DC. (Apr 2012)
• Be suspicious of politicians wrapped in Tea Party banner. (Apr 2012)
• Conservative Congress more important than GOP Congress. (Apr 2012)
• 2010:Knocked off establishment picks in GOP Senate primaries. (Feb 2012)
• GOP is lesser of 2 evils: eternal vigilance on both parties. (Feb 2012)
• Obama is subject of immense suspicion of illegitimacy. (Jan 2012)
• OpEd: Common dislike of incumbents and establishment. (Jun 2011)
• Unconventional because they’ve had enough of establishment. (Feb 2011)
• Original 1773 Tea Party fought ruling establishment also. (Feb 2011)
• 2010: Championed Marco Rubio over Florida GOP candidate. (Aug 2010)
• 2010: Championed Mike Lee over Utah GOP candidate. (Aug 2010)
• OpEd: Seize control of the Republican Party. (Aug 2010)
Origins and Demographics
• 2010: 52 Tea Party Caucus members among 87 GOP freshmen. (Apr 2012)
• Tea Party Patriots organized after Rick Santelli rant. (Feb 2012)
• Grassroots activists: not just Republicans, even some Dems. (Jan 2012)
• Bottom-up Tea Party differs from city to city. (Jan 2012)
• About 160,000 active participants in Tea Party movement. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party Demographics: Mostly middle-aged and beyond. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party includes some astroturf and some grassroots. (Jan 2012)
• More Americans identify with Tea Party than Dems or GOP. (Feb 2011)
• No national organization speaks for the Tea Party. (Feb 2011)
• 9/12/09 Coalition: fiscal restraint & Constitutional limits. (Aug 2010)
• 2009: Libertarians included in Massachusetts Tea Party. (Aug 2010)
• Feb. 2009: “It’s time for another Tea Party”. (Aug 2010)
Political Philosophy
• We, the people, feel threatened as our nation slips away. (Feb 2012)
• Many people are Tea Partiers and don’t know it. (Jan 2012)
• Stop the blame game; start common sense solutions. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party message: we the people are coming. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Party includes both moral conservatives & libertarians. (Jan 2012)
• Borrow Alinsky’s community organizing methods from the left. (Jan 2012)
• Defining book: The Five Thousand Year Leap. (Jan 2012)
• Separate Tea Party from GOP response to State of the Union. (Jan 2012)
• Tea Partiers are Constitutional Conservatives. (Nov 2011)
• OpEd: we love America & dislike what’s happening to her. (Nov 2010)
• Contract From America: Our liberties are inherent. (Aug 2010)
• Movement for change; including Alinsky Rules for Radicals. (Aug 2010)
• A social movement, not a political party,& hence sustainable. (Aug 2010)
Tea Party on Social Security
• Younger Americans might give up receiving Social Security. (Feb 2012)
• Older citizens have earned Social Security. (Jan 2012)
• Increase the payroll tax to sustain Social Security. (Jan 2012)
• Think Tanks support privatization; grassroots does not. (Jan 2012)
Tea Party on Tax Reform
• FairTax & flat tax: on consumption instead of production. (Feb 2012)
• 80% oppose taxing the rich, compared to 56% in GOP. (Jan 2012)
• T.E.A.: Taxed Enough Already. (Nov 2011)
Tea Party on Technology
• Social media allows organizing opposition without Party. (Jun 2012)
• Open-source community grew to 1.2 million in 2 months. (Feb 2012)
• Leadership opposes net neutrality; grassroots has no opinion. (Jan 2012)
• Ordinary folks, dismissed by MSNBC and establishment pundits. (Nov 2010)
Tea Party on Welfare & Poverty
• Support earned entitlements, but oppose unearned handouts. (Jan 2012)
The 17th amendment broke it. If this convention does nothing else, it should repeal the 17th amendment and give the Senate back to the States to control.
-PJ
But only if it is done one amendment at a time, and then all of the admendments get ratified.
Or do you expect there to be one massive "comprehensive" amendment that says "The entire Constitution is repealed and replaced with this...?"
And then that amendment would be ratified by 38 states?
-PJ
You do realize that the states were the original sovereigns, right?
You do realize that the Constitution was written with the expectation that it was the states that would be the closest governing body to the people, and therefore would be most protective of their rights, right?
You should read Federalist 46.
Here is Publius' analysis of it.
-PJ
At some point, I would expect self-preservation of our politicians to kick in if a "Constitution-destroying amendment" made it out of the convention.
It's one thing to repeal the 17th amendment and give appointment of Senators back to the states. It's quite another thing to fundamentally change Article I. If Article I were to be gutted, effectively eliminating the House and Senate, then our current politicians would lose their positions to a new form of government. Some might think that they could run for those offices and win, but they would no longer hold the seats that they secured under the current Constitution.
That should be enough to get incumbents on the side of protecting against "Constitution-destroying" amendments.
-PJ
Just a quick point of order...
I don't think there is anything magical about a "7 year limit." I think it's just that recent proposed amendments had a 7 year ratification limit built into them by Congress when they drafted the amendments. The Conventions don't have to bind themselves with 7 year limits if they don't want to.
-PJ
The left is already having a field day with the Constitution. How do you propose to stop them?
You simply do not understand the process. This IS the Constitution at work.
It is not that I do not understand the process, just I fear the consequences and most of all the unintended ones ... This is not the right political climate to initiate such a thing.
If you do, in this climate, you will quickly lose control, and it will be taken over by the socialists. Have you thought long and hard about that point?
It’s the way we got Obola twice - people sat home because they had some nit to pick with McCain or Romney. Those election processes were lost to the socialists.
There is every chance that the people in the middle will turn against whatever you intend to propose. Conservatives have word of mouth, the socialist have the MSM ... You and we will end up regretting the whole thing.
If you had the right “climate” you would no longer need a convention.
I've been away on a business trip all week, flying all day. I'll have to re-read this later this weekend when I'm not exhausted and simultaneously wired on caffeine. :-/
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.