Posted on 02/04/2015 5:07:48 AM PST by cotton1706
Sarah Palin, toying with a presidential bid, has joined a growing effort to choke off President Obama’s plan to rule through executive order by calling a “Convention of States” to draw up amendments limiting his power.
“This idea is really the last recourse of the citizens to rein in D.C. and restore our country to a Constitutionally limited federal government,” Palin said in a new Facebook post endorsing the plan pushed by the Virginia-based group Citizens for Self Governance.
She is lending her efforts to urge legislators in Richmond to approve having Virginia join in the convention, already endorsed by over a dozen states.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Let us just feed them our children, maybe they will get full and leave us alone.
That is a common concern. Here's an FR post, not a blog, on the topic. It's good:
I am one freeper that said if you thought the Supreme Court would overturn ObamaCare you were deluded. I also said Congress would not overturn it either, once Roberts legalized it. I am batting 1000 on these clowns but if Article 5 can't fix the problem then 
What Difference Does It Make?
Why in the world are some freepers opposed to the peaceful means to restore republican freedom? All power is vested in we, the sovereign people, not the national government nor Obama.
It is our right and duty to call a convention to propose amendments.
> “Recall how the Pubbies (and most on this forum) KNEW the SC and Chief Justice Roberts would declare Obamacare illegal? “
Conservative leaders had no such allusions.
On March 21, 2010, Rush Limbaugh warned that the democrats were using the FDR playbook. I did research on that and posted to FR among many other venues.
FDR argued to the public that Social Security was just an old age pensioner’s trust fund but in court he had his lawyers argue it was a tax. FDR’s exact words were posted here on FR of why he did what he did. And when the news leaked from inside the court hearings that Obama’s lawyers were arguing that Obamacare was a tax, that was posted here on FR as well. Plenty of people predicted ahead of time that the Commerce Clause arguments would be upheld but the tax arguments could be upheld as well. And both were upheld giving Obama his victory from the tax angle.
>>And both were upheld giving Obama his victory from the tax angle.<<
My understanding has been that the Commerce Clause application was NOT upheld, that Roberts used Taxation to get around his own strict understanding of the Commerce Clause, and that it remains, even for him, a means to constrain federal power. Clarify that for me if I am wrong.
In any event, one of Levin’s proposed Article V amendments has the purpose of strengthening and strictly enforcing the Commerce Clause.
Roberts ruled for the Commerce Clause arguments advanced by Cuccinelli. But Roberts also gave into Obama’s tax arguments. So it was a ‘mixed’ decision. But since Obamacare was allowed to survive as a Tax, then in reality and practicality, Obama won.
The Commerce Clause is still abused, greatly so. Mark Levin and others, especially Constitutional scholar and professor Randy Barnett, have proposed thoroughly researched and well-crafted amendments to address the abuses of Commerce Clause rulings.
But in the case of Obamacare, Commerce Clause counter-arguments from Obama’s lawyers were not advanced; not adopted. But as said it was moot because Obama was allowed to proceed with his law under tax authorities.
.....”convention of states and the ratification of any subsequent amendments won’t happen until long after Obama has left office”.....
True.....which is why none of these things deter Obama....better would be they simply withhold funds.
....”Can there be any doubt that Giv Palin has more intellect than any politician in American history?”.....
Well in this case she’s just getting on board of what has already been in progress with the states....but she does cheer-lead that which she believes is the paths to go.
Thanks all!
Thanks all!
I’m opposed to the convention of states idea, but I won’t characterize it as “pissing into the wind.” Some rather smart people whom I happen to respect are for it. Add Sarah Palin to that list.
“If you put the USConst on the table, you put ALL OF IT AT ONCE - not just the parts You want to change.”
With respect, that’s a tired canard. Anything that a convention comes up with would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. If 3/4 of the states would buy off on getting rid of the the first, second, and fourth amendments, then the republic is doomed anyways.
I oppose a con con for the exact opposite reason. I view the chances of a con con coming up with anything that is remotely worthwhile AND that would get past 3/4 of the states as being pretty small.
>>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,<<
Is it too sanguine to assume that most Patriots would stand together in extremis? Still, as the Article V approach is gathering momentum of discussion and action, it is clear that some here have increased their vehemence, using disparagement, ridicule, stale arguments that are already well-answered and swept aside, and yes, feigned or willful ignorance - to undermine the hard efforts of good and honorable FRiends. For me it has the stench of sabotage. There are some not to be trusted, that is clear.
Clever, but doesn’t answer a very basic question. And, once these selected elites, whom you and I don’t select, get rid of the Constitution, you will indeed be feeding them your children.
I saw a message on Facebook from a group called the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) that calls on folks to tell their state senator to vote “no” on a Convention of States (they call it “Con Con”) because it could mean the 2nd Amendment could be changed to restrict gun ownership. This made little sense to me, since the only two issues at hand are limiting the power of the Executive branch and enacting a Balanced Budget Amendment. Naturally, I smelt a rat.
I did some research on NAGR and it appears they are a pretty shady group - they are awash in money (they spend two and a half times what the all-powerful NRA spends on lobbying) and have a real weirdo for a leader. They have been caught telling lies about conservative Republican lawmakers’ views on gun control (Cantor and Rigell in Virginia) in the election cycle. They did the same in Colorado. I’m starting to think this group is a Trojan Horse for defeating conservatives in primaries in order to give the Democrat challenger a chance at winning. They got rid of Cantor (albeit it backfired because they got the even more conservative Tea Party David Brat) and they failed at getting Rigell.
I also think they will try to fearmonger among the gun rights crowd to get them to oppose a Convention.
Nice theory but the ouster of Cantor had nothing to do with this organization NAGR. Cantor's demise was a hard fought battle of local Tea Party activists getting behind a unknown candidate and pushing him over the line.
Ain't it the truth.
For all of you opposed to the Convention of States I say fine. Then it’s on to secession and a bloody Civil War. I am down with that, bring it.
Doesn’t negate the theory - just means more was at work in Cantor’s/Brat’s district than NAGR. NAGR still lied about Cantor’s views on gun control (said he supported Obama), just as they did about Rigell and Joe Manchin up in WV.
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.