Posted on 05/02/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Jacquerie asked me, “Why do you people feel the need to trash the events and decisions that lead to our constitution?”
That’s a strange question for someone advocating altering the Constitution itself, when the Constitution is not at all the problem.
What I have provided are the words of the people who created that Constitution, and their intent behind it. Nowhere is is reasonable, much less rational, to write more Constitution, when government is quite deliberately ignoring what is already written.
In fact an Article V Convention is perhaps the worst possible idea given our current condition in which so many are so prepared and eager to overthrow the Constitution and government, creating something in its stead that will have you horrified you even wanted a Convention.
It appears you really have not thought this out all that well.
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls ...”
Jaquerie, asking if I am “against republican government” is a very silly question.
I am whether you know what that “Republican form of government” we are guaranteed by the Constitution actually means.
One thing it does not mean, is to subject the very form and principle of our government to the populist whim of the people, overturning it, because the federal government has become deliberately illegitimate and criminal.
We face many grave problems currently, none of which originate from the Constitution itself, and all of which will be irrevocably worsened by altering that Constitution.
I have read your through your comments looking for a shred of practical logic and an awareness of facts and their importance and I conclude you are very short-sighted.
Your assertions that somehow Mark Levin’s suggested amendments will “enshrine” the judiciary and enable judicial supremacy make no sense. In effect, the nonsense you create renders all of your other comments suspect although I gave benefit of the doubt.
To follow your logic is to call red blue, blue green and to declare that the Sun settles in the East. There’s no basis for your relabeling.
And to rely on a body whose members “take an oath to the Constitution” defies what in reality that body is allowing to be done to the Constitution. What that body is presently allowing is precisely why the Constitution includes Article V language to allow the States to redress the dereliction of federal government.
Your core thesis seems to be to let things remain as they are allowing people to use elections to redress their grievances. But Relying on elections ignores the diseased fruit now appearing from the last election as well as several elections before it.
Your main reservation seems that state legislators are as or more corrupt than federal elected members. Perhaps that is true in the state where you are from and undoubtedly it is true in other states such as Colorado. One poster from Colorado made blatant mention on a prior FR thread that Coloradan state legislators could not be trusted to amend the US Constitution. At one point I am sure Michelle Malkin would agree but not permanently as she and others in that state are succeeding to create awareness to what’s at stake thereby changing the composition and dynamic of the Colorado State Legislature. And she and her group are but one example in a red state that liberals have been trying to turn blue.
Things are not as static as you presuppose, neither are they linear. There is a strong feedback loop to voter sentiment and the outcomes can be extremely volatile. The liberal press tries as they may to disrupt and change this feedback to conform to its agenda but their penetration of communication channels is less and less effective over time.
The entire Article V movement is a reaction based on the feedback of the diseased fruit resulting from federal elections. The same impetus for Article V stems from the same aggregate energy that put sixty-six of ninety-nine state legislative bodies into the hands of conservatives. The momentum of those legislative bodies towards asserting Article V is a result of the feedback loop that you ignore.
And to say that the corruption of state legislators is as ignominious as that of federal legislators also ignores the reality that voters are moving at the state level after having discounted the hope of federal level expression of their will.
And as voters move at the state level you also ignore importantly that there is no Beltway culture, no Capitol Hill police, no restricted underground trolley system, no federal bodyguard or any apparatus that serves to insulate state legislators from their voters as exists for federally elected offices.
State legislators are but a walk down the street, a short drive down a road or a phone call from a voter that wants answers. State legislators come from all backgrounds, from retired community police officers to neighborhood dentists. They are more frequently responsive and faithful to folks because they are so much closer to people and have no castle walls and moats to retreat to. There are 7,398 state legislators. Some are pillars of their communities with deep knowledge of the US Constitution and its history. Some are libertarians with scrambled eggs for brains resulting from chain smoking marijuana joints and ear drums blown by thousands of hours listening to the Grateful Dead. It matters not as they are statistically in the aggregate much more in tune with their electorate and their electorate wants by and large grass roots conservative change.
An important observation is to note that thirty-eight (38) states and their voters acted to uphold traditional marriage but have been stymied by federal courts. For 38 States and their voters to pursue actions on any singular issue is a testament that contradicts your assertions. These 38 states show there is more that enough voter power to effect an Article V induced ratification for amending the US Constitution.
As to your capitulating assertion that amendments will simply be ignored; yes, that is possible. Certainly the 10th Amendment is ignored or subordinated.
But again you ignore the feedback loop.
Contrary to your assertions there are several amendment ideas for States to propose and ratify in extremis that will not only rein in the federal government but if necessary freeze it until deep reform becomes the prime directive of Congress. Indeed should the need arise there are several devices the States can use to take Congress to the proverbial woodshed with. But I don’t think States will ever need to consider such devices. All it will take to get the Beltway under control is just one proposed and ratified Article V induced constitutional amendment by States; just one is all that is needed for the federalis to know their game is up.
It's up to the individual state, but the most likely method is for the delegates to be chosen amongst or appointed by the state legislatures. Consider this an end run around the miserable 17th amendment. Unlike a NY senator who can glide to D.C. on the votes of NYC and Albany alone, the state legislature is comprised of legislators from the rural districts which trend more Conservative.
The GOP currently enjoys a majority in the majority of state houses.
Indeed.
<>The same impetus for Article V stems from the same aggregate energy that put sixty-six of ninety-nine state legislative bodies into the hands of conservatives.<>
<>All it will take to get the Beltway under control is just one proposed and ratified Article V induced constitutional amendment by States; just one is all that is needed for the federalis to know their game is up.<>
Nice.
Dear Stupid,
In light of the fact the republic is dead I would rather have 13 or 14 Stalinistic states, 36-37 "normal" republic states and a neutered FedGov™, than the status quo. You must be a fascists at heart, you prefer all chains made equally and to the same federal specification.
Signed,
Someone who thikns you are a boot licking Fascist.
<>. . . asking if I am “against republican government” is a very silly question.<>
Your avoidance answers the question. Thank you.
Had you truly read and understood my piece on the Constitution's Trojan horse, you would know that answer. I frankly don't think Madison had a clue what Hamilton was up to.
Politically, 1776-1787 was a complex time, which is why you read so very little of it at FR or anywhere else. Yes, radical Whig ideology centered on the necessity of virtuous people in republics. In straightforward city-states, as in ancient Greece, in which the people were the only participants, then yes, a cohesive and virtuous people had to be had. The new 1776-1777 American republics also relied on a virtuous citizenry. While they were not quite constituted on the ancient city-state model, they were close.
Each new republic was dominated by the legislature. Most were bicameral, but PA and GA were single house. The governors and judiciary were kept weak and totally dependent on the legislatures.
These new democratic republics were very close to democracies, i.e. annual elections, majority rule without protections for the property of the minority. During the war, it gave rise to paper money, legislative override of judicial decisions, screwing of creditors, and general mutability of the law. It was thought that state governments would improve after the war, but they didn't.
By 1787 it was clear the thirteen experiments in republicanism were failing, that it was chimera to rely on the good nature of a moral and virtuous people. What passed for government under the Articles of Confederation was dissolving. European monarchs watched the US and were certain they could pick us apart as we flailed about.
The purpose of government, as stated in our Declaration, to secure our unalienable rights, wasn't happening. It was time to frame a government that did.
Reliance on decent and moral people is not the underpinning of our constitution. The constitution's underpinning was separation of power, and the first and most important separation was between the new government and the states that created it. A senate of the states made the government federal, and divided the all-important legislative power between the people and the states.
The 17th rendered our government democratic, just like the first new American republics of 1776. We are headed for the same result.
The difference is that in eleven short years, our Framers recognized structural problems in government and didn't shy away from correcting mistakes.
Today, 102 years after the 17A, there are knuckleheads at FR who think the constitutional structure of 1913 should remain written in stone.
No, I'm against a political fool's errand, handing the keys to my final subjugation to an observable and demonstrable enemy. Are you forgetting self-government?
Yeah, I read it. Now I understand your confusion.
Rather than rely on historical snippets or what others say about others, I suggest you read and study the available, original source documents.
I found several mistakes and mischaracterizations. I won’t waste my time pointing them out to you.
You’re an intelligent person and I find it uncharacteristic of you to be unable to grasp the context in which Soros made his statements.
Soros fears the Article V movement in the United States. His statements were trumpeted calls to the liberal base that he stands willing to direct funds to Article V ***counterrevolutionary*** efforts.
The problem Soros finds is he is, for the moment, outgunned by the sheer numbers of conservatives on the ground. No doubt he will have his people continue studying ways to impeded conservative success using Article V, or in the alternative ....
he will call for Constitutional Amendments that may gain popular appeal using subliminal language but hiding a liberal agenda. This is nothing new.
One amendment that on the surface appears ***emotionally*** resonating is one that Soros supports and advanced by Schumer, calling for an amendment to regulate campaign spending.
https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/sjres19/BILLS-113sjres19rs.pdf
“Defending corporations and billionaires “is no winning position” so Cruz has framed his case as if Democrats are trying to repeal the First Amendment, Schumer and Deutch wrote.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Schumer-Cruz-free-speech/2014/07/17/id/583179
The above attack on ‘billionaire bogeymen’ is designed as just another class warfare tactic to appeal to voters who are to be frightened into believing that the ultra wealthy are stealing elections and the solution is to give Congress the Constitutional power to control it.
Of course Ted Cruz called them on it.
Soros’ bid to get liberals into the Article V game has failed. Liberals looking at the sheer areas and numbers they must cover enables them to write funding plans to Soros’ people but they cannot complete the sections of how the plan can be executed to success. That is because contrary to their thinking, Americans of rural areas tend to be smarter than their city dwelling counterparts. And rural areas are where conservatives vest their energy and strength in raising a successful Article V campaign.
In other words, it’s not possible to buy out the Article V movement. Rural populations are too independent.
But there is recourse for Soros and his network as to Article V. If he and his can’t bribe, coerce or connive the existing rural base, they can import their own which is happening now under the guise of Executive Amnesty. A few communities are up in arms about the recent ‘newcomers’ that have been settled into their towns and county areas. They see that they are now suddenly on the frontlines of a larger fight.
. A "fix" with which I would expect you would have little disagreement. The real solution is to break down the government/mass-media educational monopoly.
If, as you say, state level officials are so accessible, so “responsive and faithful to folks,” why then are they still so out of control? Why haven’t we cleaned out the corruption in our state capitals already?
Why are they continuing to allow the mass slaughter of little babies within their jurisdictions, in spite of the fact that they swore a sacred oath to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person within their jurisdictions, as both the U.S. and all of the state constitutions explicitly and imperatively require?
Why are they allowing the implementation of Obamacare within their states, even though it as unconstitutional as anything could be?
Why are they continuing to allow judges to run roughshod over their constitutional limits, imposing immoral edicts on the people in the form of sodomite fake “marriage,” or literal judicial death sentences imposed on innocent people like Terri Schindler Schiavo, and suchlike?
Why will none of them deign to rein in the education establishment that is ruining children’s hearts of minds with godless atheism and anti-American, communist ideas?
I could add dozens of other examples of the current failures of state governments right off the top of my head, but that should be enough to get the point across.
As to Levin’s proposed amendment, I would ask you to give it a lot more thought. It begins with the wrong premise, one of judicial supremacy, and ends with the enshrinement of judicial supremacy in the Constitution. In fact, the implementation of judicial supremacy, either passively as is being done now, or by amendment, is a functional coup d’etat. It is the changing of our constitutional form of government, with its checks and balances, into a judicial oligarchy. Why would anyone accept that? It’s one of the main reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.
Again, the problem is not the Constitution, imperfect though it may be. The problem is with the understanding, and wisdom, and character of those who are sworn to support and defend it. Fix that. And don’t allow yourself to be diverted from that crucial task.
You’re correct. No disagreement at all.
In the end, the whole responsibility falls on the sovereign, which in the case of America is We the People.
If the sovereign’s ministers are failing to do their job, a wise sovereign gets new ministers.
And what makes you think he wouldn't do that?
The problem Soros finds is he is, for the moment, outgunned by the sheer numbers of conservatives on the ground.
Whilst the conservatives are outgunned by the sheer number of brainwashed idiots from public schools and hungry takers flooding over the borders. There are enough States dominated by Marxist politics that the kind of changes you or I would prefer would never be ratified.
The above attack on ‘billionaire bogeymen’ is designed as just another class warfare tactic to appeal to voters who are to be frightened into believing that the ultra wealthy are stealing elections and the solution is to give Congress the Constitutional power to control it.
Of course Ted Cruz called them on it.
How big is his megaphone?
In other words, it’s not possible to buy out the Article V movement. Rural populations are too independent.
It's not the liberals I fear as much as it is our creditors, namely, the people who fund liberal causes in the first place.
If he and his can’t bribe, coerce or connive the existing rural base, they can import their own which is happening now under the guise of Executive Amnesty.
To my mind, for the most part that's already happened. But then, I live in California. You will note where Commander Xero is trying to deliver those busloads.
If you take a good hard look at rural counties in America, many have had their resource industries hollowed out to the point that the governing bureaucrats and the welfare/meth-head dependencies they produced outnumber said conservative landowner base. Considerably. Witness Montana as a Democrat dominated State. It really would not take that much to do the same to Idaho, Arizona, or finish off the job in New Mexico.
I'm pleased to say that there are a lot of people reading this article lately. We gots to make'm wize cidizens.
I've read the entire Federal convention debate (Farrand's Record, not just Madison's Notes), including excerpts from the philosophers to which the debaters were referring, along with The Federalist, and the Anti-Federalist papers.
For you to suggest I haven't and should, considering the quotes in that article is to completely and willfully misrepresent its content.
You just blew it, again. This time totally.
BTW, as to what I mean by “our creditors” I want you to think of what would happen to the Federal budget if they decided to change their minds at the next bond auction.
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.