A PERMANENT ANSWER TO SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABUSES (Hostage)

Now it is clear more than ever that the Federal Government needs to be checked BY THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES.

Neither morality nor common sense can be 'legislated' via Congress ***effectively***. It just cannot be done adequately.

We need our states to assert AS SOON AS POSSIBLE their Article V constitutional right to AMEND OUR US CONSTITUTION,

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

To understand what must NOW be done will require us to think deep and to think of something that as Mark Levin says “is a solution as big as the problem” meaning a solution that gets its hands around the ‘whole problem’. And it has to be quick because time is of the essence.

(1) It takes 3/4’s of states presently equal to 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment to the US Constitution thereby making the amendment a part of the US Constitution.

Now some may think ... “but Congress can amend the Constitution”. Think about this. Will the present makeup of Congress amend anything to express the Will of the People? The answer is absolutely not, they won’t even get it into a committee.

Think about it some more in terms of the 10th Amendment. Is the 10th Amendment respected, observed, utilized? No, it is not. It has been subordinated by other amendments or ignored altogether.

This lack of power is actually a loss of power as a direct result of the 17th Amendment extinguishing the power of state legislatures before Congress.

NOTE: the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments were all from the year 1913. They were all a stain on the US Constitution and serve as a clear illustration of how ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to problems and conflicts of the day result in disaster. We must avoid these types of 'knee-jerk' mistakes by ensuring our amendment is both broad and specific AND IN THE SPIRIT OF THE FOUNDERS.

THEREFORE, if WE THE PEOPLE through our state legislatures are to consider amending our US Constitution by asserting Article V, then we must be very careful, very thorough, and we must understand the CORE OF THE PROBLEM. We must not be 'all over the map'. We must be united. In all likelihood we only get one shot at this in our lifetime.

The root of the problem is the 17th Amendment. We can propose to repeal it and some very respected FREEPERS advocate for doing just that. But in my opinion repealing the 17th Amendment takes too long and is not necessary to solve the problem. Also the 17th is laden with emotional symbolism because it gave a power to vote to the people. In effect, to repeal it will launch a debate and war in society that will end up following so many directions that it will smother the entire reason of why we needed to do it in the first place; we risk the reason for the repeal to getting lost in the noise and being forgotten.

Let’s look at the problem from a slightly different angle. If we can’t get at the root of the problem, can we get at the core of the problem?

An illustration is needed that shows how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism thereby restoring our liberty and saving our Republic. Note this illustration condenses several of Mark Levin’s suggested Liberty Amendments and incorporates valuable input from concerned Freepers.

To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the states and to restore effective suffrage of state legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:

************************************************
Section 1. A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.

Section 2. Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.

Section 3. Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, specific federal court decisions and specific executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void. ************************************************

Section 3 of the above illustration puts an end to the social tyranny of the federal government. The 28th Amendment can survive as a predominant amendment of the US Constitution when voters and state legislatures unite to fight together.

(1) Strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:

(2) Strongly recommend everyone to urge their respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it also.

(3) Put it on your to-do list to find out who is your State Representative and who is your State Senator. Get their names, addresses and phone numbers. You will be astonished at how accessible and neighborly they can be.

Federalist #43:

"To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only. ''That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it.

Federalist #85:

The intrinsic difficulty of governing THIRTEEN STATES at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
[snip]
This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.
But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton writes that the pre-17th amendment Senate and the Article V power to call for proposing Conventions were meant to put states on equal footing with the federal government.

Hamilton writes that the threat of states calling an Article V convention is intended as a check on a federal government that ignores their interests.

Hamilton writes that Article V gives no discretion to Congress, other than that they are obligated to call the Convention.

Hamilton recognizes that factions of states may agree on one topic and disagree on another; that these factions are fluid and malleable. Hamilton relies on the experience of the Convention delegates to sort it out.

Hamilton writes that each proposed amendment must stand on its own merits, and be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, and that a wholesale replacement of the Constitution is therefore impossible.

It is clear from the context of Federalist #43 and #85 that the convention is for the states to control the federal government, not for the federal government to coopt the convention to hurt the states.

-PJ

I will disagree with the idea that we should not ‘break the law’.

In a tyranny, failure to comply with tyranny and unjust rulings IS breaking the law.

The refusal to comply with the Crown’s edicts was ‘breaking the law’ and resulted in the entire might of Great Britain sent to subjugate the colonies and force their will.

We will see the same, though via economic means first - and then by brutal force.

Refusing to comply with tyranny MEANS we must break the “law” by refusing to comply with it.

Since the rule of law is dead in America, and the Beast in Government and the oligarchy make up laws and rules to suit themselves while exempting themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us - means that complying with the “law” is consenting to tyranny.

Scripture tells us that if people do not think and act as the Beast demands, they cannot make a living.

Here we are. Do we comply with this beast in D.C., or do we defy them and therefore break ‘the law’???

The truth is that there is no “law’ left in America anymore. What we have is rules enforced at the end of a gun to our heads.

How many are comfortable with living like that?

Methinks far more than you or I are willing to accept.

I appreciate your post. Very good points made, and I'll address them:

There MUST be term limits in government the politicians are bought and paid for corrupt to the core!!!!!

I agree that pols are bought & paid for and corrupt. It's clear that they are. However, as I've mentioned previously, term limits, like campaign contribution limits, restrict free speech. I cannot suggest that I know better than you who you should vote for, and I expect the same respect from you.

The ONLY fix for this IS term limits!!!!!

Incorrect. You'll see why here in a moment.

Our founders NEVER envisioned public service to be a life long career

You are 100% correct. In fact, the Founders envisioned public service much like jury duty. If you'll remember, George Washington did not actually want to be President. He did it because he felt it was his civic duty. Cut the profits from serving, and you'll cut down on career pols. If they were paid minimum wage, or less, serving as an elected official would be as it was intended: Civic duty instead of career opportunity.

Unfortunately, we live in an atmosphere where being an elected official means a major opportunity to line your pockets: special interest $$$, book deals, guaranteed pensions/healthcare and quite likely, when it's all over, a cushie spot with a lobbying organization, law firm, bank, etc. Of COURSE the pols are gonna make it career.

Instead of term limits, we should be pushing amendments that would make public service look a whole lot more like jury duty - a heavy imposition, but a civic duty.

I think you're making two arguments: 1) reform amendments will be invaded by subterfuge but with at least a nod toward constitutional government;

No, wrong.

The Current Constitution has been completely sabotaged under the guise of 'constitutionality' and 'rights' from all 3 branches of government working in collusion to support a dictatorship's agenda.

Facts dictate the truth that the entire current government is creating a tyranny under THE COLOR OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. It's a dictatorship with support from an oligarchy in both the legislatures AND the courts.

Today's ruling is proof of this.

Any Article V amendments will be rendered null and void just as the current Amendments and Constitutional limits on government have been rendered null and void.

What about that do you not understand??

2) tyrannical leaders will simply stage a coup and take over by force.

They already have, but not by force - via corruption and subterfuge under the color of 'rights' and 'fairness'. Call it a velvet coup if you like. But it is a coup nonetheless. As to 2), a forcible takeover of the government is beyond the scope of this discussion.

We have already been fundamentally transformed and laws are now written and passed in secret with dictatorial edicts being enforced by Alphabets.

The government is already taken over and the Republic has been demolished. As Mark Levin notes, we are a Post-Constitutional country. I submit we are become a Marxist/Fascist Oligarchy.

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.