Posted on 03/23/2016 1:39:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie
The states have submitted over four hundred Article V applications to congress for a convention to propose amendments, yet congress has never issued a resolution to convene. A congressional call to convention is not discretionary; it is a duty, a command that cannot be legitimately avoided, just like all of the other mandatory actions We the Sovereign People wrote into our governing document.
So you support Article V yet oppose a state amendments convention. Got it.
As for your contention that amendments can be ratified by fewer than 38 states, the mind boggles at your misunderstanding of the process.
So what’s your solution, armed resurrection? All you complainers about an Article V convention are very quiet about how you would go about reining in a feral government. This is the legal, constitutional method of doing so. If you refuse to even try it you’re basically ignoring the Constitution just like our common opponents. Unless you’re content with just moaning about how things are, and don’t want to try to change them for the better.
AUDIO: Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly in New Jersey
And to see many more corrections of misunderstandings:
We the people did no such thing. The Founding Fathers did it for the people.
The states have submitted over four hundred Article V applications to congress for a convention to propose amendments, yet congress has never issued a resolution to convene.
Because there has never been the required 2/3 of states needed to bring it forth.
So you support Article V yet oppose a state amendments convention. Got it.
You get nothing, and why I question your ability to understand English. I clearly said I support Article V of the Constitution. As it gives States the power to do what Congress fails to do. I also said that it must not be engaged in willy-nilly. That clear concise amendments need to be offered up. Then 34 of the 50 States must agree upon those amendments offered up. Done wrong, it could have a very disastrous effect, and not the intended affect desired.
I provided you with what a very well known and documented conservative had to say about the process. So if you have objections to her learned opinion, take it up with her and quit trying to assume you get what I stand for.
Beyond being irritating, it is uncalled for. You twist things around and in a rather demeaning way.
The convention idea is a born loser, any amendments that might be passed which give MORE power to the government will be followed to the letter and beyond while any that TAKE power from the governmnet will be studiously ignored, you cannot stop violations of the constitution by changing the constitution. I don’t know how to make it any plainer and beyond that I have no other comment.
In other words, nothing anyone can do has any chance of working, we’re all doomed. Geez, why don’t you just go ahead and commit suicide if you believe that. Me, I’ll work to set things right.
And I’ve provided you with a video response to Schlafly’s errors. I notice you’ve not even mentioned that she’s been refuted.
However, since there has never been a Constitutional Convention how it would actually play out is really an unknown. Since there is no specific rules laid out other than Congress shall call the Convention, he cannot guarantee that Congress will abide by his contention that the intentions were for the States to control the Convention. In fact how exactly would that work? With multiple States being involved, which State would be in control, if in fact any State is in control?
I didn't buy Andy's assertion that George Mason was against the Constitution, but rather he was suspicious of the Constitution being subverted, as it is being done today. That there needed to be an alternative way to override the U.S. Congress when it became corrupted. Not a question of if, but when, because power corrupts. The Constitution provided for State Legislations to select their Senators because they knew that they would act as limitations on terms of their Senators. The 17th Amendment destroyed that check & balance provision by granting the people to pick their Senators.
Since there has never been a Constitutional Convention I also reject Dr. Ferris's contentions that precedence has been established, or that his conception of that precedence would rule the day. The real problem and absolutely legitimate fear is that the Convention morph into something other than it's original limited intent, and more gets put on the table then what it was original convened for.
There in lies the biggest problem for me.
At the same token continuing down the same path is also a doomsday scenario, because expecting them, Congress, to do the right thing is a pipedream that has proven to not be the reality. It's a Catch-22 where both paths lead to possible destruction of this country as it was originally founded.
I suspect Thomas Jefferson was correct that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots. Then and only then are patriots in control of how this nation will go forward along the path as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers. I think a Constitutional Convention is fraught with pitfalls that are as likely to produce the bad results as it is to produce good results. That is my point.
Well it was an hour and 35 minutes long. On top of that I ate some dinner and talked with the wife before she went to work. Then I had to sit down and craft my response. LOL, impatient are we?
“Me, I’ll work to set things right.”
That’s what I’m afraid of.
I can guess. We need to exhaust all peaceful alternatives first.
Since there has never been a Constitutional Convention I also reject Dr. Ferris's contentions that precedence has been established, or that his conception of that precedence would rule the day. The real problem and absolutely legitimate fear is that the Convention morph into something other than it's original limited intent, and more gets put on the table then what it was original convened for.
I agree that the process would end up being nothing like the supporters think, although I don't worry about a runaway convention with a lot of bad amendments. I think a total cluster fiasco with nothing being accomplished is much more likely.
For example, Dr. Schlafly raised the notion of requiring proportional representation at the convention. I'm not sure who would win that debate but I can guarantee it would be litigated. Can you imagine the attention and turmoil as the issue wound its way to the Supreme Court?
What would the media do with the notion that Republicans are trying to push through constitutional amendments that may lack the support of the majority of citizens? I can just hear the cries of "one person, one vote" now.
I also don't understand why people are so sure the state legislators would be pure and just. In my experience they are politicians and just as self-interested and venal as our federal legislators.
Do we really think they're better equipped to resist the pressures they'll get than our federal legislators? I've always felt that if this movement were to ever get serious the big money interests would start exerting pressure in the states, and probably find it much easier to sway a few key state legislatures via jobs, etc. than it is to move the US Congress.
More to the point, I'm not sure my state legislators are the people best equipped to be amending our constitution.
I also question the wisdom of trying to make these changes in such an un-democratic way. I realize that's precisely the appeal of the process - as a way to bypass the majority - and I recognize that it's legitimate from a federalist constitutional point of view. But this is 2016 and I think such fundamental changes made via a nakedly partisan process would lack legitimacy in the eyes of a great many citizens, which is a recipe for disaster.
The whole Article V debate fascinates me, and I understand the appeal, but there's a reason it's never been utilized - and it isn't because we haven't had grievances against the federal government.
Too many seem to view it as a deus ex machina which will magically fix all of our problems. Of course, everyone has their own notions of what the problems to be solved are and what the solutions will be when the brave new wave of re-founders gather, but that's to be expected when you don't define exactly what you want.
I think it's telling that there's so much debate about the process and so little about what amendments will fix the problems and can actually be passed. Perhaps because it's easier to pour our hopes into a vaguely defined miracle process than to do the messy business of actually changing things in such a divided political environment.
I agree there would be a lot of litigation on the process, not just the proportional vote aspect. Such as who controls it, the States or Congress. If the States, what is the process for picking the State to be the leader. That is really one of the main problems with Article V, it really has no set guidelines as to how it is to be carried out. I believe that is because it was an after thought included in to placate George Mason who indeed had a healthy skepticism with regards to the Constitution.
Ah yes, the press. There was a good reason the Founding Fathers excluded the press. Had the press been allowed to be a part of the process a Constitution would have never been created. Just like fair trials are becoming harder and harder to hold. Indeed they would interject their biases into the process just like they do every other topic we might think of. Certainly not a helpful interjection either, especially if it was looking like a conservative outcome was eminent.
Delegates for the State do not have to be politicians, but they would still have their own biased views, and they may or might not be, what you think they are. If I remember correctly, Schlafly was mentioning a former Supreme Court Justice, Souter perhaps, or maybe Stevens. At any rate I assume the State legislators do select the delegates.
The Constitutional Convention merely creates the amendment, just like Congress would but then it still goes through the approval process that an Amendment would that came out of Congress itself. That process of getting an Amendment passed is actually part of Article V itself. So the majority never is in play anyway. Amendments are not voted on by the population. The Constitutional Convention part of Article V intent was really to create an Amendment creation method that bypassed Congress because they would never endeavor to create such an amendment. For example Term Limits on congressmen or Senators like the 22nd Amendment that put limitations on how many terms the President could serve. Most recently it was considered as a way to pass a balanced budget type of constraint upon Congress, which Congress is remiss to pass such constraint themselves.
There have been numerous complaints, but never enough support to get one called. It involves petitions from at least 34 states to call a constitutional convention, and none have ever attained that support though 400 or more have been attempted.
Yes, the solution to the problem is another area where troubles would arise and magnified by press involvement. There would be at least 2 solutions and most like more than 2. Getting agreement would be such a back and forth that by the time something was hammered out it would be ineffective most likely. But then most solutions are ineffective in reality, coming out of a body politic.
I think one of the reasons an amendment is rarely discussed beyond an idea, is because the amendment is hammered out in the convention itself. It may have a topic, such as balanced budget amendment, but no actual written down amendment to be voted upon. But honestly, since there has never been one I think it is pretty much understood that it is going no where.
If we actually had one I doubt the wording would ever be agreed upon to have it move through the process, and would be suspended, abandoned, deserted, or whatever that process might be called.
“Point to one instance where the electoral college voted for a candidate who was not a natural born citizen. Go ahead, we’ll wait. As to dispositive law on who is or is not a natural born citizen, point to that also.”
Barack Hussein Obama, Democrat. Candidate for President, electoral votes: 332. Ineligible due to not being a lawful U.S. Citizen or due to being a naturalized U.S. Citizen.
Mitt Romney, Republican, Candidate for President 2012, electoral votes: 206. May or may not have been ineligible due to his father, George Romney not having lawful U.S. Citizenship when Mitt Romney was born, leaving Mitt Romney with only naturalized U.S. Citizenship.
Barack Hussein Obama, Democrat. Candidate for President 2008, electoral votes: 365. Ineligible due to not being a lawful U.S. Citizen or due to being a naturalized U.S. Citizen. Ineligible due to not being a lawful U.S. Citizen or due to being a naturalized U.S. Citizen.
John McCain, Republican, Candidate for President 2008, electoral votes: 173. Ineligible due to being a naturalized U.S. Citizen because of birth abroad.
Charles Evans Hughes, Republican, Candidate for President 1916, electoral votes: 254. Ineligible due to being born with British citizenship and without U.S. Citizenship, because the father did not become a naturalized U.S. Citizen until many years after his son’s birth.
Chester A. Arthur, Republican, Candidate for Vice President and later succeeded as President, 1880 electoral votes: 214. Ineligible due to being born with British citizenship and without U.S. Citizenship, because the father did not become a naturalized U.S. Citizen until many years after his son’s birth.
James Buchanan, Jr., Democrat. Candidate for President 1856, electoral votes: 174. May or may not have been ineligible due to being born with British citizenship and without U.S. Citizenship, because the father may not have become a naturalized U.S. Citizen. I found no record at present of his father’s naturalization as a U.S. Citizen.
“The courts have recently tossed out all challenges to natural born citizenship that have been brought before them. Unless you can show something more than what you have, you’re only voicing your opinion.”
As stated before and contrary to your false denials, I have previously cited extensive case law sources and the opinions of Constitutional attorneys-at-law and legal scholars directly contradicting the present day courts.
“As for your contention that amendments can be ratified by fewer than 38 states, the mind boggles at your misunderstanding of the process.”
Given the fact I never made any such “contention” whatsoever, your statement is an invention, falsehood, and a lie.
Opinions of “Constitutional attorneys-at-law and legal scholars” that have not been accepted by courts are worth about as much as blank paper. Then can “contradict” the courts as much as they want; they mean nothing unless the courts agree with them.
“Opinions of “Constitutional attorneys-at-law and legal scholars” that have not been accepted by courts are worth about as much as blank paper. Then can “contradict” the courts as much as they want; they mean nothing unless the courts agree with them.”
It all depends upon the court or courts you are talking about. Today’s U.S. Supreme Court tends to be a highly corrupt institution insofar as it has been acting in unconstitutional ways, as noted by Associate Justice Thomas when he said they were avoiding the eligibility cases. Past U.S. Supreme Courts have addressed this issue in a number of decisions with binding precedents and with dicta. Insofar as present day courts disregard and defy these historical case law precedents and dicta, they are subject to being overturned and themselves being impeached by a future Congress for gross failures to comply with their oath of office. It is up to the U.S. Citizens to demand the Congress do so or remove them from office as well. The process begins and ends with the Citizens of the United States fulfilling their responsibility for making themselves informed and taking the action necessary to elect honest and capable conservative judges at the state level and appointing the proper judges at the Federal level. There are far too many elections where I see no Republicans on the ballot to fill positions as judges in the state elections.
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.