Posted on 05/07/2018 1:16:57 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Among the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation was the near impossibility of amending them to meet pressing needs regarding taxation and commerce. In 1787-1788, the lower threshold to amend the Constitution per Article V overcame Anti-Federalist reluctance to form a new Union.
From the time the federal convention sent the draft Constitution to the Confederation Congress and states, many Anti-Federalists demanded a second convention, preferably before federal elections and the establishment of a new government.
Not only the Anti-Federalists, but very few Federalists were entirely satisfied with the Constitution as written. The difference was that Federalists were satisfied that Article V was there to correct the Constitution’s expected shortcomings. Among the Anti-Federalists were “fence-sitters,” those who would change their minds if they felt assured of a few amendments that better secured certain rights. Flip the votes of fence-sitters and ratification was certain.
Despite ratification by the ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21st 1788, the future of the new government still depended on the decisions of Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania. Yes, a new government could form without them, but what were the chances of national survival if the remaining states VA, NY, PA, NC, RI did not join and left a geographically dismembered Union in their wake?1
Pennsylvania. In a shady process that only stoked resentment, Federalists rammed ratification through on December 12th 1787.2 On July 3rd 1788, several leading men sought to “un-ratify” PA ratification unless certain pre-amendments found their way into the Constitution.
Disgust with the heavy-handed tactics of Pennsylvania Federalists back in December led Cumberland county officials to send out a circular letter to various societies, individuals, and other counties that opposed unqualified, unamended ratification.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Where are such men today? We have a Congress full of liars, thieves and perverts. Our bloated, unresponsive behemoth of a government has become a Praetorian Guard, imposing its will on us. All now seek to disregard the will of the people and remove a President and impose one they want.
This is not going to end well.
It's a beautiful thing to watch.
Then, it's a good thing that amendments emanating from a COS do not originate thru Congress then, isn't it. And, furthermore, it's a good thing a COS exists so that the states themselves can put forth amendments to correct the situation in Congress.
>
Then, it’s a good thing that amendments emanating from a COS do not originate thru Congress then, isn’t it. And, furthermore, it’s a good thing a COS exists so that the states themselves can put forth amendments to correct the situation in Congress.
>
The 9th & 10th *already* exist to ‘correct the situation in Congress’....I fail to recall ANY State doing just that.
To think they will 180 vs. COS is just naive.
A9/A10 do not impose term limits. A new term limit amendment will, almost by definition, only emanate from the states. And the COS is setup perfectly for that scenario.
>
A9/A10 do not impose term limits. A new term limit amendment will, almost by definition, only emanate from the states. And the COS is setup perfectly for that scenario.
>
Yes, for those FEW instances, it makes sense.
The ‘restore the Republic’ bloviation? Not so much, as I have posted.
IF we should ever get to an Article V Convention, we MUST have, at the minimum:
1. Restate the 2nd Amendment, thus: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The people are the Militia and are necessary for the security and protection of a free State.”
2. Term limits and recalls for elected officials.
3. 25th Amendment include all elected officials.
4. 14th Amendment apply ONLY to LEGALLY born or naturalized.
5. No legislation may be passed without three public readings.
Minimum.
1 & 4 are a product of not reading/following the PLAIN English of each (willfully, IMO).
I’d add a bit to #5: each law must have a sunset clause (no auto-renewal, no ‘short-cuts’) of, say, 5-10yrs. Govt is fond of using the plethora of ‘law’ vs. the People, not so much vs. itself (see recent Logan Act violation).
#6: No other matters shall even be considered until ALL appropriations are complete (no more endless ‘shut-downs’ to run up the debt/deficit).
#7: No entity that cannot pull the voting lever shall donate, bequeath, give ANY property/time/material/man-power/assistance. All funding for any govt position MUST come from the boundaries of said position (county per county, state vs. state, nation for prez).
History, education, current events BUMP! Another great post, Jacquerie. Thanks.
I do appreciate. Thank you.
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.