Posted on 01/01/2016 7:10:39 PM PST by JSDude1
Senator Marco Rubio's recent support for an Article V Convention of the States is causing some folks heartburn.
Noah Rothman at Commentary calls Rubio's support for a Convention of the States a Pander for the Ages.
Rather than taking Rubio at his word and assuming this is a principled stand, Rothman argues that Rubio's support for the Convention of the States is a politically strategic rouse.
As a political maneuver, Rubio’s latest is a deft one. Hardened by influential talk show hosts who have spent months inveighing against his support of a 2013 immigration reform bill, Rubio will need to soften the beaches of conservative opposition to his candidacy if he is to win the GOP nomination.
This did not sit well with CR Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin, who plans to raise the topic this coming Monday on his nationally syndicated radio show.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
If Rubio is for it, we’re against it. (Sorry Mark.)
The litmus tests matter and sometimes the contribution is in articulating a sound argument that gets a lot of attention.
That said, Rubio is dishonest and I will never vote for him. Neither will I vote for other candidates who won’t even so much as voice support for what is right.
The train has not left entirely so long as we are alive and able to fight. Some of those battles had no chance but were pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed until they turned things around. Things can in the exact same way be turned back around.
Problem is in details - how will delegates be chosen?
Will they vote individually or by state? Will they be
bound to follow a narrow agenda or would everything be open to change?
Too many opportunity for whack jobs to get in and cause havoc......
Rubio can say anything he wants to now and say something else later.
Article V is a big thing with Mark Levin, who has said nice things about Rubio in the past.
I don’t want to hear Levin say nice things about Rubio in the new year.
***
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
Reference works:
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters
Actually, they do not matter, not in terms of accomplishing what we hope that they will. I hate to be a wet blanket, honestly, but let’s look at the facts.
Conservatives have had a litmus test regarding abortion basically since Roe Vs. Wade. The practical result of that litmus test is that America is the abortion capitol of the world.
Conservatives have had a litmus test on traditional marriage let’s say roughly since the mid 1990’s. The practical result of that litmus test is that America is now the gay marriage capitol of the world.
We are asking our politicians to state their position on matters that they do not care about, and will take no effective action on, and will lie to us in a second if they think it benefits them.
The only litmus test that matters at this point would be on state politicians and their position on an Article V convention with an amendment focused on curtailing the power and scope and finality of the SCOTUS. And I promise you, state politicians are going to lie to us about this as well.
Because if we do not do that, that court is going to continue to decide the direction of our society for us in an unanswerable fashion.
Continuing to hope that we are going to be able to elect enough virtuous politicians who will see to it that enough virtuous judges are appointed to reverse such things is pointless. It’s never going to happen. They will simply continue to use that hope against use as a method of disguising who they really are.
What we have to do is go over their heads and take apart the apparatus that they are using to rule us.
Whether we do that by legal means or otherwise remains to be seen, but anything other than that sort of action on our part will mean victory for them.
These people are perfectly willing to use the good nature of people against them in order to advance themselves.
That is what we are dealing with.
Playing the game by their rules means they win.
I can’t read Rubio’s name without thinking of his Gang of Eight treason. I do not want anyone like him connected with an actual Article V convention. I don’t know what would come out of that convention, but I know he would not be protecting American interests.
As a politician, Rubio is dead to me.
Look at Article I Section 4 with the same critical eye. It is up to the states to set the times, places, manner of congressional elections.
From Article II Section 1, the States have plenary power to determine how to come up with presidential electors. The power is so open-ended, the states don't even have to have popular presidential elections at all. If the states are so politically insane, why has there never been a runaway electoral college?
The proven adults in the room are the states. It is the DC Uniparty that exercises whack-job, unconstitutional, plenary power that causes our national misery.
Exactly. The Uniparty profits far too much from the existing system to clean up corrupted institutions.
An Article V amendments convention would constitute an end run, a flanking movement, if not asymmetrical warfare against the Uniparty.
Article V is a distinct grant/acknowledgement of sovereign power. When the people act in their sovereign capacity, they are superior to congress and Scotus. Article V is a way to restore the master/servant relationship envisioned by the Founders and Enlightenment philosophers. Our nation is in its horrid condition precisely because We the People have not insisted on regular Article V conventions in the past.
There is little time.
If properly steered by the likes of Cruz, Mike Lee, Levin, and other talk show hosts, we just might ignite a nationwide discussion on the nature of free government not seen since the ratification debates of 1787-1788.
We must not let this educational opportunity slip by.
Such a transparently fake move by The Rube to win back Mark Levin, and sure enough the naive ‘Great One’ is starting to fall for it, posting this article on his FB page. Recall that Levin fell for The Rube’s lies about the Gang of 8 bill on his 2013 radio tour, without reading the fine print. The resulting lack of opposition helped clear its passage through the Senate. Levin also stupidly endorsed Orrin Hatch despite his horrid immigration and RINO record because he “helped Reagan confirm judges”. C’mon Mark...blast The Rube back to his over-mortgaged Florida home, and inevitable bankruptcy.
No lie Marco tells could possibly give the establishment heartburn.
He's their last chance.
The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don’t concern the Federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition.
Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the State is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either Party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.
Republicans and Democrats agree that you have “rights” - lots of them. They also agree that any question ABOUT your “rights”, or whether or not something IS a “right”, should not be decided by a political process because that is “divisive”. So, they both agree that the voice of “The People” as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new “rights” and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.
Republicans and Democrats all believe in “diversity”. They, ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, believe that the more “diverse” our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.
Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in “free trade” and “immigration”. These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.
Many of the People, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things. But in our existing system, captive as it is to the MSM-mandated “process” for choosing two candidates for POTUS neither of whom will change a thing, leaves the People with no voice.
Something’s gonna blow.
I wonder how many here who have "issues" with Trump and/or Cruz found themselves have a sympathy pang for Rubio because of this......
Excellent observation.
Congress and SCOTUS are both created by delegation (and division) of the ultimate power of the sovereign (us).
In most countries, sovereign power descends from (or resides in still) a monarch, and governments exercise that power by right.
This is EXACTLY why globalism appeals so much to the Uniparty, and why the US Constitution is such a threat to the trans-nationalist empire whose capital is at Davos.
Time indeed grows short.
Exactly. He’s never even acknowledged the deep trouble our country and Constitution is in before. Now, suddenly, this? Rubios full of it.
Something about Rubio gives me a creepy feeling. He is not somebody I would trust.
I agree. It’s like he’s all lathered up in snake oil.
Marco seems to think that doing the straddle is the way to get nominated.
Rubio is a campaign conservative
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.