- add the 14th and 16th and I will agree - the three crushed the powers of the states. The courts allowed this usurpation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .Lock, a question that I always ask concerning 14A is this. Do you not like John Bingham's explanations of 14A, or do you not like the way that the USSC has interpreted 14A?Otherwise, yes, 14 and 16 can go too. The reason that I emphasize 17A is that I think that minimum changes to Constitution is more doable than larger changes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .Laches, m'boy, laches!The individual is not signing away any contract or Constitutional right. The meaning of laches is a court will not reopen an argument that should have been settled a hundred years ago.If you don't like it, go out and pee on your great-great-grampa's grave to tell him you fault him for not protecting your rights when he had the chance. You don't have that right anymore. Too much time has gone by.P.S. for Lock:Laches is a legal concept; basically if you sat on a right and did not asserted it in a timely manner, the courts will not consider that issue. This applies to any right--Constitutional, statutory or common law. It is rare to see it applied in the constitutional context but failing to challenge the 17th A. in a timely fashion when it was unlawfully ratified we can only move to repeal it or modify it by amendment, not by going to court to declare it was never ratified.Judges today are overwhelmed by an excessive work-load. I worked in a county once where you scheduled civil trials three deep (three trials set at the same time) in advance and even then it may be carried over from term to term. Because of the constitutional guarantee of a "speedy trial" for criminal defendants, your civil case always got bumped by a criminal trial set at the same time. That is one reason so many cases get settled out of court--you can't get into court; your case may get kicked down the road for two or even three years, being continued from one term to the next.Given that, no judge is going to waste time on a hundred year old case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author. . .The House and Sentate remained two Houses after the 17th was ratified. The amendment did not merge the Senate and the House into a single chamber; it merely changed the way Senators were appointed/elected. It did not change the Rules of the Senate or the way it conducts business."Amendment made after the 17th is null and void due to the fact that the States had NO Representation"That is just silly and doesn't deserve a response.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .On this I will have to disagree with you, to a certain extent. Although there are still two different houses, both houses members are beholden to the public, not one to the citizenry and one to the states, as was intended by the original structure of the senate. After the 17th, the senate, although still officially charged with representing the states, were not dependent on the state legislature's approval for continuance of the seat, but instead dependent on pleasing the public, which is the same job as the house, thereby leaving the "states" with no recourse if a senator chose to represent the people's interests instead of the states interests, and given that that the job of the senate is to work as a check on the will of the people, that leaves the states as a begging child with no one to listen." Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial;" (James Madison, Federalist 62)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .I am unsure what it is that you are trying to argue here ____, but if you are trying to make the implication that the last sentence in Article V was inserted as a last ditch effort to get ratification for the Constitution, you are both right and wrong. The southern states argued heavily on this aspect but it was not a contentious issue for all the states and was only included to assuage the concerns of slave owners as evidenced by the explanation of its purpose in Federalist 42," It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!" (James Madison, Federalist 42)The note's you have provided above are only a record of proceedings and not the text of any of the arguments presented.
- Permalink Reply by on
- let me use your own failed logic - the legislatures of all states are corrupt so they should not be allowed to select the Senators to give the States a place at the table of the Federal government.Well. sir I have but one question for you to answer to defend your false premise - Who elected the corrupt STATE legislators and why then would their vote for Senator be any better? my case is rested the jury of our peers will now select the correct solution?That government which governs least and is the closest to the people is the best.That is flat out a falsehood = government is best that is voted on directly by the people [see democracy and how it fails every time throughout history] would be a democracy and not a REPUBLIC WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA surly is our form and our protection from a mischievous majority.visit these links and tell us what your thought are after you read the information?
- Article V
- ... to rein in Washington's out of control spending.Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call an amendments ...
- Learning from Experience: How the States Used Article V Application...
- ... Constitution that would rein in the federal government. Article V of the Constitution authorizes states to initiate amendments with a ... reveals much about how states can - and cannot - use the Article V process today. This report, the second in a three-part series, ...
- Using Article V to Rein-In the Federal Government
- ... But citizens can put the brakes on this runaway train. Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the same power as Congress to propose ...
- 091010, Article V Policy Report FINAL.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- PB 11-02 Article V Part 3 of 3.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- 091010, Article V Policy Report FINAL.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- Final 110310, Article V Part 2 FINAL.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- 110410, Article V Part 2 FINAL.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- 091010, Article V Policy Report FINAL.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government) ...
- PB 11-02 Article V Part 3 of 3.pdf
- Printer-friendly version (Center for Constitutional Government)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .With all due respect Mr. , you are wrong about state senators becoming more corrupt if they uniquely had the power to elect federal senators for the following reasons. First, unlike corrupt federal lawmakers who presently aren't recallable under the Constitution, bad-apple state senators are recallable. So if a state senator is exposed as being corrupt, a state's voters can boot them out of office before their term has ended.Next, in case you weren't aware of this, the 17th Amendment effectively repealed Clause 1 of Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution which the Founding States made to uniquely give state legislatures the power to elect federal senators.So it's not like giving state legislatures unique control of the federal Senate is a radically new conservative idea. It's actually how the Founders had designed the system.Finally, state legislatures struggling to balance their budgets, such as bankrupt California, would have more state revenues to work with if they still had control of the federal Senate for the following reason. Given the greater powers of the states to serve the people, Justice John Marshal had appropriately established the following case precedent which prohibits Congress from laying taxes in the name of state power issues.
For example, given the Constitution's silence about healthcare, the 10th Amendment clarifies that the Founding States had reserved government power to tax and spend for healthcare purposes to the states, not Congress and the Oval Office. So the federal Senate should have killed Obamacare legislation since Obamacare not only usurped unique state power to regulate healthcare, but also stole state revenues associated with state power to regulate healthcare, making it more difficult for the states to tax and spend for their own healthcare programs.
So it's no wonder why many states cannot balance their budgets since federal senators are no longer protecting the interests of their states as the Founders had intented, corrupt senators actually helping likewise corrupt members of the HoR to pass legislation which wrongly usurps state powers and steals state revenues.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . ."That kind of government spending has nothing to do with the 17th Amendment."So by that reasoning I guess you think unfunded federal mandates that the States have to pay for out of State tax dollars has nothing to with the 17th. The Senators, if appointed by state legislators, would not have tried to protect their State from an overweening federal government.Glad you cleared that up for me.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . .Mr. , again, given that the federal Constitution is silent about government programs like ss, medicade and public schooling as examples, the 10th Amendment clarifies that government power to regulate such programs is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, not Congress and the Oval Office.With that in mind, let's take a look at bankrupt California, for example. Why are the Constitution-impaired Democrats who are running California constantly begging Congress for federal funding to assist California with healthcare and public school costs as examples? After all, California has the constitutional authority to tax and spend for healthcare and public school purposes while Congress has no such power. So why are California's Democratic "leaders" begging Congress for funding that Congress shouldn't have in the first place?To emphasize the point that California shouldn't be begging Congress for funds to assist with state power issues like healthcare and public school services, let's once again consider Justice Marshall's case precedent concerning the limits of Congress's power to lay taxes.And the reason that Congress is getting away with ignoring Justice Marshall's case precedent and laying illegal federal taxes is this. After election day, California voters basically go home and watch football instead of keeping an eye on their federal senators, a job which the Founding States had given to the state legislatures. The problem is that the corrupt federal senators which Californians just elected to office take advantage of California voter apathy by helping likewise corrupt members of the HoR to pass legislation which not only wrongly usurps California's power to regulate healthcare and public school services, but based on Justice Marshall's official words, also steals California's associated power to tax and spend for such things.But even if California's progressive lawmakers were to wake up to the fact that California's own federal senators were helping to backstab California taxpayers with illegal federal taxes, they cannot do anything about it. They cannot do any thing about it because their predecessors in the California legislature helped to ratify the 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up the voice of the constitutional powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally-humbled but corrupt federal government.Again, control of the federal Senate needs to be returned uniquely to the state legislatures as the Founding States had intended to stop the federal Senate from helping the HoR to usurp state powers and associated state revenues.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .First, why would socialist state legislators elect socialist federal senators who can then backstab the socialist state lawmakers who elected them by helping the federal HoR to pass legislation which establishes illegal federal taxes which robs state revenues, making it more difficult for state lawmakers to balance a state's budget?Next, given the very limited powers the Founding States delegated to Congress via the Constitution, the Founders reserving the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, particularly where domestic issues are concerned, can you please explain the following? Why are you so concerned about being able to vote for federal senators, particularly since the limited powers that Congress has under Section 8 of Article I are largely military related?
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . .Regardless that you can call your federal HoR representative to vote no on war regardless what your federal senator wants, given Obama is now authorizing the use of US military force without consulting Congress, your right to vote for federal senators and representatives concerning war are useless now anyway.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .What's this "no way" stuff? Since when has the Democratic / Progressive party, with which I surmise that you are a member of, become the party of NO!To be blunt, I think that you're trying to sidestep my point that there is no way that socialist state lawmakers are going to elect somebody to the federal Senate who is going to turn around and help pass legislation which steals state revenues making, the job of the state lawmakers unnecessarily difficult.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Man gets nasty and calls all names . . responsesI will now tell you that you have neither the knowledge or the facts to understand the real world of the body politics - You call names very well however - news flash the 14th amendment has been used many times by the over reaching Federal government to trounce down States powers and the will of the people of that state and not in matters of RACE like you railed on. You sirs are no Constitutionalists or a conservative for that matter your sir are a Progressive - Socialist that does not want a all powerful Constitution but would gladly take a all powerful Federal Central government.Bring facts to support you arguments not name calling and just repeating the same incorrect opinions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- you seem to want to reject the reality of a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC that operates our governments. You vote to select a politician and that person is now your proxy and makes all decisions on any issue they are charged to complete on behalf of the citizens. You did vote to send your kids to war - the Senate approved the War Powers Act and so did the HoR, so this act allowed the Presidents to send your children to war without even talking to Congress just as Mr. Obama just did. Did I hear your Senator stand up on the floor and fight for your individual and states rights to protect your children - no I did not and neither did you. LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ok,IMO you are a full fledged PROGRESSIVE IN THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF WILSON AND FDR. Yes to the admission of your Progressive support of the principles of 100 years ago. Nice try but you have not done anything to support your nonfactual misrepresentations of how our government works and how it goes about the business of States rights.How little you know or understand about Constitutional issues - If the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments were revoked - the war powers act would be gone when the Federal government was forced back under the limits of Article I section 8 enumerated powers. They would have to function with in the chains of the limited power of the Founders Federal Government design and to be constrained by the Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply by onUnnamed response the individual that was removed . .As long as corrupt Congress continues to tax and spend for services not based on the limited powers that the Founding States delegated to Congress in Section 8 of Article I, Congress will continue to lay excessive tariffs and taxes which citizens will ultimately have to pay anyway.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . .How do you expect the HoR to raise revenue - plant money trees?In fact, there is another thread in this message board which concerns corporations essentially not paying taxes as they simply jack up the prices of their products so that consumers essentially pay their taxes.Taxes ultimately come from taxpayers regardless if Congress is limited to tariffs and excise taxes. And taxpayers are going to pay illegal federal taxes for as long as corrupt Congress continues to tax and spend for things that Congress has no constitutional authority to address.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .There seems to be some knowledge lacking on the part of Mr. ____, so I will try to fill in some of the blanks. At this point I will address Mr. _____'s common misconceptions with explanations from Mr. Madison,"II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.""Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."James Madison, Federalist 42At this venture I feel it prudent to point out that it is Mr. Freeman who has been "duped", and is attempting to twist the words of the framers, as shown above. Once again the issue of corruption has been brought up and again has been misrepresented, the actual cases of corruption before the 17th A were few, in contrast to what we have now which is "legalized Corruption" in the senate, it is called lobbying.It was never intended that the people vote for the senate because the senate was never intended to represent the people, it was intended to represent the states interest as a check against the will of the people and against mob rule,"The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration." (James Madison, Federalist 62)This should dispel many of the misguided opinions that have been presented with the typical left side argument of people should be voting for everything, that by the way is what a political democracy is, everyone votes for everything and mob rules, with no checks and balances, like the one destroyed by the 17th Amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- how naive and how confused is your failed logic - when Madison and the FF spoke of the will of the people it was through the use of the REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC or the legislatures of the States and the House in Congress. If your thoughts were anywhere near factual the ARTICLE V amendment process would call for a national individual vote either yea or nay. Well, the FF had not intention of letting a confused, uninformed population going off on a promise of free money from government if they just vote to take all wealth from the minority and re-distribute it to the majority.You see they knew that the voters could be lead to violate the rights of the smallest minority if allowed to act as a majority rule society. That is why ours is a RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT A RULE - BY - MAN form of government. They knew that Democracies ALWAYS FAILED and ended in a dictatorship or other undesirable forms of domination of the peoples rights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You still do not yet understand the form of government the Founders [each of the original States] created. Where the States sent a representative for the people [not elected but mostly appointed] to the Convention to create a new government. No, they were not elected and they did represent the individual STATE. Sorry you can use the old call names trick all you like but it will fall on deaf ears for your constant attempts to misinform without one singel source of facts or by quoting any facts to support your view - sorry nice try but you have failed in the argument and the presentation.
- Permalink Reply by on
Judge Thomas Brennan’s Major Points Regarding Article V
1) An Article V convention is an assembly of representatives of the states. It must be called when two thirds of the state legislatures request it.
2) An Article V convention is called for the purpose of proposing amendments (plural) to the US Constitution.3) An Article V convention is a parliamentary assembly has all of the authority over its own deliberations as any other parliamentary assembly.4) An Article V convention is called by a majority vote of both houses of Congress, and its proposals are sent out to be ratified by the states as determined by a majority of both Houses.5) An Article V Covention:a) sets its own agenda.b) makes its own rules.c) makes its own scheduleIn short, neither Congress or the state legislatures can limit the agenda of an Article V convention. Therefore, a petition for a convention limited to one or more specified subjects or amendments, is NOT a petition for an Article V convention.CAN CONGRESS CALL A LIMITED CONVENTION?Certainly. Congress can call a convention for any purpose, just as it can appoint a committee to study and make recommendations on any subject.Congress doesn’t need state petitions in order to call a convention to draft or suggest an amendment or a number of amendments to the constitution.But such a convention is not an Article V convention. It is merely an advisory convention. Congress can limit its agenda, dictate who shall be delegates, how it shall vote, etc.Congress may decline to approve its proposals. If it does approve them and decides to send them out to the states to be ratified, it must do so by a two thirds vote in both Houses.I believe that the advisory, or non-Article V convention would be inadequate to task that lies before us. America needs true reform. That means amendments which change the power structure. They will never be achieved with consent of the Congress.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Study of the GWI policy brief brought a question to mind.There is advise that if there are multiple initiatives or issues involved that they would have to be filed for separately.Would we have to file for each revocation 14 then 16 then 17 separate, or is it ok with the simplicity of one -revoke 14,16,17? There was some suggestion that the Congress may not recognize the application because of that?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I am considering all the implications of a successful AV revoking 14,16,17. I was wondering about:When revocation is accomplished, what would happen with federal/state jurisdiction questions involving air travel, national parks, the power grid….where the commerce or the resource crosses many state boundaries?
- Permalink Reply by on
- CG0,Three- word answer = PRIVATE Enterprises - STATES - they will take over all duties and responsibilities.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Commerce - check the 1787 definition of Commerce - one down then - where is the language in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to OWN NATIONAL PARKS?Here is what the Founders - Framers and Ratifiers found were adequate powers to limit the function of the Federal Govenement -To borrow money on the credit of the United States;To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; AndNope no National Parks there - no BLM - no environmental preserve lands, no desert animal set aside land, not a single word about that so then I recommend that all read the tenth amendment -
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Humm after the Article I section 8 enumerated powers are reviewed I find not language to have the Federal Government involved at all - do you?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let me share a Walter Williams view of the Issue of Secession - interesting questions here that are similar to what we are asking in the Article V action???Walter Williams, WND, November 27, 2012For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. {snip}At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. {snip}{snip} The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”What say you all now?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Romney said, "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work,"and 51% said, "Screw That!!"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is from Madison in the Federalist Paper no 43:8. "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 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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Question from another author -I am not an "english major", could you parse Article V for me? Please?What part are you having problems with and maybe we can assist. You need to look for what is not prohibited for the Constitution is a negative document for the most part it tells government what it can do and then says it limited to those specific items. Article V is being redefined each and every day as their are many that do not want the States to take actions that would destroy most of the Federal government and put it back into the Founders box of the Article I section 8 enumerated powers.Many of us are of the opinion that the States can by the language in Article V hold a convention and when 3/4 or 38 of The States ratifying their desired action it becomes the law of the land as an amendment to the Constitution. There is no language that prohibits this and much of the Founders works support that concept that the States and the people can use this act to stop usurpation by Congress and the courts. So, I would submit that there is no requirement for Congress to be involved in the process if the purpose is to stop usurpation.[that would be a contradiction to the FF works]
- Permalink Reply by on
- By a un-named author . .What you propose is prohibited by A I sec 10:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops,or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with anotherState.Also, considering the supremacy clause in A VI wherein the:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuancethereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the UnitedStates, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;If in your scenario, where 38 states get together and agree on an amendment, the legislatures of those states then apply for an A V convention, in accordance with the Constitution.Congress has no choice but to comply.Congress does not have any "yea" or "nay" on the proposed amendment(s). As they would have under A I sec 10.The States/People have upheld A VI.Given that there is already widespread support for the amendment(s), their passage is a foregone conclusion.The following is a draft of a proposal to accomplish this in such manner as to assuage the fears of a "complete re-write":Attachments:
Draft of initiative.doc, 32 KB
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- given the words that you hilited above, you evidently do not understand the following. It was the states who established the federal government, not vice-versa. And it was the states authored the Constitution to deliberately cripple Congress's powers. You are consequently ignoring that the simple words, "in Pursuance thereof," concerning the laws of the United States means that only those federal laws which are based on the very limited powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution, most of them in Section 8 of Article I, are the supreme law of the land.Again, you evidently think that the federal government not only authored the Constitution, but that the federal government also established the states for the convenience of the federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If I understood Mr.unnamed reference to the "...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" part of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 correctly, this is the first time that I've ever seen anybody reference a constitutional clause to essentially argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . .In your own statement above you have made our point,"If in your scenario, where 38 states get together and agree on an amendment, the legislatures of those states then apply for an A V convention, in accordance with the Constitution.Congress has no choice but to comply."You said it right there franc, 38 states vote to ratify a amendment the congress has nothing to say, you don't send it to them for approval or discussion when the decision has already been made, congress can't override the vote of 38 states.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . .I am not an "english major", could you parse Article V for me? Please?If you are sufficiently literate to have written the above sentence you are literate enough to understand Article V. Go read it. What it says is what it means.“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United Statesv. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824)."~District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . . .IMO the Sprague line of cases will have no impact unless we can have an Article V Convention. The principal that the Constitution was written in the language of the voters first showed up in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816) but the significance is that it is the first case in which the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) exercised supremacy over the state courts in all matters involving federal law. If it was a matter of federal law, the SCOTUS trumped anything the states did.SCOTUS now pays lip service to Sprague's language--"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."782 U.S. 716, 732 (1931) up through the Heller case in 2008. I often quote Sprague for the proposition that the Constitution was written in the language of the people; SCOTUS actually intrpreted the Constitution that way for well over 100 yrs. Therefore, it was a convenient shorthand, without citing twenty or thirty other sources, to prove my point.That essentially changed when the modern SCOTUS began using its "Living Constitution." I'll save that discussion for another day. Let me just say here, inAtkins v. Virginia, (2002) Justice Scalia in dissent wrote,"Today's decision is the pinnacle of our Eighth Amendment death-is-different jurisprudence. Not only does it, like all of that jurisprudence, find no support in the text or history of the Eighth Amendment; it does not even have support in current social attitudes regarding the conditions that render an otherwise just death penalty inap-propriate. Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."Scalia continued, "[I]t explains, of course, why the Court can be so cavalier about the evidence of consensus. It is just a game, after all. '[I]n the end,' it is the feelings and intuition of a majority of the Justices that count--'the perceptions of decency, or of penology, or of mercy, entertained ... by a majority of the small and unrepresentative segment of our society that sits on this Court.'"I have often written here (and elsewhere) about the hubris of a Court that does not need the law or the Constitution to make its decisions. It only takes five votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment