- I have never said a Con Con was the only remedy available. The States can use the 10th amendment to bring down the empire of usurped powers but that will not void the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Voiding requires a Constitutional Amendment; there is no other way without the same usurped power problem.
We have made the first step in one method and that is to vote in new thinkers and see if we can convince them to bring back the Constitutional limits on the federal government. We will see if this step has traction very soon.
You need to read the Goldwater Institute plan for a Con Con without risk of run away amendments and interference with State selected representatives from existing politicians or judges.
Here is a link to The Goldwater site and you can click on the link files to read the detailed plan - it appears to be solid and safe???
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5340
Permalink Reply by on - From what I read of its assurances, I could not tell if the assurances were either true or enforceably true. It will take some more work on my part. It does not appear that all that work has been done by the Goldwater Institute.
Given the forces at work on our nation that have been moving us towards dictatorship at a breathtaking rate over the last ten years I think rigorous caution is justified.
The last Con-Con was a run-away. It turned our well then. This country feels to far removed from the ripe fruit of 2 Chronicles 7:14 to believe things would go so well at this time.
The assurances of law we have now of a Constitutional government are very strong - in theory.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell,
Go to this link and click on the link at the bottom it will give you a pdf file that will explain their position in detail.
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, did you really mean
"there is no other way without the same usurped power problem."
as meaning the same as
"the usurped power problem will be solved by a Con-Con" plus "the usurped power problem has no other solution than a Con-Con"
?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I meant that we can not correct the usurped powers using the 14th, 16th and 17th amendment without a "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" because amendment can not be changed, altered, amended, without a new Amendment.
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- As additional reasons to turn FIRST to the Governor's obligatory duty to remedy the wayward cavalier conceits of ALL officers of both state and federal court( in that federal court officers are also state court officers by being members of the state bar) is:
A) the Governor's oath to both state and federal constitutions,
B) the state statute established supremacy of the federal and state constitutions and duly authorized subordinate law:
"Va§ 1-248. Supremacy of federal and state law. The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Constitution of Virginia
Article II - Franchise and Officers
Section 7. Oath or affirmation.
All officers elected or appointed under or pursuant to this Constitution shall, before they enter on the performance of their public duties, severally take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ...................., according to the best of my ability (so help me God)."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Is Virgina making any progress in enforcing the oath of office or the required discharge of duties?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Prior to the election Nov. 2nd it was unwise to provoke the progressives more than need be. Now is the time - - and I am still operating out of my depth - - that is why I have been working the Tea Party bulletin boards so hard - I am trying to gain communication competence that this nerd never had or really needed before.
Also politics is a herd animal game whether I like it or not. And no matter how wrong it is courts work by the same rules - were the truth and the law are minor considerations similar to the last coat of paint.
There is a TRUE-the-VOTE petition invoking the governors' obligatory duty that could have been useful in suppressing voter fraud prior to the election and would have caused behavioral acceptance of the law behind the invocation of a governors' obligatory duty, but Vern S. over at TPN squashed the 50 unique 1-per-state-constitution invocations as spam.
That was a tragic, even evil driven, lost opportunity.
In hind sight it looks like the petition might have made the difference in a few critical states - provided the petition produced a Governor's Executive Order to match the Governor's duty.
As far as using that TRUE-the-VOTE-in-Virginia it does not seem like anyone in Virginia believe we have voting fraud. So using it in Va without being in a herd of other states seems too low a yield to be interesting to the Va. Gov.
That leaves the direct approach to invoking "Constitutional Reset" by surrender of a members of the bar to the Governor while pleading for pardon on toothy parole oath to support and defend our Constitutions from all enemies internal or external. (See prior posts for mechanics & sequencing of the event cascade).
Both Va. Governor and Va. Attorney General would have the dignity of their offices enhanced while receiving their own pardon.
I trust A.G. Cucinnelli to do his duty but he works for the Va. Gov. who I am unsure of.
If Gov. McDonnell says 'no' once, its over and the opportunity is lost.
I feel in need some intro or nonthreatening trial balloon in order to know when the time is right.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The dogma that guided the Founders was that the most local level is the best Government. Now we have all Government at the global level. Yuck.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ronald,
But none above our Constitutional Republic - here we are the home of the sovereign individual - we just need to restore our original Constitution and return the powers to the State and the PEOPLE.
We can be4 free again and without the burden of an oppressive Federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are very correct. Decision-making should be near to the individuals affected by the decision. Yet, we have Congress and the Executive Branch making laws and rules that affect the fifty states. The various States have great differences. The system of Government that was put in place in the eighteenth century was both efficient and effective. The Federalist were right because there were only thirteen states with a population for just over one million citizens. But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. It is time for thinking outside the box, and correction of the disorganization. The Federal Government should handle foreign affairs, with the State Department. But it time for many function of government be moved to the State level or below.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Thomas,
You flip flop more than a fish out of water.
1. You want to remove/consolidate all the small governments and redraw the boundaries because of the many layers. It will save money.
2. You want to have a ConCon to bring about better government.
and then you post this
You are very correct. Decision-making should be near to the individuals affected by the decision. Yet, we have Congress and the Executive Branch making laws and rules that affect the fifty states. The various States have great differences. The system of Government that was put in place in the eighteenth century was both efficient and effective. The Federalist were right because there were only thirteen states with a population for just over one million citizens. But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. It is time for thinking outside the box, and correction of the disorganization. The Federal Government should handle foreign affairs, with the State Department. But it time for many function of government be moved to the State level or below.
If a ConCon where to happen. Who do you think the ConCon members would be. You and I. Not hardly. It will be the above discribed But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. Yea, exactly the people I want to perform a complete revamp. LOL
If change to the Constitution is needed, there are means already established within it to accomplish change.
Again, IMO, you are here to sell a book you wrote. Nothing more. To be fair, full disclosure and all you know, I declined a free offer of your book once. I still refuse.
Thank you,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- A Constitutional Convention with the likes of Harry Reid as members... a unicameral legislature that can redraw state and local boundaries... this is the Progressive Agenda with another name... It is FEMA and FDA and Fed Reserve districts instead of local governments. It is a prescription for tyranny.
We don't need a ConCon... we need a return to the plain meaning of the Constitution of 1787 with its strict limits on the powers of the Fed govt and its very clear prohibition of fiat money.
That would be enough to save not a piddling $18 billion but the trillions that we must save to restore a functioning market economy instead of the unfreemarket cronyism we have now...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ralph read the Goldwater paper on the Con Con - Harry Reid and Congress would "not" even be involved.
click on link at end of article:
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005
- Permalink Reply by on
- What makes you think they wouldn't all stand for election to the Convention? They have at least that much hubris...
The article from the Goldwater Institute is well written and comprehensive, but I do not agree that a ConCon can be effectively limited by the authority calling it... and the discussion on pages 10 and 11 about that issue does not convince me.
After all, as they point out, in 1787 the Convention called to revise the Articles of Confederation (to promote free trade among the states and for similar modest reforms) ran off and gave us the basis for the centralized government that we've got today...
But, in any event, 3/4 of the states must agree for any amendment to be lawful.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree that it takes 34 States to call for the Con Con and then 38 legislatures to ratify the Amendment. That is why this is a safe method, the State legislatures must agree to language and the method of electing representatives this limits the scope of the Convention and "NO" federal politician would be involved unless the State selected them as their Representative. Congress has no sway over the Con Con and can not limit it or refuse it nor can they alter the Amendment from the Con Con.
By the States agreements the subject is limited and even if they run away their is still the requirement that 38 States now approve the amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We all have to keep working if we want something to get done. These secessions are good, but we need to involve as many voters as we can.
- Permalink Reply by on
- That would be our mutual goal - get all Americans involved and learning about our Constituent.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Attached is 091010, Article V Policy Report FINAL.pdf fromhttp://goldwaterinstitute.org
- Attachments:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well, this is happening but apparently the people in California don't care or they wouldn't have put Brown back in office and they wouldn't have voted Democrats back into office. It seems like they are in "LALA Land"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Barbara,
The middle class is going to flood out of here in about a year. One of the Props we voted for was to give laws a simple majority as to the prior 2/3s. That means that GOP will have no say in the budget and that the dems will get what they want........which will lead us into more taxes and a probable DOUBLING of the $24 billion deficit. WHAT A MESS!!! :(
HHHEEELLLPPPP!!!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- I must say no, no and no. Danger!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Qi33WoUxw&feature=player_embed...!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Randy,
Is a politician not a Constitutional authority and his opinions do not match experts in the Constitution and the Historical documents of the Founders. First it appear that he is of the opinion that the States can not limit the subjects of the Con Con - most other experts disagree. Second is the fact that there are many Patriots that could be selected by the States to be their representatives in the Con Con and these individuals then become "Fiduciaries" and are legally bound by the limits of their pre-approved actions. They do not have the power to go beyond expressed duties as the Fiduciaries so again there is no danger of a runaway Con Con. Third is the fact that any actions taken by the Con Con must then go to the State legislatures for ratification and the required number now becomes 38. Then and only then would the Amendment become law.
Politicians do not like the Con Con concept because it reduces the Federal power and could force a return to the enumerated power of Article I section 8 which removes most of their power to rule over all. America is at rick and the Republic is being assaulted by the Progressives in all three branches of the Federal government. If we permit them to keep going in the current direction we will be a Progressive Socialist society within ten years.
As Ben Franklin said: "We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas - Forget it for now IMO. Way too small of an issue (moneywise)based on a false premise. So far down the list its a dot.
BTW, the local governments get their money from YOU. Only some of it comes BACK to the State & local governments from the Federal confiscation from YOU.
It's ALL our money!!!!!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas,
you bring a interesting thought - the local governments and school districts have many employees that were created by the GRANT programs of the Federal Government. All those that want fed funds must have staff or hire consultants to make GRANT applications. The beggars line to The Agencies of Congress that bribe lower governments to behave in desired ways.
The beggar creates government jobs to talk and appeal to other government employees that are managed by other government employees. It also applies to Universities, Amtrak, Freddie, Fannie, Post office, DOT, FHA, USDA and a very long list of takers - not one item of value produced? Huuuuummm
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock: Like I have said before, we are getting ripped off by government office holders. We have excessive governments and excessive administrative employees. They cause confusion in decision-making and lead to dysfunctional government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Like the parasite consuming the host. They will bleed us until we remove them or we die - the choice is clearly ours.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Study government yes.
Study to redraw state and county boundaries? No cost benefit comparison has even been attempted and for good reason - the cost of detailed knowledge would buy nothing of value relative to its cost. If you fund that study yourself you might find a different answer, but on sample and gut estimates, you may not find many willing to help with the work. I have faced similar situations and found the work worthy of my time - but I WAS on my own. Thomas, Perhaps you are a better salesman than I and will have a different experience.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Davis: Your statement that not many would want changes in State borders. We thing in terms of the status quo. It is time for thinking outside the box. There are many ways to fix many of our problems. Since our governments are not organized like a corporations management chart or the Military chain of command, why is it necessary to elect Federal Senators from States. Why not make Federal districts like we have House Districts, but let them cross State lines. That way we could have Federal Districts of near equal populations. This would eliminate the need for the dysfunctional House of Representatives. We have stuck ourselves with limited thinking. We need major changes and we need results. The budget deficits of the State and Federal government prove that changes are needed.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Pardon my error Thomas. I think the only con-con proposal I have heard of that intends to address State, county and locality boundary issues is yours. Perhaps I even err in that.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "A con-con just kicks that essential can down the road by offering boundary issues that just bring complexity and barely relevant considerations that are so contrary to custom that the citizen's are apt to lose their bearings."
Russell,
You make me smile and laugh. Do you know how much 'piss and vinegar' there is in this land? Do you know what will happen when states that have illegal immigration issues put their minds and heads together?! Solidarity, my friend. Solidarity of we the people. If the Constitution is suitably utilized it will ensure us to be more in control of our commerce.
I could write more but I have parties to attend to. If these states do not gather and bind up together, in a "Con-Con", Europe will not be the only continent to know of a "Dark Age".
Russell, build it and they will come.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Recognizing that Congress might grow remote and isolated from the public will, the Constitution provides ways around Congress in amending the Constitution. Two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call a constitutional convention. Although this convention sounds as it is intended to address a particular issue, like term limits, nothing prevents the constitutional convention from doing precisely what the men in Philadelphia did - propose major reforms in the structure of government.
B. and Atlas,
Like getting rid of the 17th and 14th!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- We need 34 states so let's get cracking.
- Permalink Reply by on
- B. Franklin you must be a direct descendant from old Ben. The Constitutional Convention should be charged with studying the problems with all governments and correcting the problems. We have inefficient and ineffective governments at all levels of the status quo. Less Governments means Less taxes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hmmm. . . . B. Franklin. Was that a non sequitur reply or do I just need another cup of coffee this morning? Perhaps both?
To my trace of this discussion, in the context of a con-con Thomas inserted the issue of reapportioning state and county boundaries like they were US & State districts for population based representation. We were speaking of moving state and county bounds NOT qualifying the porosity of our country's borders..
If the distinction of counties forming(authoring) states and states forming(authoring) a federal government was forgotten so the National government now defined the states and the counties there would be no need of a senate in either US Congress or state house.
Conceptually, Whenever a child concept authors its parent concept all inalienably inherited rights and duties are mere cavalier presumption. In computer programming such cavalier presumption inevitably crashes the system, when the damage survives RESET or REBOOT such cavalier conceit is called a virus.
You will find 'EVIL' is born in every such backward approach to 'LIVE'.
Take care that you not define yourself as children of the lie.
It is little wonder that Thomas' broad brush con-con proposal creeps me out so much that it I would not attend the discussion except for its persistence - to my understanding this whole set of arguments appears to be settled by proof and repeated default with the appearance of remaining substance only given by the deception of non sequitur rejoinder.
The boundary that foils the growth of a new "Dark Age" is our Constitution as it stands. All flaws of amendment 14, 16 & 17 are safely and quickly fixed by constitutional means of modest ambition.
B. Franklin, We already built it and they already came.
Why should we want to change that?
People do not need to be guided on to serfdom's road.
Our state's constitutional duty to educate its people is intended to save them from serfdom.
All we need is to do our duty as it currently stands.
Our defaults on that duty are the source of our problems -
Redefining those duties is a dangerous and wasted effort at best.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Davis: Borders that are drawn for government reasons have only government purposes. Why pay for far more government administration than we need? Less government administration means less taxes. With movement of funds from one level to another we have other governments that use our tax dollars to cover their cost. We need to reorganize the mess the country has allowed to develop. What is the population of your county? What is the population of your local government? Could they we properly administered by one administration? Could the number of people need to properly administer the government be reduced?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Excuse me Thomas,
My understanding is that
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
and that
"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the" change in borders and their form of government.
The burden of persuasion and proof is upon those who propose a change.
With modest certainty that those whose territories and spheres of influence that are defined by those bounds will be defended and any mover of boundary markers is apt to be attacked. I see much fuss and bother inherent in your boundary proposal.
You have not shown any substantial statistic that weighs the economies I doubt with the trouble and expense that seems certain. I am not really saying that you are wrong. I am saying that it is a difficult case to make and the case has not been made.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas, it seems I am irritating you. Perhaps, I should back off this discussion for a week or too. Sorry if I pushed to hard.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas, your "Borders that are drawn for government reasons have only government purposes." is true but not reliably so. State and county borders are drawn for State and county purposes and are WRITE-AUTHORIZED for those purposes ONLY. Should the federal government attempt to have more than READ-ONLY access to those definitions it would be a great incestuously criminal trespass.
You may wish to reevaluate the way you reckon boundaries.
Several fallacies posed in this discussion have that mis-comprehension of attribute ownership as their source.
- Permalink Reply by on
- B.Franklin, Why a Con-con?
Will not, can not a 'Constitutional Reset' accomplish more good than a con-con could? Much faster? Much less risk?
Please contrast and compare, numbered point by numbered point, if you would convince.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Maybe because the existing Constitution has been usurped by all three branches of the Federal Government and has three fatal flaws that must be eliminated the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. We also must (reset if you like the term) the true and actual meanings of the Founders words and clauses. The Progressives over the last 110 years have created holes in the basic fabric of the Constitution. So, they can create new rights and laws outside the limits that most of us citizens would see in the Constitution.
This would appear to fix the Federal problems - no more alphabet agencies telling the States and the People what, when and where they can exercise their freedoms and individual sovereignty.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Right, re alphabet agencies:
The obligatory duty to effect "Constitutional Reset" is in the state Governor's hands. State law is the short leash used to bind the state's federal officers to their oath bound duty.
But first the state must effect its own "Constitutional Reset", restoring its constitutionally republican rule of law that protects the civil and inalienable rights of ALL, not just the minority of the moment.
For a state to achieve this every cavalier conceit to perpetrate felony as a prerogative of social position, no matter how customary, must be recognized as felony.
Traversing a proverbial come-to-Jesus moment where every member of the state bar association must surrender to their governor while pleading for pardon for cause of toothy particular parole oath addressing penance and remedy.
That is the only way that up-rightness can become a contagious practicality.
This event cascades throwout state and local government.
The cascade takes in the states federal judges and all the states federal officers who are members of the state bar.
ALL the members of the state bar are now on a short constitutional leash and bound by their profession notice of the law to recognize felony when perpetrated or considered by their unknowledgeable associates. "Misprision of Felony" and "Misprision of Treason" laws now binds them to their duty to 1) prevent by warning, and 2) make proper Hue & Cry should the warning not be heeded. Upon failure in that duty members of the bar will have combined in the felony with knowing and willing criminal intent.
This degree of cascade should take less than 30 days from the governor's invitation to the bar.
Now all officers of government on every level will have cause to surrender to their governor while pleading for pardon for cause of toothy particular parole oath.
Now every government officer must look at their mission and determine its constitutional lawfulness.
What government missions that are actually good can be implemented in ways that don't taint the accomplishment with felony.
Good processes are more likely to produce good outcomes.
State and local governments in all three branches probably require little more than a tuneup unless there is a conflict between the existence of substantive law embedded in administrative code and a state constitutional provision on the separation of powers or that ALL legislative authority is vested in the legislature as a non transferable service duty. In this case it may be a simple matter for the legislature to make legislation of what was substantive law in the administrative code.
All three branches of the federal government will find that so many of its officers are also bound by state constitutional reset that they can not function unconstitutionally.
Those agencies that can still function will only be able to function until they need Congress to renew their funding.
Most federal agencies and missions will have to devolve to the states. As a matter of convenience of economy the old federal agencies by act under a contract from a state.
Again all substantive law in the CFR is likely to be unconstitutional until particularly and directly enacted by Congress. Most of those enactments will likely be no more than model state legislation in Congressionally authorized interstate compacts.
There are additional details covering the federal budget, taxation, the 14th, 16thand 17th amendments at http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/bho-shouts-what-would...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Donnie,
Very good points, A Con Con is the first step to taking back "our" Constitution and government from the Progressive stateist. You are spot on that they all take the oath of office to defend and protect when the defy and deform that very document. If the court system was not so vested in the usurpation, we could use them to bring justice to those that breach their solemn oath and violate the laws of the land.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock and Donnie: The Declaration of Independence, which states,
“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. —That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”
The Declaration also says that governments are established to insure "SAFTY AND HAPPENIST" of it's citizens. It seems at least seventy-five percent of the citizens disapprove of the lack of action by the Congress. The Constitution does not cover the organization of the States and the Counties. If you Google you can find out the populations of the States, the number and population of the counties with in a State. You can also find out the number of House of Represenatative members of each State. Several small States do not have the necessary average population of six hundred and fifty people to have a Representative. But with less than six hundred and fifty people in the State they have two Senators and one Representative. While it would not take a change in the Constitution to improve the State, County, and Local governments, the Constitution requires approval of the State legislature and the Congress to make changes in State borders. The Congress has never consider the problem they create when they granted statehood. We are left with a very costly five hundred and thirty-five member dysfunctional Congress. The Executive Branch has added layer upon layer of costly disorganized government agencies. After two hundred and thirty years we could use a Constitutional Convention to restore order efficiency and effectiveness to all of our very expensive over staffed governments. With out a Convention much could be done with some good thinking out side the box. The status quo does not seem to be keeping Citizens "SAFE AND HAPPY."
I have studied and review many of these problems in the book "Save Tax Dollar" I am not interested in the money from book sales, but I am interested in people taking a hard look at the disorganization and decision-making problems with the status quo.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Precisely, 2 Chronicles 7:14 or bust.
- Permalink Reply by on
- 2 Chronicles 7:14 (King James Version)
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Amen to that!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Good QUESTIONS, Donnie. Questions that have not been answered in this discussion.
The silence on your question #1 ". . . .have no intention of even paying any attention to it, what's the use?" means "There is no known USEFUL PURPOSE for a Con-Con" by default.
The silence on your question #2 "Why change something that is going to be ignored anyway?" means "There is no known WHY for a Con-Con" by default.
Lock, Given your correct observation "If the court system was not so vested in the usurpation, we could use them to bring justice to those that breach their solemn oath and violate the laws of the land."I understand your sense of confoundedness that has you reaching for an unknown Con-Con that could, perhaps would, fall uncontrollably in the hands of the corruption that brings us where we are now.
Before I ask you the next three question please consider your STATE constitution's construction of the chief executive's duty and authority - begin at your states equivalent of:
VA.Article VI Section 7."The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
"The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Commonwealth and shall have power to embody such forces to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the execution of the laws."
VA.Article I Section 2. "People the source of power. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”
VA.Article I Section 6. "Free elections; consent of governed. That all elections ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed, or deprived of, or damaged in, their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives duly elected, or bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good"
Lock, Why is A Con-Con 'the first step to taking back "our" Constitution and government from the Progressive statist'?
It may or may not be a first step on that path. Such has been asserted in this discussion and is far from being established as even reasonable.
MOREOVER, Are there any other first steps available?
Perhaps, a first step that will get us where we INTEND to go, with fewer & smaller steps, faster, safer, more certain of being effective, conceptually less complicated and can be initiated NOW?
I can answer those last two questions.
I believe I have already done so in this discussion unless I have erroneously merged discussions in my memory.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have never said a Con Con was the only remedy available. The States can use the 10th amendment to bring down the empire of usurped powers but that will not void the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Voiding requires a Constitutional Amendment; there is no other way without the same usurped power problem.
We have made the first step in one method and that is to vote in new thinkers and see if we can convince them to bring back the Constitutional limits on the federal government. We will see if this step has traction very soon.
You need to read the Goldwater Institute plan for a Con Con without risk of run away amendments and interference with State selected representatives from existing politicians or judges.
Here is a link to The Goldwater site and you can click on the link files to read the detailed plan - it appears to be solid and safe???
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5340
- Permalink Reply by on
- From what I read of its assurances, I could not tell if the assurances were either true or enforceably true. It will take some more work on my part. It does not appear that all that work has been done by the Goldwater Institute.
Given the forces at work on our nation that have been moving us towards dictatorship at a breathtaking rate over the last ten years I think rigorous caution is justified.
The last Con-Con was a run-away. It turned our well then. This country feels to far removed from the ripe fruit of 2 Chronicles 7:14 to believe things would go so well at this time.
The assurances of law we have now of a Constitutional government are very strong - in theory.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell,
Go to this link and click on the link at the bottom it will give you a pdf file that will explain their position in detail.
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, did you really mean
"there is no other way without the same usurped power problem."
as meaning the same as
"the usurped power problem will be solved by a Con-Con" plus "the usurped power problem has no other solution than a Con-Con"
?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I meant that we can not correct the usurped powers using the 14th, 16th and 17th amendment without a "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" because amendment can not be changed, altered, amended, without a new Amendment.
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- As additional reasons to turn FIRST to the Governor's obligatory duty to remedy the wayward cavalier conceits of ALL officers of both state and federal court( in that federal court officers are also state court officers by being members of the state bar) is:
A) the Governor's oath to both state and federal constitutions,
B) the state statute established supremacy of the federal and state constitutions and duly authorized subordinate law:
"Va§ 1-248. Supremacy of federal and state law. The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Constitution of Virginia
Article II - Franchise and Officers
Section 7. Oath or affirmation.
All officers elected or appointed under or pursuant to this Constitution shall, before they enter on the performance of their public duties, severally take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ...................., according to the best of my ability (so help me God)."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Is Virgina making any progress in enforcing the oath of office or the required discharge of duties?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Prior to the election Nov. 2nd it was unwise to provoke the progressives more than need be. Now is the time - - and I am still operating out of my depth - - that is why I have been working the Tea Party bulletin boards so hard - I am trying to gain communication competence that this nerd never had or really needed before.
Also politics is a herd animal game whether I like it or not. And no matter how wrong it is courts work by the same rules - were the truth and the law are minor considerations similar to the last coat of paint.
There is a TRUE-the-VOTE petition invoking the governors' obligatory duty that could have been useful in suppressing voter fraud prior to the election and would have caused behavioral acceptance of the law behind the invocation of a governors' obligatory duty, but Vern S. over at TPN squashed the 50 unique 1-per-state-constitution invocations as spam.
That was a tragic, even evil driven, lost opportunity.
In hind sight it looks like the petition might have made the difference in a few critical states - provided the petition produced a Governor's Executive Order to match the Governor's duty.
As far as using that TRUE-the-VOTE-in-Virginia it does not seem like anyone in Virginia believe we have voting fraud. So using it in Va without being in a herd of other states seems too low a yield to be interesting to the Va. Gov.
That leaves the direct approach to invoking "Constitutional Reset" by surrender of a members of the bar to the Governor while pleading for pardon on toothy parole oath to support and defend our Constitutions from all enemies internal or external. (See prior posts for mechanics & sequencing of the event cascade).
Both Va. Governor and Va. Attorney General would have the dignity of their offices enhanced while receiving their own pardon.
I trust A.G. Cucinnelli to do his duty but he works for the Va. Gov. who I am unsure of.
If Gov. McDonnell says 'no' once, its over and the opportunity is lost.
I feel in need some intro or nonthreatening trial balloon in order to know when the time is right.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The dogma that guided the Founders was that the most local level is the best Government. Now we have all Government at the global level. Yuck.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ronald,
But none above our Constitutional Republic - here we are the home of the sovereign individual - we just need to restore our original Constitution and return the powers to the State and the PEOPLE.
We can be4 free again and without the burden of an oppressive Federal government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are very correct. Decision-making should be near to the individuals affected by the decision. Yet, we have Congress and the Executive Branch making laws and rules that affect the fifty states. The various States have great differences. The system of Government that was put in place in the eighteenth century was both efficient and effective. The Federalist were right because there were only thirteen states with a population for just over one million citizens. But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. It is time for thinking outside the box, and correction of the disorganization. The Federal Government should handle foreign affairs, with the State Department. But it time for many function of government be moved to the State level or below.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Thomas,
You flip flop more than a fish out of water.
1. You want to remove/consolidate all the small governments and redraw the boundaries because of the many layers. It will save money.
2. You want to have a ConCon to bring about better government.
and then you post this
You are very correct. Decision-making should be near to the individuals affected by the decision. Yet, we have Congress and the Executive Branch making laws and rules that affect the fifty states. The various States have great differences. The system of Government that was put in place in the eighteenth century was both efficient and effective. The Federalist were right because there were only thirteen states with a population for just over one million citizens. But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. It is time for thinking outside the box, and correction of the disorganization. The Federal Government should handle foreign affairs, with the State Department. But it time for many function of government be moved to the State level or below.
If a ConCon where to happen. Who do you think the ConCon members would be. You and I. Not hardly. It will be the above discribed But in 2010 we have a dysfunctional inefficient Federal Government and the various State show great disorganization. Yea, exactly the people I want to perform a complete revamp. LOL
If change to the Constitution is needed, there are means already established within it to accomplish change.
Again, IMO, you are here to sell a book you wrote. Nothing more. To be fair, full disclosure and all you know, I declined a free offer of your book once. I still refuse.
Thank you,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- A Constitutional Convention with the likes of Harry Reid as members... a unicameral legislature that can redraw state and local boundaries... this is the Progressive Agenda with another name... It is FEMA and FDA and Fed Reserve districts instead of local governments. It is a prescription for tyranny.
We don't need a ConCon... we need a return to the plain meaning of the Constitution of 1787 with its strict limits on the powers of the Fed govt and its very clear prohibition of fiat money.
That would be enough to save not a piddling $18 billion but the trillions that we must save to restore a functioning market economy instead of the unfreemarket cronyism we have now...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ralph read the Goldwater paper on the Con Con - Harry Reid and Congress would "not" even be involved.
click on link at end of article:
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005
- Permalink Reply by on
- What makes you think they wouldn't all stand for election to the Convention? They have at least that much hubris...
The article from the Goldwater Institute is well written and comprehensive, but I do not agree that a ConCon can be effectively limited by the authority calling it... and the discussion on pages 10 and 11 about that issue does not convince me.
After all, as they point out, in 1787 the Convention called to revise the Articles of Confederation (to promote free trade among the states and for similar modest reforms) ran off and gave us the basis for the centralized government that we've got today...
But, in any event, 3/4 of the states must agree for any amendment to be lawful.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree that it takes 34 States to call for the Con Con and then 38 legislatures to ratify the Amendment. That is why this is a safe method, the State legislatures must agree to language and the method of electing representatives this limits the scope of the Convention and "NO" federal politician would be involved unless the State selected them as their Representative. Congress has no sway over the Con Con and can not limit it or refuse it nor can they alter the Amendment from the Con Con.
By the States agreements the subject is limited and even if they run away their is still the requirement that 38 States now approve the amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We all have to keep working if we want something to get done. These secessions are good, but we need to involve as many voters as we can.
- Permalink Reply by on
- That would be our mutual goal - get all Americans involved and learning about our Constituent.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Attached is 091010, Article V Policy Report FINAL.pdf fromhttp://goldwaterinstitute.org
- Attachments:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well, this is happening but apparently the people in California don't care or they wouldn't have put Brown back in office and they wouldn't have voted Democrats back into office. It seems like they are in "LALA Land"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Barbara,
The middle class is going to flood out of here in about a year. One of the Props we voted for was to give laws a simple majority as to the prior 2/3s. That means that GOP will have no say in the budget and that the dems will get what they want........which will lead us into more taxes and a probable DOUBLING of the $24 billion deficit. WHAT A MESS!!! :(
HHHEEELLLPPPP!!!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- I must say no, no and no. Danger!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Qi33WoUxw&feature=player_embed...!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Randy,
Is a politician not a Constitutional authority and his opinions do not match experts in the Constitution and the Historical documents of the Founders. First it appear that he is of the opinion that the States can not limit the subjects of the Con Con - most other experts disagree. Second is the fact that there are many Patriots that could be selected by the States to be their representatives in the Con Con and these individuals then become "Fiduciaries" and are legally bound by the limits of their pre-approved actions. They do not have the power to go beyond expressed duties as the Fiduciaries so again there is no danger of a runaway Con Con. Third is the fact that any actions taken by the Con Con must then go to the State legislatures for ratification and the required number now becomes 38. Then and only then would the Amendment become law.
Politicians do not like the Con Con concept because it reduces the Federal power and could force a return to the enumerated power of Article I section 8 which removes most of their power to rule over all. America is at rick and the Republic is being assaulted by the Progressives in all three branches of the Federal government. If we permit them to keep going in the current direction we will be a Progressive Socialist society within ten years.
As Ben Franklin said: "We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Larry,
I joined the TTP in July of this year. After getting educated on the machinations of the US, I wrote a TOP 10 FIX-IT LIST. Here is #9:
No more bailouts! Let us rise and fall by our own sweat. If our fathers and mothers did it, we can too!
This bailout has crossed the line in the sand. Don't you agree that the powers that be are waiting for a response?
I see the dangers in calling for a Con-Con. But if we TPPs don't do something about the present laws, that are tying us down and that will strangle us in the future, on this current road we are on, THEN WE ARE A BUNCH OF PUSSIES and deserve to be slaves.
I am sorry. I have faith in the intelligentsia here. I think we could handle ourselves very ably. Piss and vinegar can carry someone for a long ways.....
- Permalink Reply by on
- Any politician with common sense knows the dissatisfaction of the voters after the results of the election. There is a need for less government and less taxes. The federal government is dysfunctional. A Con-Con with a charter to bring about an efficient and effective federal government is needed now not later.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The "BUT WHY" to Thomas' "A Con-Con with a charter to bring about an efficient and effective federal government is needed now not later." has never been fairly addressed only repeated in various unsubstantiated ways.
Thomas may be correct.
I can not see that we have been shown how.
Ralph Fucetola expressed well founded particular reservations that have gone unanswered.
Pody asked for "To be fair, full disclosure and all you know, "
Donnie asked two pointed questions that have only received substantial default answer.
Thomas has been asked for a point by point persuasion to his proposal several times I think.
The State and county borders portion of Thomas' proposal he should probably abandon.
The Con-Con itself proposal has possibilities, yet, has not met the burden of evidence and persuasion that all exhortations to major change must bear and bare - if they are not to be reasonably dismissed on default of serious proposal.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell,
If you read back to some of your posts about the Goldwater papers and other posts on the subject the questions were answered in detail. However this is a very complicated issue and people will need to read a lot of information to understand the protections are available.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Perhaps they were read - even the links - but found insufficiently evidenced and argued. Lack of belief does not equal lack of understanding in this case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lack of belief is an "opinion" not a fact contradicted. Just because you did not read the posts and the links does not change the facts at hand. Nice try.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think asked for a number list of points with the reasoning and evidence to support them.
To my knowledge that has not be given. If it has please, reply with a link to the replies in this discussion.
Your passion on this matter is the only thing that makes me think that the issue might not be completely spent as it has been proposed.
I attached the pdf from Goldwater Institute somewhere in this discussion.
If your persuasive , evidenced proposal is contained in that document you might want to copy the particular points into this discussion.
Again, in greater detail, Lack of belief does not equal lack of understanding OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED in this case, to the best of my observation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are one stubborn individual, which may be a good thing in today's world. The Goldwater links numerous and the pdf files explain in detail how there is no risk to a Con Con and they also addressed your remaining questions and well as the others that asked questions.
Again lack of belief is an OPINION and not related to the facts at hand.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell,
Your are needed at other discussions. IMO your energy and talent are wasted here.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thomas & Lock, you might find it useful to check outhttp://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/article-five-constitu...
- Permalink Reply by on
- This man is just not correct in his "OPINION" - AGAIN I would ask that those that have interest read the Goldwater Institution's numerous papers on the subject of the Con Con.
Please keep in mind that the "RUNAWAY CONVENTION" is a red herring because even if it did go wacky; there is little or no risk because 3/4th or 38 State legislatures must ratify the work or it is void. Those that fear this concept are those that have a vested interest in the supreme Federal Government we now have - the three branches of government have usurped the powers they now wield without authority in the Constitution.
In deed what the three branches has done is to change the meaning of words and altered punctuations to create new powers that are just not there. They have even just said that the Constitution was just a outline for government, they also said it was a living document and should be modernized every so often by Congress and the Courts. Well these are just flat out lies - there is no evidence in any of the Founders Papers or does the Constitution contain language that would support these beliefs.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "In deed what the three branches has done is to change the meaning of words and altered punctuations to create new powers that are just not there. They have even just said that the Constitution was just a outline for government, they also said it was a living document and should be modernized every so often by Congress and the Courts."
Positivist theory. Interestingly, Hitler and the National Socialists gave themselves all powers of the State with a Positivist legal theory (as have all other tyrannical governments).
"Well these are just flat out lies - there is no evidence in any of the Founders Papers or does the Constitution contain language that would support these beliefs."
Correct, Lock.
Natural Law grounds both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Natural Law pervades the thinking and writings of all the framers of the Constitution. To discard Natural Law for any other theory is discarding the Constitution itself.
- Permalink Reply by on
- According to LOCKE's works and concepts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Correct again, sir.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, Nathan,
I think you would be interested to check this out,
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/forum/topics/the-bill-of-federalis...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Views: 55
Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy,
I disagree with the following statement,
"state and federal on equal footing"
The federal government is merely a conglomeration of the States and the People. The House representing the people and the Senate representing the states. The federal government is only a representation of the combined will of the states and the people, not a body of its own.
- Permalink Reply by on
- My point Fretjok was merely that "The Fed" is not a body of its own but a combination of the states and in so being is ultimately subservient to the states.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Articles did not fail.
We fought and won a war against the greatest power the world had ever known under them and prospered under them afterward. They were flawed in the requirement for unanimous consent for any and all action. They also prevented any chance of a national government becoming a reality which was their very purpose.
What did happen was Shay's Rebellion over the broken promises and crushing debt incurred by average farmers during the war. This was used as fodder by Hamilton and the merchantmen in Boston to justify a strong central government.
If they only knew what we know now.
.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You're beliefs about Hamilton didn't prevail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#cite_note-9
And I believe Hamilton is being misunderstood, and that since capitalism is about all of us having equal opportunity to sell our goods, services, etc., that merchant applies to everyone with that opportunity as well.
And to help with this equal footing thing.
No state can pass a law in violation of the Constitution, and neither can the National Government pass a law in violation of the Constitution.
Yet no police powers were granted to the National Government, whereas the States have inherent police powers.
And try the California Constitution some time. I discovered this when working on a writ for a group of Christians who believe the Social Security number is the "mark of the beast" due to its necessity with everything we do, and they were wanting drivers licenses in California. We won, then were overturned then it went to the State Supreme Court and we won, and it was not able to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as they had no jurisdiction, and here is why.
The California Constitution guarantees "enjoyment" of religion, which is greater than merely "freedom" of religion. Where a State's Constitution guarantees greater individual liberties the U.S. Supreme Court either is without jurisdiction, or can be overturned by the State Supreme Court of the jurisdiction with guarantees of greater individual liberty. Another way to get around the Federal Authority using the State Constitutions :)
This held true in a divorce case based on some aspect of property, maybe it was alimony, and how there was some provision of the California Constitution that allowed the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to be overturned in a divorce!
I do not have the info in my direct possession, so if you want to see this for yourself, I'd find the California Constitutional "enjoyment of religion" and then shepardize it, and in reading the cases is how I found the divorce case as well.
And I was just the researcher finding the pieces for the mouth pieces who often were also litigants in the cases as they had been disbarred for suing the IRS. So we had a bit of a deck stacked in our favor in the case of this writ.
And Mr. Neff, I had someone just last night, who was in a chat and wants the system to collapse, an obvious Progressive, making the very same argument you are making about the States, that they aren't entities, they aren't bodies, etc. I might suggest, if you're sincere about wanting to help us return to a Constitutional Republic, that you review your position.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is a body of it's own, that's the meaning of "constitute."
You'll read in the Federalist Papers reference to the "General Government" and "General Jurisdiction" that is what was constituted, a compound republic, the National government a body in and of itself, and on an equal footing for certain matters, while retaining a large body of powers to the States and the People.
We instituted a body to be one face in Commerce, as that was the main reason we did all of this, which should be obvious when you read Article I, Section 8.
The House does represent the people, as a means of "republicanism," to which the States were to mirror for their people as there is a requirement that the States are guaranteed a republican form of government, Article IV, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
Someone may want to send this to the DNC and the GOP leaders, as then it might be easier to deem the Progressives invaders :p
The Senate was intended to secure the Rights of The States were not negatively impacted by either the People (the House) or the Executive Branch, and to introduce legislation to assert State power and authority through the Federal Body, when it would be of benefit to the whole Union.
Together they are a body known as "Congress" and you'll find they existed before anything else in government, when you read the first words of the unanimous Declaration of Independence, it's right at the top and looks like a title but it's the fact of the matter:
"In Congress July 4th, 1776..."
This is why you'll find it is Congress with the power of the purse, and Congress by which the other branches power was recognized, and it is also by Congress that we can withdraw and repeal those powers. Congress is a body of 2 Houses to which the State's Interests were destroyed by the 17th Amendment. And is why its repeal is one of the necessities to restoring State's Rights and our compound republic.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well stated, excellent points all though we could easily argue the finer points. I think much is forgotten than it is fatal to do so for our republic. The level of ignorance shocks me daily but even worse is the desire to remain so which happens just as often.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Argue with the Founders, not me :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Se, se, senior.
Arriba, separar tu punta de sofa, no television
Liberacion - el vote.
Viva Mexico.
LOL,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- hahaha no idea what you said, but thank you for a moment of remembering AM Radio from Mexico riding into Illinois when I was a kid, during sunspots hahaha
- Permalink Reply by on
- Laurie pushes 1 for english!
LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are right to a point. It was the contract that established the federal government changing the Constitution is our constitutional right. The idea is to retain the original meaning of the Constitution the proposal is just that a proposal. We are debating it to enhance our understanding of the Constitution and to see what weakness it holds and to determine if it will restrain the power of government or grant poweres that it previouslly did not have to the government.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, we have no Constitutional Rights.
The Bill of Rights is a restatement of existing rights at the time to emphasize the limits on government.
We have a Sovereign Right of our Sovereign Power in the creation of this pet who became a behemoth seeking to swallow us whole. Our Ratification made the Constitution Our instrument over State and Federal Republics.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Did I not say that. Article 5 gives us the power to change the Constitution if need be.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sure, but, okay take a second, this one was hard for me to understand long ago.
Okay say you created a new tire, one that grips on black ice and without studs, you of course copyrighted it and all of that. Well you find come company out of some foreign country modified the tire and is selling it for 1/4 your price. You'd be livid, and want to assert your copyright, and you'd be well aware only you had the right to modify this tire, it's your design, belongs to you, and if you want you can scrap it altogether and take it off the market.
Our Constitution is the very same instrument. Upon ratification it became ours, according to our Founders.
Article V is not a commandment upon us, as none of the Constitution is. Article V is a provision for purposes of Congress amending the Constitution, each boxed number I am taking the liberty to insert, is a the conditions placed on the body as named, "Congress." The boxed asterisk (*) is where the relevance of Congress will is of no import:
"The Congress, [1]whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, [2]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."
The use of "may" is permissive and discrtionary, and does not mean necessarily that Congress must pick one, but that either method would apply if Congress had suggested either, but due to the *, no such thing is required for the Intents and Purposes of an Amendment to be immediately part of the Constitution upon ratification by 3/4 of the States.
And again, this entire section is about how Congress can Amend the Constitution. We can amend it at any time:
"Permit me to mention one great principle, the vital principle I may well call it, which diffuses animation and vigor through all the others. The principle I mean is this, that the supreme or sovereign power of the society resides in the citizens at large; and that, therefore, they always retain the right of abolishing, altering, or amending their constitution, at whatever time, and in whatever manner, they shall deem expedient. James Wilson, Founding Father, Lectures on Law: Volume 1 Chapter 1 page 17."--Emphasis mine and different at the site,http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/quoting-the-founders/james-wils...
This is from one of 6 men who signed both the unanimous Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States of America.
Our States can call a Constitutional Convention upon our urging them to do so, and ratify whatever they want, to which it is immediately "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."
We don't need stinking Article V as the Constitution belongs to us, Congress must act according to that Article, and even then, the moment the states ratify, the order of priority of how Article V is stated, demonstrates the effects in such order, so that even when Congress calls a convention, ratified by 3/4 of the states, poof it's done, and that is as a hurdle, for Congress would have to convince 3/4 of the States the Amendment was in their best interest. You see?
This is why questions surrounding the deeming of the 16th Amendment as ratified, by, I believe it was Secretary of the Treasury Knox, even before some states had voted on it, has been trouble for many people.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ditto!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fretjok,
#10 is completely workable
A legislative document only has meaning when the context of the time it was written is used to interpret its purpose. #9 has nothing to do with #10 and is only a attempt to argue the validity of the proposed action.
Your complaints are baseless and show a disregard for the protection of individual liberties Fretjok, the progressive socialist time in this country is coming to a end, pass that along please.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick
I knew that you could bring clarity to #10 I hope that you have looked over the above listed link:
http://thememphisteaparty.com/Bill_of_Federalism.html
We need to provide input and support to this proposal or create our own for debate.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes I did go and read it James, Thank you for posting this and excelent job finding it. I think this will be a long process, but this document is a good start and brings many of the contentious government actions into consideration.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fretjock
The intent of the founding fathers is immaterial what is important is the meaning of the words of the Constitution the purpose of these amendments is to strengthen those meanings. Your argument about the commerce clause is makes my point for nearly hundred and fifty years everyone knew what the Constitution meant then the progressive movement decided they could manipulate the meaning by trying to guess what the intent was and changed meaning of the Constitution without amending it.
As Congress has exercised powers beyond those delegated to it by the Constitution, the powers of states that were reserved by the enumeration of delegated powers have been usurped. The second proposed amendment restores the Commerce Clause to its original meaning, thereby leaving wholly intrastate activities to be prohibited or regulated by the several states, or be left completely free of any regulations as states may choose. And it negates three constructions adopted by the Supreme Court to expand the reach of Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause—sometimes called the “Sweeping Clause”—of Article I: that Congress has power to regulate wholly interstate activity that either (a) “affects” interstate activity, (b) uses instrumentalities obtained from outside the state, or (c) is part of a comprehensive national regulatory scheme. This amendment makes clear that Congress retains the power to regulate interstate pollution and the power to define and punish acts of war and insurrection against the United States, for example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction. This provision leaves untouched the delegated powers of Congress to regulate wholly intrastate activities to enforce civil rights as expressly authorized by, for example, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments; it only restricts the improper construction of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to reach wholly intrastate activity.
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO you are right when is comes to conversation once the intent is understood by all parties then we put to words our contract, that clearly expresses our intent at that time, that is our Constitution a clear expression of the intent written in words that gives meaning to that intent. We can not go back and say that what the Constitution says was not the intent because we have no way of knowing what their intent was other then to assume that they meant what they said when they wrote the Constitution and what it said was agreed to by all who signed it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James the original context is crucial to understanding the meaning of the Constitution, without that, proposals such as this will end up passed for a meaning that destroys Our Founders intentions.
Words have meanings and those meanings carry with them intention, purpose, conviction, and even blood. Soldier do not die for sake of relativity, they die for sake of conviction and purpose, so too with Thomas Jefferson and every jott and tittle of the unanimous Declaration of Independence, as well as Martin Luther King. They do not fight in vein for without the meaning to words, we return to a world where someone must suffer, must be physically penalized for sake of a lack of meaning of the words to them, to help them understand their wrong. That is why we had trial-by-ordeal, the drowning of "witches" the seeking of the confession from someone even after they were drawn and quartered and their body put on a pike to be burned while they're still alive. The words had no meaning but what the men wielding them intended in the moment. This is the feudal history we left for this very reason, a nation governed "by laws and not men."
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree as I have said before If the Constitution does not mean what it says then it means nothing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ahhh, okay I misunderstood and apparently so did Fretjock, my apologies sir.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree the use of words change over time to understand what those words meant at the time the Constitution was written we must except the definition of the words in question at the time it was written. I have no problem with that, but to try to second guess what someone long dead was thinking when he signed a contract is imposable. Therefor the meaning of the Constitution must stand as written.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sorry to label but you present a progressive socialist argument.
The issue you bring with 10 is incorrect, "originalist method" as stated by you is not included in this proposal,
Article [of Amendment 10] — [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution]10
The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.
A good example of the reasoning of this proposal is exampled below,
Welfare-
"Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." (1828 websters dictionary)
Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed. (Current definition.)
The difference and why you "don't get it" about the difference between #9 and #10 is that 10 references the the need to use the proper contex and meaning of the words in the constitution at the time of its writing. Wheras 9 is writen in regards to rights of the individual that are not enumerated in the constitution but fall into the category of "rights retained by the people" which are not specified, but have in recent years come under attack from the SC and legislative bodies as deciding what "rights" people do and do not have.
Article [of Amendment 9] — [The Rights Retained by the People]9
Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.
Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.
And the explanation of this, which you have chosen to ignore,
9. The existing Ninth Amendment says that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Section 1 of this proposal elaborates on the original meaning of “rights . . . retained by the people” with language that is adopted from the wording of amendments proposal to the first Congress by state ratification conventions and by James Madison, and from the very similar wording found in several state Constitutions at the time of the Founding. For example, the constitution of Pennsylvania read: “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 protected the right of any citizen “to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property. . . .” Section 2 corrects the current approach of the Supreme Court that precludes citizens and legal residents from contesting the necessity and propriety of restrictions on their retained rights unless the Court deems the right in question to be “fundamental” and provides all liberties with the same type of protection now accorded the rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.
So the real question is, Do ya get it NOW?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick L Neff,
When "originalist method" is redefined later, because we gave a definitive to the hands of the legislature, and the role of the court is already established--it's merely usurpation by which it operates today--will you be able to force the government to listen to the meaning you've set forth?
I went by what's presented above and you appear to have other information about it, would you please share the source as I'd be glad to withdraw whatever position I've arrived at due to responding specifically to what's presented here by the OP, without any link to anything else, at least not in my browser.
#9 above, note your section 2:
". . . the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution."
Unalienable rights aren't proven to the satisfaction of any man or men. That's the whole point of freedom and the expansion of government taking place before your eyes that you do not see because you believe a list of what qualifies as unenumerated rights needs to exist to counter the attacks you referred to by the U.S. Supreme Court. So an argument of what is and isn't an unenumerated right, to be reviewed by the very same who are attacking the notion of liberty seems reasonable to you, particularly requiring you to show you are using a right given to you by your God? Really? Do you see what you're supporting here? I do not believe so.
The ignored portion is a Progressive argument extraordinaire. Expanding the jurisdication of the court is expansion of government! To declare as you wish to here, and grant an authority to review what I know belongs to me from God by a group of others who aren't me and God didn't give to them what he gave me, nor vice versa; a court of public servants, the right to seek my proving a right given to me by God, is an Progressive's wet dream to destroy God, or didn't you even consider that?
Found the link, thanks James :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your attempts to show me as a progressive will not work,
As for #9,
". . . the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution."
What this means-
if a law is made that people say is against their rights, those that are advocating for the law Must prove that it has the authority to be enacted by the constitution. If they can't Prove that it has constitutional authority, it is not legal, but is therby a states issue to be decided by the individual states or the people.
Why is that so hard to understand?
And you try to call me a progressive for this thinking?
Limiting the government to prove that the laws they propose are constitutional is progressive thinking in your mind?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Also Toddy,
I never stated that people's rights need to be enumerated as you claim,
"because you believe a list of what qualifies as unenumerated rights needs to exist to counter the attacks you referred to by the U.S. Supreme Court."
It is impossible to enumerate the rights of a free individual, but you need to read the statement again because it says nothing about enumerating the rights of the individual. It states that if a claim of violation of rights is made,
"the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order"
must prove that the law has constitutional authority to do so. Not the claimant who says their rights were violated, THOSE DEFENDING THE LAW MUST PROVE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Please do not make the mistake of using Alinsky style tactics of claiming statements I did not make.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I haven't studied Alinksky, you clearly have, and, I know that George Bush and the Congress changed the burden of proof standard in Tax cases, so the burden is on the Government, and nothing has changed.
I was wrong in how I read it and appreciate you pointing it out. However, you remain the one calling people progressives, by innuendo or otherwise, and you are using a Progressive mind to view these things, as it is clear to me this is an expansion of government power.
The burden of proof in tax cases, remains with the person claiming it doesn't apply to them. Even though this is supposed to have been changed, and the reason is this: The mechanics of the situation, their actual operation.
When you make a claim on the government, you have to assert something in that claim, and, the government grants a hearing or not, denial of that claim or denial of even granting a hearing, is what grants permission to sue, as you've exhausted your administrative remedies. This is how the government looks at it, and will look at this Amendment as well.
The burden of proof is on the one filing the claim, the Plaintiff always has to prove their case except in admiralty proceedings, and using a libel of review. We were one of the first to use that with the IRS and in another case and won, and no we're not lawyers.
In any event, know that to challenge a law and ask the government to prove it is not a violation of rights is merely by them holding a few hearings and massaging the words, to comply with what would be considered a lawful use of process. Nothing changes by the Amendment, and the burden of proof will remain on the claimant the moment the proceeding heads to civil court, where the standard throughout history is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
This Amendment doesn't amend the judiciary act to change that.
I remain wrong to the Amendment as it is written, and again thank you for helping me with that, it is greatly appreciated, so much goes through my head of all I've done to fight this government long before the Tea Part existed, and the many things we found in that regard.
However, having done things I was told were impossible to help others in every way I could with some proceeding here or there, I speak from that perspective of what I see as a 100% likelihood, due to the Civil Court system that the Plaintiff will have the burden of poof if they wish to establish the law violates their individual liberties, and, further, this is because they are the only one that knows what their individual liberties are.
In fact, while writing this, do you know what it means to carry out an unconscionable act?
I mean, could you tell me what my unalienable rights are, other than what's listed in the Declaration of Independence? Of course you couldn't, as I could not for you. So then how is a government to know, particularly one that has lied over and over again? It is a compelled impossibility and would render this Amendment impossible to ratify because of it. And it does turn the entire judicial system on its head, basically making all courts admiralty, which is an old battle too. The Admiralty courts always wanted jurisdiction over the land.
Otherwise the government will be happy to assume the power, and expand their jurisdiction, to know what rights you have are and are not being violated and to be the one to prove in their courts, by their system, that your rights are not beig violated even when they ask you to get on your knees and lick their boots clean.
I'd be careful to throw around Alinsky's name as though you're an expert too.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fretjock, I fully understand what you are saying and agree almost entirely, and, you're right, they label us as Progressive when we're specifically detailing how these things expand the authority and power of government beyond the scope of what is authorized under Article I, Section 8.
It would seem they still suffer from what I call "Progressive Mind Syndrome" and haven't unlearned the name calling knee-jerk defense mechanism, nor relieved themselves of the mental logics, to follow purely Progressive dogma and rhetoric to not even realize the person they are calling such a name is standing firm on Conservative Constitutional Principles to what Our Founders intended in having a limited government.
I've suffered this outrageous behavior myself, and tried to delineate the difference but, admins and those suffering from this malady fail to see no matter what I do. They get lost in the entire ego and narcissism of the Progressive mind as well. It saddens me that even though we have so many good people with great intention that I do not demean in the slightest, people who voted so rightly on November 2nd, that they cannot appreciate that they are not alone and others of us who, in some cases, have been fighting the system long before there were any Tea Parties, have been waiting for the awakening of a public we could not comprehend why they are asleep.
Patience is a virtue that God is trying me well for right now hahah
I mean here we all are at Tea Party sites, having worked so diligently and voted to make sure we sent a message, only to then continue to draw a line in the sand of what we are willing to understand just because our fellow Tea Partier doesn't agree with us. Our Founders agreement was strained to attain but agreement on the germane Constitution is the final outcome.
I leave the detractors and name callers with a little something from Jefferson regarding the limits to federal Power:
". . . [use of surplus tax monies] by a just repartition among the states,and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects with each state."--Bold Emphasis mine. President Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address to Congress.
". . . application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers . . . I supposed an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, is necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied."--Emphasis added. 1806 President Jefferson's 6th annual address to congress.
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now [under a State-established church]. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food. Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Gallileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled around on its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principle of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."--"Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782.
Please, tell me, what Constitutional Amendment authorizes National Government intervention in any of the areas outlined by Jefferson? None. This is the meaning, the end result, the affect, of not heeding the context of the Founders, whose wisdom even foresaw healthcare, as you see in the quote immediately above.
My area of disagreement with you is superfluous, as it has to do with some assumptions about our rights and the court, however, I believe that's for a thread dedicated to that discussion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Please clarify how #9 and #10 "expand the power of government?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I did above in the other reply as far as 9.
When ever we codify something we grant government a level of relationship with it, to where they can and will, as the last 150 years has proven, maneuver and change it. This is not something we want to do if we are trying not to expand government.
Article V is meant to be a limit on Congress, not an engagement challenge that Progressivism will embrace as such, and an opportunity to destroy our Constitution.
Been thinking of the best example.
Remember when our nation started and only property owners could vote? They were effected by government, the rest were not.
Then others wanted the right to vote, with that came government wanting to define the subject matter of those who wanted the right to vote. With suffrage came the idea of "regulation" as a means of control and not a means of individual liberty through "making regular" as the term is meant. Just the first example I can come up with off the top of my head, how we inadvertently volunteer not to be left alone, to set aside unalienable rights for the seeming rewards of doing so, that may actually have been when government was at least reasonable. I hope this is making sense to you.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I do understand your points, but I dont beleive that not addressing the problems that have been identified over the last 223 years is a solution, it only puts us into a viscious cycle of growing and lessening power of the government, and one day we may not be able to stop the power grab if we don't do something about it. I think this proposal has merits, like #10 I beleive helps put the argument of interpretation to bed. It needs to be looked at and discussed to point out the pro's and cons.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The reality is that if we had Honorable people in there we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion. The question I have is can we make it 20 years, basically one more generation, on the idea the Tea Party folks make that commitment, that we will cycle in the right people over the next 20 years to where we do not need this type of activity; or, is the situation so certainly dire, that we must take action this instant, even at the potential of enlarging government, of granting it more power, and putting our individual liberties even further at risk, possibly helping our adversary Progressive A@@#*^#s to step on the accelerator, as well as the opportunist sharks such as Soros.
Seasoned reason is more important now than ever.
This is why the Federalist and every conceivable input of Our Founders, in fact, as far back as 1641 when the first charter was done, need to be reviewed for the nuggets of wisdom they'll provide. I mean my Jefferson quote, my God, we'd have been been on the verge of a war to defeat healthcare.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy Littman
To remain silent in the Constitution is likewise a grant of power to the government which that may not be your intent. In this age of Judaical activism I would feel better knowing that the powers of the government limited by verse then limited by silence. IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, I appreciate the position, and I am not necessarily advocating silence. I am, more than anything, advocating that we aren't trying to amend the Constitution as a reaction.
Our Founders 223 years of wisdom isn't from rushing into anything. To be frank, the Declaration was one of 3 we had done, we started this process back in 1641, and the reason is that Feudal Customs require this. Then there has to be, in Feudal Custom again, a form of government instituted within 2 years, The Articles of Confederation were such government. And finally, what is called, in feudal law, "a Deed of Constitution" which, in our case, was based entirely on the principles of the Declaration, and results in our owning this nation, our being the Sovereign, as a people in the way an Indian Nation is a nation.
Feodarum Consuetinibus is "Feudal Customs" in English, and these customs tended to be similar amongst the nations of Europe, and to be recognized as an independent nation amongst the world this was required of us.
Patience and a willingness to truly ponder the meaning of things is how we have their sage wisdom culminating into the nation we love and cherish, with great appreciation for being Americans, and it is in this very manner that we must pursue our remedies, not in an ad hoc knee-jerk reaction, for, then we are letting those who caused the reaction control our destiny, to which it no longer belongs to us.
That is all I am saying. I believe I gave ample examples of ways to pursue something without creating a controversy and challenge. Do you see anywhere in the Declaration of Independence a Challenge to the King of England or any of the Monarchs of Europe? None is in the Constitution either. This is important to me to take heed in and act in like manner to, in amending the Founding Document we set forth as the manner to institute our form of Government entire.
I am of the hope we can come to terms with the very nature of ourselves that we must tame to attain the capacity Our Founders had, and thus, not go off carrying out solutions with our minds remaining half inside and half outside the realm of what we are attempting to add to for the very same reasons they had: making certain there cannot be a despotic, central government, democratic rule, all that which had proven to them by history to be detrimental to individual liberty.
These aren't mild things to contemplate.
No comments:
Post a Comment