- There is a very good reason why all 27 amendments to the Constitution were offered by Congressional resolution: a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster.Proponents of a Constitutional Convention claim that opponents of a Con-Con use “…half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods…” to instill fear of the process. They do not, however, provide any examples of the alleged “half-truths, myths, and outright falsehoods.”Here is the whole truth, which is neither a myth nor a falsehood.Mr. Lamb is just expressing his opinion and in my opinion he is just plain old wrong -1) There is no such thing as a Constitutional convention. Article V calls a convention- which in the time of the founders meant a Meeting. So, he uses a term that does not exist in the Constitution - why - because it can instill confusion and fear. IMO2) There are no rules in the Constitution how, when and where a convention is to be structured, enabled, timing or subject matter. So, again he fears a strawman.3) There is no language in Article V that prevents the legislatures of 38 States from negotiating language [specific] and putting that amendment in completed form and then voting to ratify those desired amendments. After the ratification of the 38th State legislature the amendment is deemed adopted and is presented to Congress as passed law. Congress and the President are not required in this option and this would be consistent to the Founders intentions to be the final protection from an usurping Federal government.4) 38 States can amend at any time they desire and in any manner they can agree to and ratify with the vote of 38 Legislatures. Mr. Lamb again uses a strawman to say that all amendments save the bill of rights were process through the Congressional recommendation method of Article V, in truth most were put to the States because such a great demand was among the many states that Congress was forced to action.5) Many times the States have petitioned the Congress to call for an amendment and the Congress refused because not enough states signed the petition to force the hand of Congress. What would the Congress say if they were presented with an amendment ratified by 38 States - no we are not going to accept this amendment as there was no meeting called by us?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Did you watch the videos? If so tell me where the risk that PH, Phyllis S. and a few others have expressed opinions. I have read most of PH's works and appreciate her efforts - but like even the SCOTUS they usually reach decisions on a 5-4 vote - so opinions are not always 100% correct are they?Keep in mind that Law Schools for the Most part on require one course on Con Law and the rest of the time they study case law theory. So, Lawyers are not always Constitutional scholars. JMOHow you be afraid of 38 State legislatures making the wrong decisions after all they signed off on all the amendments except the original bill of rights which was required to be added so the 3/4 ratifying number could be met.Now the final question - is not the the Congress in usurpation, is not the Judicial system in usurpation, is not the Executive branch in usurpation.Jefferson said:I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake. - From a letter to John Taylor (June 1798), after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. - Letter to Abigail Adams (1804)Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead. - Letter to H. Tompkinson , 12 July 1816
- Permalink Reply by on
- The difference in State populations was known and considered by the Founders; that is why they created the Senate and made it an appointed position by the State legislature to keep it beholding to the power of the individual and the State. The change to an elected Senate has been a disaster with people holding power for 50+ years - the elected Senators have no beholding to the State Legislature and in fact often goes against the States best interest.
This is only one of the problems with the 17th amendment.you bring up a very good point about our rights, the Founders had considerable debate about the Bill of Rights as some thought that just stating some might be construed to eliminate other that were not mentioned specifically. In other words they were concerned about limiting our UNLIMITED rights from the Creator or the natural laws.Lock,
Indeed they were very concerned and rightly so. I think they took great pains to eliminate the possibility of someone drawing the conclusion that they enumerated the ONLY rights we have. 10A being a prime example. I don't see how it could have been stated any clearer.yes about the 10th, but look at how the Progressives have abused and usurped the intent and powers contained therein? Power without a concern citizenry will be concentrated in those that will just take or act without fear of reprisal.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is interesting that Law Schools teach case Law Theory - Stare decisis theory (settled Law by prior cases decisions) and no longer the Constitution and it's Rule - by - Law theory.
They can not twist the Constitution at will so they just adopted the British Common Law System for use in America courts and it's Rule - by - Man theories. That is why there are now so many Attorneys in America they have created a entire separate set of laws to argue in court keeping the sovereign individual out of the process. The system we now use was created because England has a Parliamentarian Democracy with "NO" Constitution as the base of laws.
America has a constitution so why are the courts using Common Law and even using foreign courts cases to decide America cases? This must be ended; no one has seen where this legal system was adopted by the legislature of a state or federal?
It seems as though the courts just did what they wanted without adult supervision?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I would submit because we the people let them rule us instead of us taking responsibility for our problems and asked them to MAKE A LAW and they did - just to damn many and now they own us as chattel, We have returned to slave status for the Federal usurpers of the Constitutional Republic.
Return the powers stolen back to the States and let them compete to create a good economy for their state.
- Permalink Reply by on
- And this is the way it must be in one house of Government to protect the individual person and the small States from being run over. If we return to Original Constitution, these things will not matter because the enumerated powers will protect the States by removing their usurped powers now in use.
The Founders had the same problem back then many farmer States and a few industrial manufacturing high population States. They designed the
Senate to protect these small farm based States. What you are describing is a "DEMOCRACY" AMERICA IS A "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" - by design to protect the smallest minority from a aggressive majority - that smallest minority would be the sovereign individual (single citizen).
- Permalink Reply by on
- That is why the people house is based on population to provide a voice for the majority. you must remember America is "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" and we are not a Democracy or a Democratic form of government so the question of is that Democratic is mute.
The Senate was designed to be a voice for the States and minorities, before the 17th amendment Senators were selected by the State legislatures and the Senators were then beholding to the State population through their elected representatives in their State houses.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are wanting a Democracy form of government and not the Constitutional Republic the Founders designed for our protection of the sovereign individual not the collective society.
If you read the Founders papers and the Federalist Papers you will find that the Founders were well aware of the total failure of all Democracy based societies in history. They debated all form of structures but selected the Representative Republic because it had the most protections for the individual from a king or a unjust majority.
One man one vote theory is not in the Constitution to my recollections? Where does this concept come from?
- Permalink Reply by on
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment