I had this link sent to my promotions file. Click Here to see what I'm talking about and tell us what you think of these Article V proposals.

Views: 800

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This site will help some that desire more depth on the 14th

http://www.cato.org/search/results/Working%20paper%20on%20the%2014t...

Posted both of these in Blog Posts. Both are featured. Thanx

FIRST TWO SUGGESTIONS for the Constitutional Convention---Balanced Budget Amendment AND TERM LIMITS!!  Start with these two Amendments, WE the people can make a HUGE change in Washington, DC, both fiscally and in leadership.

U.S. Constitution - Article 5

Article 5 - Amendment

Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

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.

Notes for this article:
Note
Amending the Constitution
State Amendment Ratifications - Grid

ARTICLE V IS A LIMIT ON CONGRESS NOT THE STATES

 

Please note the use of the directive "Congress SHALL" the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers gave no room for Congress to block the States from presenting AMENDMENTS. Most of those that are against using Article V create a huge laundry list of doom and gloom items that would give Congress the power to set formate, number of delegates, subjects, selection of delegates, Court reviews and changes. 

These are all conjured up maybe, if, could be, dangerous, open, unlimited, can change the entire Constitution, will end our Constitution, need to use elections to make changes, does not comply with the Federalist papers, Court cases say it can not be limited, and the list goes on and on. Depending which group making the presentation they will use case law to change Article V simple clear language.

Read the actual words of the Constitution Article V above and share with us how and where any such things are required, suggested or even allowed. Clearly Congress upon the vote of 2/3 can put forth an amendment and clearly the State legislatures of 2/3 can put forth an amendment. What is Congress now empowered to act upon?

It "SHALL" send the amendment to the many States for a vote by the legislature to RATIFY, this requires 3/4 of the States to approve exactly as presented. Then Congress must use that as the LAW OF THE LAND in the future.

Or in the alternative the States 2/3 can present an amendment for the Congress to send out for a vote to Ratify by 3/4 approval. What happens if the State Legislatures of 3/4 plus vote to create an amendment - congress "SHALL" again send it our for a vote to Ratify by the 50 State legislatures and upon the vote of to approve by 3/4 of the many States become the law of the land.

Notice that none of the above actions require approval of any of the Three branches of Government. Congress is again LIMITED to serve as a CLERK without a vote in the States amendment option. Not only is the Federal Government and Congress Limited they are instructed to stay out of the process if the States use the State Convention option. 

States determine what a CONVENTION is comprised of  as in the case of the 21st amendment the Congress sent the amendment to the State Legislatures for them to use the Convention method to hold a vote in each legislature to RATIFY. The States used the entire Legislature as the Convention.  I find no records of any of the panic arguments presented by those that do not want to repeal offending Amendments - 14th, 16th and 17th. They never present a method to CORRECT as the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers called the State option of the Article V powers.

In closing America is operating as a Social Democracy ruled by Man and majority votes. Congress now uses a 50% plus one vote to approve any law [statute] they desire as they did with ACA. All three branches have usurped powers so for all intents and purposes we have no Constitution at this time limiting the Central Federal government.

Here is what was said about using general clauses such as the General Welfare or the Necessary and Proper to expand LIMITED powers. It appears that old Federalist Paper author Hamilton is again behind the expansion of the General Welfare and the Necessary and proper Clauses - keep in mind that he supported a King like Presidnet and very strong Federal government.

 

Here are some supporting links:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welf...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_1s25.html

http://www.claremont.org/basicPageArticle/restoring-the-general-to-...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Congressional_power

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nec&proper...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

I think the idea of repealing these 3 amendments is an improvement, but misses the 2 main problems. After the original constitutional convention was done, James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution", commented that the only changes made were made on the request from the Bankers. So, to get rid of the bankers' hooks, that allowed them to destroy that constitution in a little less than 100 yrs, we really need to go all the way back to the Articles of Confederation. And the other enemy this proposal doesn't deal with is the one dealt with by the original 13th Amendment, which prohibits Esquires from being officers in our country!  Without kicking both of these groups out, any other fix isn't going to fix it.  The "government" doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution, so why will this amendment make any difference? We need a more radical surgery to save this patient!

The AV repeal move takes away the money and power from Washington and returns it to the many State Legislatures. The 17th would end general elections of Senators and make them WORK FOR THE STATE LEGISLATORS as the Founders intended - giving the States a seat at the table of the Federal government. The Senate would then return to the body that protects the people from the courts and the usurping of powers - the Senate votes no it does not get done.

Keep in mind that there are over 13,000 lobbyist in DC repeal these three bills and they will be gone overnight.

Watching all states grapple with the problem of unfunded mandates, ad nauseam, is ridiculous. Why hasn't it been possible for the states to rid themselves of this problem? Can't the states collect the taxes, pay for their programs, then pay the Feds for THEIR mandates? I realize that, at state level, the legislators must be watched very closely and disinfected for graft, corruption, cronyism. Would this be a better use of our tax money?

In my own personal opinion, the states have been subjected to the fed's bribery for so long and have gotten so used to it that they have forgotten who is actually in charge in our country.

Our state legislatures need to relearn our U.S. Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, focusing on the first page, second paragraph of our DOI.  I have hammered our states politicians for nearly 6 years now and still, they don't get it.  

The federal government does NOT have the authority over the states the way the states think they do which is our problem and will continue to be until the states start growing a pair to tell the feds where to get off.

For so many years now, the feds have been pushing hard to reverse the roll of authority between themselves and the states and it has gotten completely out of control.

Just like county sheriffs, they have the ultimate authority in law enforcement within their jurisdiction and have the authority to arrest fed agents for attempting to effect an arrest for anything that our states allow but the feds don't.  This has already been tested a couple of times and the feds lost.

The only way this is all going to change back to our Constitutional guidelines is for everyone who is concerned, and that should be every Legal Law Abiding Citizen in our country to tell our state's legislators to get off their backsides and start standing up for all of us instead of allowing themselves to be pushed around and intimidated by the feds.

Hear, hear. Go tell it on the Mountain, Larry.

Liberal Lawyers But Conservative Judges. Why?

0 Comments

Adam Liptak: “Lawyers on average are much more liberal than the general population, a new study has found. But judges are more conservative than the average lawyer, to say nothing of the graduates of top law schools.”

What accounts for the gap? The answer, the study says, is that judicial selection processes are affected by politics.

“Politics plays a really significant role in shaping our judicial system,” said Maya Sen, a political scientist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and one of the authors of the study. Since judges tend to be more conservative than lawyers, she said, it stands to reason that the officials who appoint judges and the voters who elect them are taking account of ideology. She said the phenomenon amounted to a politicization of the courts, driven largely by conservatives’ swimming against the political tide of the legal profession.

“The study explored a distinctive feature of American justice. Foreign legal systems tend to be homogeneous, she said, with lawyers and judges closely aligned ideologically.”

“Conservatives had worked hard and effectively to ensure representation of their views on the courts. They have cultivated candidates for the bench, notably through the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group active on law school campuses.”

“But if the numbers of conservative candidates remains small … it makes strategic sense to deploy candidates on the courts that matter most. The study’s authors call this ‘strategic politicization.’”

Both Tony and Larry have touched on the stumbling block that we need to overcome. The many government usurpations at ALL levels of government are so huge that the majority of the population AND our so-called "representatives haven't a clue of what we are discussing here. The public is intentionally educated to be ignorant and submissive, and the representatives either are ignorant, controlled, or influenced by outside interests, whether they know it or not. Both the people and the states are so totally dependent-on and addicted-to the corporate federal government that any attempts to return to a lawful Constitutional government would be seen as a disruption of the world we have become progressively accustomed to. It's the federal "addiction" we need to point out to the public. Both the people and the states need to comprehend this. But our states are represented by ignorant or corrupted dupes.

Attempting to fix the usurpation using OUR Constitutional tools promised, but within the present corrupt environment of courts, state houses, and tainted representatives is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Our discussion group can reasonably agree on the approximate timing of when things got twisted. We need to go back to the intentions and lawful words of OUR Constitution and delete everything from the 11th Amendment forward, take back our courts, close all federal agencies, return to sound money, etc... This will be quite a disruption as the public will not know how to conduct themselves when they are free. They must learn how to simplify their thinking and actions. They are totally dependent on THE SYSTEM. As it is with any addiction, going cold turkey is usually very painful for the addicted. That, and the bankers/political drug dealers will make sure there is tormoil to suffer for saving their customer/slave.

An Article V Convention is a good idea, but we need to plan for the disruptions that we expect to develope. Point out the expected changes ahead of the return to freedom. The environment as we know it will be totally different than what we are used to and human nature is resistant to change. That's WHY we have been brought to this position by using a "progressive" deception method. The political criminals are very good at what they do!

An Article V Convention MUST be under OUR contol and NOT the present-day politicians, as they are likely to corrupt the attempt for some new gain we can't even contemplate at this time. We must expect it. Look at what they've done throughout history. We must be prepared for an attack from the very politicians and bankers that we intend to take the public's "perceived" authority away from. They are not expected to go away queitly and without a fight. This will be a life or death, take-no-prisoners battle for total control of a nation and set another precedent for an entire world. Just as the first attempt at the "Great American Experiment". They didn't like it then. History does and will repeat itself. We regain freedom by lawful tools and remedies, or the natural and historical expectations for a revolution. Either will be painful at first.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service