And what are they going to do that won’t make the matter worse? The problem here is not that the Constitution needs tweaking, but rather that important powers are simply reinterpreting or ignoring the law.
Adding a “but this time we mean it” clause to the Constitution is just another thing to reinterpret or ignore, and a constitution convention allows the opportunity for other parties to undermine the Constitution even more than they already are. After all, you can’t exclude the parties you don’t like. They get to play ball too.
For example, we could pass a balanced budget amendment. Or we could pass an amendment to prohibit Congress from restricting its own ability to borrow money. We could prohibit treaty from having precedence over legislative law, or we could give treaty precedence over all other law including the Constitution itself. It all depends on who has the upper hand. And if this convention is called because the federal government has grown too powerful, then that’s a likely reason right there for the convention to fail. After all, they have considerable power to stack the deck by detaining or excluding anyone from the convention that they don’t want present.
Karl, a convention of states is not a constitutional convention. Senator Coburn briefly talks about it here.
All that aside, I think a day will come when the Federal Govt does not have the money to give to states. When that happens, there will be no reason to follow all the mandates. That will be when the states opt out of being merely administrative districts.
Or, there could be a time (I doubt it) when the states say the money isn’t worth all the trouble. Even in ecotopia Washington, I doubt they’ll give up federal dollars in order to keep their precious pot legislation if a republican president decides to put the hammer down on pot sales. And that is depressing, because as much as I dislike the pot sales, I think Washington has the right to do it–provided Mississippi has the right to ban abortions.
An Article V convention is our last resort before it’s time to start shooting the tyrants. And we’re there. Convene it as quickly as possible.
But Jon is right about the states being dependent on federal money. If the states don’t have the gumption to tell the feds, “We don’t need your money with strings attached”, where are they going to find the courage to call an Article V convention?
I liked Sarah Hoyt’s post, but I think the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. Just a few short months ago I would have agreed with her. But voters gave the GOP a huge victory in November, with a clear mandate to stand up to Obama and the Democrats. They have responded by capitulating at every turn.
In 1933 the Nazis rammed the Enabling Act through the Reichstag, giving Hitler dictatorial powers. Today, no Enabling Act is needed, because Congress is voluntarily ceding its power to the President. For example, Congress created the EPA and the FCC. When the EPA issues regulations that crush the life out of businesses, or the FCC declares itself to have the authority to control the internet, Congress could respond by defunding or abolishing those agencies. Yet they do nothing. This is very frightening.
We need a new party to replace the Republicans. And stop calling it a “third party”. That term assumes that the Democrats and Republicans are legitimately the two major parties. What we need is a “replacement party”. Conservatives and libertarians need to stop supporting the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils. As long as we do, they have no incentive to change their ways.
Henceforth, I will only vote for the Republican candidate if he or she is acceptable to me. No Romneys, Bushes, or Christies need apply. My own congressman voted with the Democrats in the recent DHS bill which funded Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. I want to see him primaried in 2016. If he is not, I will not vote for him in the general election.
They have responded by capitulating at every turn.
They passed Keystone. The president vetoed. They override failed.
That’s why they passed a clean DHS bill. That’s why defunding amnesty won’t work. If they had passed a DHS bill with defunding of amnesty in it, the president would have vetoed it, and the press would have played up how the evil Republicans shut down DHS. You have to pick the battle you can win. And as long as 1/3 of the House and Senate stick with the president, the Republicans will lose, and will be painted as the bad guys.
A new part is a non-starter. There is not enough money and they’ll be portrayed as bigger loons than the Tea Party. (I don’t think the Tea Party people are loons, but the press sure portrays them as loons.) We’re stuck with what we have.
So true! It is depressing the number of “Real Conservatives(TM)” who don’t seem to have read the Constitution. Like the Amnesty thing. I may not have liked it, but it was completely Constitutional. Article Two, Section Two. Was it Federal? Yes. Was it about Impeachment? No. That’s the ONLY restrictions on the power to grant Reprieves or Pardons. I believe “RTFM” applies here……
“And as long as 1/3 of the House and Senate stick with the president, the Republicans will lose,”
They ought to make Obama use that veto though and not just crumble under the treat of one.
I think that a convention of states is our only option.
http://www.conventionofstates.com
And what are they going to do that won’t make the matter worse? The problem here is not that the Constitution needs tweaking, but rather that important powers are simply reinterpreting or ignoring the law.
Adding a “but this time we mean it” clause to the Constitution is just another thing to reinterpret or ignore, and a constitution convention allows the opportunity for other parties to undermine the Constitution even more than they already are. After all, you can’t exclude the parties you don’t like. They get to play ball too.
For example, we could pass a balanced budget amendment. Or we could pass an amendment to prohibit Congress from restricting its own ability to borrow money. We could prohibit treaty from having precedence over legislative law, or we could give treaty precedence over all other law including the Constitution itself. It all depends on who has the upper hand. And if this convention is called because the federal government has grown too powerful, then that’s a likely reason right there for the convention to fail. After all, they have considerable power to stack the deck by detaining or excluding anyone from the convention that they don’t want present.
Karl, a convention of states is not a constitutional convention. Senator Coburn briefly talks about it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPGyF6uNBLw
Also, Mark Levin talks about it in his book, The Liberty Amendments: http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Mark-Levin/dp/145160632X
All that aside, I think a day will come when the Federal Govt does not have the money to give to states. When that happens, there will be no reason to follow all the mandates. That will be when the states opt out of being merely administrative districts.
Or, there could be a time (I doubt it) when the states say the money isn’t worth all the trouble. Even in ecotopia Washington, I doubt they’ll give up federal dollars in order to keep their precious pot legislation if a republican president decides to put the hammer down on pot sales. And that is depressing, because as much as I dislike the pot sales, I think Washington has the right to do it–provided Mississippi has the right to ban abortions.
An Article V convention is our last resort before it’s time to start shooting the tyrants. And we’re there. Convene it as quickly as possible.
But Jon is right about the states being dependent on federal money. If the states don’t have the gumption to tell the feds, “We don’t need your money with strings attached”, where are they going to find the courage to call an Article V convention?
I liked Sarah Hoyt’s post, but I think the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. Just a few short months ago I would have agreed with her. But voters gave the GOP a huge victory in November, with a clear mandate to stand up to Obama and the Democrats. They have responded by capitulating at every turn.
In 1933 the Nazis rammed the Enabling Act through the Reichstag, giving Hitler dictatorial powers. Today, no Enabling Act is needed, because Congress is voluntarily ceding its power to the President. For example, Congress created the EPA and the FCC. When the EPA issues regulations that crush the life out of businesses, or the FCC declares itself to have the authority to control the internet, Congress could respond by defunding or abolishing those agencies. Yet they do nothing. This is very frightening.
We need a new party to replace the Republicans. And stop calling it a “third party”. That term assumes that the Democrats and Republicans are legitimately the two major parties. What we need is a “replacement party”. Conservatives and libertarians need to stop supporting the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils. As long as we do, they have no incentive to change their ways.
Henceforth, I will only vote for the Republican candidate if he or she is acceptable to me. No Romneys, Bushes, or Christies need apply. My own congressman voted with the Democrats in the recent DHS bill which funded Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. I want to see him primaried in 2016. If he is not, I will not vote for him in the general election.
They have responded by capitulating at every turn.
They passed Keystone. The president vetoed. They override failed.
That’s why they passed a clean DHS bill. That’s why defunding amnesty won’t work. If they had passed a DHS bill with defunding of amnesty in it, the president would have vetoed it, and the press would have played up how the evil Republicans shut down DHS. You have to pick the battle you can win. And as long as 1/3 of the House and Senate stick with the president, the Republicans will lose, and will be painted as the bad guys.
A new part is a non-starter. There is not enough money and they’ll be portrayed as bigger loons than the Tea Party. (I don’t think the Tea Party people are loons, but the press sure portrays them as loons.) We’re stuck with what we have.
So true! It is depressing the number of “Real Conservatives(TM)” who don’t seem to have read the Constitution. Like the Amnesty thing. I may not have liked it, but it was completely Constitutional. Article Two, Section Two. Was it Federal? Yes. Was it about Impeachment? No. That’s the ONLY restrictions on the power to grant Reprieves or Pardons. I believe “RTFM” applies here……
“And as long as 1/3 of the House and Senate stick with the president, the Republicans will lose,”
They ought to make Obama use that veto though and not just crumble under the treat of one.