Comment

Comment by Bruce M Piepho on August 23, 2016 at 7:44am

Marc - I skimmed your web page and everything you point out has been my position since 2008.  That is why I co-founded a Tea Party in Northern WI and Western Upper Peninsula.  It is an excellent web site.

I agree with Tiff and Alexander, the battle for our Republic is not over.  If it was over the U.N. would not need to promote a Small Arms Treaty leading to gun registration, leading to gun confiscation, leading to the destruction of Second Amendment rights.  That is just one thread of the progressives - communism.

Where do you think we should start?  I believe the best first step to restore our Republic, reduce the size of the federal government, return to fiscal sanity and get rid of corruption is a well planned project to get an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments.

Web sites such as yours and this AFA blog can help the re-education of the people.  SO I agree with Tif Morgan we need to focus not argue.

Comment by Michael Alexander on August 22, 2016 at 11:43pm

Marc - Simplify, yes... that's why they make bumper stickers. You want a silver bullet for ALL the ills in government? You want to return States' Rights to its place of natural supremacy? Article V - The Ultimate Remedy - Try it, You'll Like It.

Comment by marc on August 22, 2016 at 7:57pm

Michael - It is case Law that is followed. You are right. only since 911 has there been any real outright changes in the first ten amendments, well how these are enforced. But We don't have them anymore because of the so called patriot act. They have not lower the boom yet, except for a couple cases. They murdered LaVoy.

I sure can simplify things. :-)

Comment by Michael Alexander on August 22, 2016 at 7:06pm

Marc - as appealing as it may sound to say that the Federal government does not follow the Constitution, that's demonstrably false. Whether it seems like it or not, even our current "lawless" government adheres to virtually every modern day AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

Historically on average, amendments to the Constitution have been followed very closely for about 100 years after they are ratified by the states and made part of the Supreme Law of the Land. That's why we don’t have slavery, why presidents don't run for third terms and why women voters now outnumber men in most elections. Some amendments have endured even longer. I mean, stop with the bumper-sticker slogans and think about it for a minute... when an amendment has been debated, drafted, proposed and ratified by BOTH CHAMBERS of THIRTY EIGHT state legislatures, the federal government has little choice but to sit up, take notice and obey the law. For example, it's been almost 225 years since the First Amendment was ratified, and only recently have the federal courts dared to trespass on religious freedom, and even at that, only on the margins and in the service of a small but admittedly influential political special interest group.

Similar things can be said of the government's nibbling at the edges of the Second Amendment… private ownership of firearms went virtually unchallenged until New York passed the first "gun control" law in 1911… that's 120 years after ratification. And even though the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Search & Seizure, Privacy, Due Process, etc.) have been held virtually sacrosanct since the nation's inception, no serious discussion about loss of liberty can avoid acknowledging the impact that September 11, 2001 and consequent federal legislation has had on them, but that's only over the last decade or so.

Although these are all liberties that are currently under attack, we have enjoyed most of them for almost 2¼ centuries, and all were achieved by AMENDING the Constitution!

Comment by marc on August 22, 2016 at 4:42pm

Bruce - What I said here did not soak in for you.

and read my websites first page. It has video of the 3000 pages they are following. the constitution has been dead for years

Comment by Tif Morgan on August 22, 2016 at 4:01pm

Michael Alexander and Marc,

it is a waste of time arguing over amendements to the US Constitution until  Action Plans Project Management- (COS) is completed.

 An action plan is a detailed plan outlining actions needed to reach one or more goals. Producing an action plan can be beneficial not only for individual basis but also for businesses. For example, it allows project managers or any member of a group to monitor their progress and take each task step-by-step, therefore allowing them to handle the project efficiently. The advantage of doing this is, it allows you to execute a structured plan for the end goal you intend to achieve. Furthermore, it provides the team with appropriate foundations, therefore- (prioritising) - prioritizing, the amount of time you spend on each task. This will then prevent any sidetracking that may occur. Lastly, it creates a bond within a team, as each member is aware of their individual role, as well as providing necessary information to ensure success of the project.

 We do as of now have the funds and the members to enforce, no amendments will go froward until these people have been removed from office. I would suggest you look over  the whole forum, its really good.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/action-plans-project-manag...

Comment by Tif Morgan on August 22, 2016 at 3:16pm

marc,

 At least COS will have the chance to undo a wrong, at least we are not sitting back on our butts doing nothing.

 Some wish to complain, some of us are fighting back instead of allowing our children to be slaves to a Unconstitutional Government.

Comment by Bruce M Piepho on August 22, 2016 at 3:09pm

The fear-mongers making any noise about a Convention of States just might end the U.S. civilization as we now know it.  All that needs to be done is the non-contributors out vote the contributors and elect Hillary.  Then the left politician progressives along with the GOP RINO progressives can follow through on destroying the constitution.  One of the goofy arguments is they" do not follow the constitution now. Why would "they" follow an amended constitution.  Going back to a comment Marc made about a balanced budget, if such an amendment was passed and had a clause whereby the federal budget not only had to be balanced but could not exceed xyz% of GDP we would hand cuff the spending.  Control the spending and you can control the politicians.

Jaspergoat is right on in that way too many people including the elected state legislators do not understand the difference between the Article V Convention and a Constitutional Convention.  The Articles of Confederation were not working so the founders were authorized to write a new constitution.  Walla - a one and only Constitution Convention ever.  Anyone have any idea as to how a complete new Constitution type of convention would or could be called for?  There is nothing in the constitution to authorize any government - state, congress, group of states, legislation by congress nothing could be initiated to call for a Constitutional Convention to create a new Constitution.  The Articles of Confederation had no amendment process provisions and the only alternative was a re-write.

Comment by Michael Alexander on August 22, 2016 at 10:57am

You're right, JaspersGoat, on two counts: it's important to understand the difference, and the difference IS discussed at length in the forum. Since I was involved in one of those discussions, I'll provide just one of my replies to another member of the group who was confused by those who were trying to conflate 1776 with 2016. Hopefully it will help clarify the difference…

- - -
Thomas... in this instance, I believe that the principle of Occam's Razor applies - that sometimes the simplest solution is the best. Once again, let me emphasize that we are not discussing a Constitutional Convention here (your "con-con"). At least I'm not, and neither is Article V.

For the purpose of our discussion here, there has only been one Constitutional Convention, and that was called in order to create our republican form of government in the first place. There was no constitution prior to that assembly, so it was not called to amend, but rather to establish, a constitution. Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one is calling for the creation of a new government or a new constitution, although that straw man is frequently trotted out as a fear-mongering tactic.

What we're addressing here is a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution, and that's all. That is what Article V describes, and that's all. It does not, nor do I, contemplate a full blown Constitutional Convention.

Now, if we can get beyond that point once and for all and discuss the actual issue at hand, I need to affirm that this -a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution - is hardly an new idea.

In 1861, the states held a dry run for an Article V "convention for proposing amendments."

The event was the Washington Conference Convention or Washington Peace Conference of 1861. It was called by the Virginia legislature in January of 1861 in an effort to avert the Civil War. The idea was that the convention would draft and propose one or more constitutional amendments that, if ratified, would weaken extremists in both the North and the South, and thereby save the Union.

This gathering differed from an Article V convention primarily in that it made its proposal to Congress rather than to the states. In most other respects, it was a blueprint for how an Article V convention would conduct itself.

The assembly followed to the letter the convention rules that had been established during the 18th century-the same rules relied on by the Constitution's Framers when they provided for a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Specifically:

The call for the convention set the place, time, and topic, but did not try to dictate other matters, such as selection of commissioners (delegates) or convention rules.

At the convention, voting was by state. The committee from each state was selected in the manner that state's legislature directed.

The convention adopted its own rules and selected its own officers.

The convention stayed on topic.

This convention's efforts eventually failed, but the failure was that of Congress, not of the convention. The convention did its job - proposing a workable compromise - but Congress failed to propose it formally for ratification.
- - -

In closing, it should be pointed out that Alexander Hamilton first made a distinction between what took place in Philadelphia in 1776 and what has yet to take place under Article V when, in Federalist No. 85, he explained that states did not need to call for a full constitutional convention since Article V provides full power to amend the Constitution. The framers understood the difference back then… it boggles the mind that, despite our alleged advances in communicative skills, so many of today's conservatives still fail to grasp that distinction.

Comment by Jaspersgoat on August 22, 2016 at 10:32am

Most people don't know the difference between Convention of States and Constitutional Convention. It would help understand to read the differences which I'm sure can be found online at some reliable site.  I think I saw an article in the Discussion Forum above.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page