Editorial
State Sovereignty: America's Final Solution to Tyranny
Thursday, November 24, 2011 – by Ron Holland
Ron Holland
At the end of this article is a copy of the proposed state sovereignty amendment that Ron and Donnie Kennedy are promoting as the final solution to federal abuse. They believe that anything less will only continue the course of federal supremacy and the ultimate destruction of real American liberty. I sadly agree with them.
Just following Congress, the 2012 presidential campaign and the inability of citizens to influence government policy makes it clear to every American how broken the US political system has become. A few powerful interests run the entire show and the American people are being forced down a dark road to economic destruction. History shows us that Washington is immune to conventional national political action under the present system. What can freedom loving Americans do?
• We can't change Washington because Congress is owned and controlled by special interests.
• Neither can we take over the establishment control of either political party as the media elites can break, sideline or ignore any candidate that threatens the elite interests.
• Third party efforts at the national level are doomed to failure and an ineffective tool for promoting freedom principles when compared to the successful Ron Paul campaign effort inside the GOP.
• Finally, education, although important, is not a fast enough solution to save our nation when more than 50% of the electorate lives off the looting of taxpayers through government benefits or make-work jobs.
So do freedom advocates just give up or wait for the eventual collapse of the economy and the US political system? While this is a prevalent view in freedom circles, hyperinflation and economic collapse even if you are invested to financially benefit from this outcome is certainly not a recipe for restoring limited government and liberty to our country. Fascism and wealth confiscation are the probable result, just look at what followed the failed German Weimar Republic in the 1930's.
There is only one effective, democratic and peaceful tool left to Americans to defend their liberties and restore the original republic of our founding fathers. It is the right of state sovereignty and nullification, so effectively explained by Tom Woods in his book Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. http://www.tomwoods.com/books/nullification
Many other freedom advocates have proposed nullification and state sovereignty, including the Kennedy Brothers who have developed a State Sovereignty Amendment strategy that should be launched in all 50 states. Although the elites ruling our nation have total control over the federal government and the two-party system nationally, they have neglected to extend this top-down control to the state level. This is because over the last 50 years states have become mere powerless appendages of Washington without influence – and this is an opportunity for the Freedom movement.
Americans can, of course, continue feeling important and wasting time, money and efforts on establishment candidates for Congress and presidential campaigns claiming to represent our free-market views. But if we do, we are just playing in a rigged game to keep productive Americans busy at doing nothing that matters and does not threaten those in charge.
A decentralized national movement focused state-by-state at the legislature level is the only game left for us to play if we wish to be effective. When a state or states vote to nullify a congressional bank bailout, the sovereign debt of Washington or the Fed's dollar policy, this will attract media attention, especially uncontrolled foreign journalists and the alternative freedom media. Media coverage attracts investor and market attention and as we see today in the European sovereign debt crisis originally born on Wall Street with Goldman Sachs, markets move politicians and governments.
This is our last and final solution available to restore freedom and limited government to these United States. Following the 2012 elections – regardless of whether Romney or Obama win or which corrupt political party controls Congress – this is the only real game left in town that matters.
What do you think?
After reviewing the sample sovereignty amendment below, you can reach Ron and Donnie Kennedy on their website at www.kennedytwins.com. Remember, a return to state sovereignty and nullification is our last chance.
Feel free to improve on the proposed amendment and make it more appropriate for the unique needs and situation of your state, but do something now before it is too late! - Ron Holland, email: skironholland [at] yahoo.com
THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY AMENDMENT (Sample)These United States of America are a Republic of Republics deriving its authority from the consent of the governed residing within their Sovereign State. Each Sovereign State is the agent of the people thereof. The federal government formed by the compact of the United States Constitution is the agent of the Sovereign States. Federal authority shall be supreme in all areas specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. All acts or legislation enacted pursuant to the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. The Sovereign State reserves an equal right to judge for itself as to the constitutionality of any act of the federal government.
Section I. The Sovereign State specifically reserves the right to interpose its sovereign authority between acts of the federal government and the liberties, property, and interests of the citizens of the state, thereby nullifying federal acts judged by the state to be an unwarranted infringement upon the reserved rights of the state and the people thereof.
1. State nullification of a federal act must be approved by a convention of the state.
2. Upon passage of an act of nullification, all federal authority for the enumerated and nullified act(s) shall be suspended.
3. Upon formal acceptance of nullification by three-fourths of the conventions of the states, including the original nullifying state, the enumerated federal act(s) shall be prohibited in the United States of America or its territories.
4. Upon formal rejection of nullification by three-fourths of the conventions of the states, the enumerated federal act(s) shall be presumed to be constitutional, notwithstanding any judgment of any federal or state court.
5. Until or unless there is a formal approval or rejection by the conventions of the states, the nullified federal act(s) shall remain non-operative as to the original and any additional nullifying states. A state that in its convention ratifies a particular act of nullification shall be construed to have nullified the same act as enumerated in the initiating state's nullification.
6. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government may harass or attempt to harass, intimidate, or threaten a Sovereign State or the people thereof for exercising their rights under this amendment. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government shall attempt to influence or use their office to attempt to influence the deliberations of the people regarding the nullification of a federal act(s) or the acceptance or rejection of a nullified federal act(s).
7. Any United States military officer, noncommissioned officer or federal official or agent who carries out or attempts to carry out any order by a federal official, officer or agent to deny or hinder the people of a Sovereign State from exercising their rights under this amendment shall be subject to the offended state's laws and may be tried accordingly. Jurisdiction in such cases is specifically denied to all federal courts, military courts, or any other court other than the courts of the offended state.
Section II. The government and people of these United States approve the principle that any people have a right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This principle illustrates the American idea that government rests on the consent of the governed and that it is the right of a people to alter or abolish it at will whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. Therefore, the right of a Sovereign State to secede peacefully from the union voluntarily created by the compact of the Constitution is hereby specifically reserved to each state.
1. An act of secession shall be executed by a convention of the people of the state.
2. The seceded state shall appoint representatives to negotiate settlement of all debts owed the federal government, the purchase of federal properties within the Sovereign State, and the removal of federal military installations and personnel.
3. Upon acceptable arrangement for the payment of sums owed the federal government, the representatives may negotiate treaties of friendship, common defense, and commercial relations. Said treaties are subject to the same constitutional ratification as other treaties.
4. Readmission of a seceded state shall follow the same constitutional requirements as for any new state.
5. No federal elected official, agent, or any individual working within or associated with any branch of the federal government shall attempt to influence the people of the Sovereign State regarding their decision to secede from, remain with, or join this union.
6. Any United States military officer, noncommissioned officer, or federal official or agent who carries out or attempts to carry out any order by a federal official, officer, or agent to deny or hinder the people of a Sovereign State from exercising their rights under this amendment shall be subject to the offended state's laws and may be tried accordingly. Jurisdiction in such cases is specifically denied to all federal courts, military courts, or any other court other than the courts of the offended state.
7. The inalienable right of the people of each Sovereign State to govern themselves is a right that existed before this formation of the federal government, and therefore nothing in this amendment shall be interpreted in such a manner as to deem the federal government to be the donor of the rights enumerated herein.
l Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback
Effective April 25, 2012, the Daily Bell will discontinue allowing feedback comments. We have left in place the large body of responses posted in the past, as we appreciate the valuable contributions made by some of our readers.
Showing 1 - 20 of 49 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback 
 |
Posted by Rod Farmer on 11/29/11 03:26 AM
Posted by Bischoff on 11/28/11 10:03 PM
Bluebird,
Human nature is such that "work" is not instinctive. Genetically, humans are not designed to live on the ground. However, in the environment that humans are forced to exist, they cannot exist by instinct. They can only survive through "work". Humans survive on the result of their own work, or they must survive by taking the result of someone else's work.
It is "work" that makes humans "free". If one has come to the realization that one must work to be "free", then to fall back on one's basic instinct "not to work", and instead to just take from someone else (or to use politicians as the middlemen), he engages in an act against God (Natural Law).
The German SS Guards placed signs with "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") over the gates to the concentration camps. It was a devious play on words using the dilemma of human instinct.
To give in to the temptation posed by politicians who promise "to get you something for nothing" is giving in to being enslaved. The politicians, and those who have corrupted them, will then be the slave masters.
You'll be surprised how easily people will sell themselves into slavery for a promise of "something for nothing".
Human nature is such that "work" is not instinctive. Genetically, humans are not designed to live on the ground. However, in the environment that humans are forced to exist, they cannot exist by instinct. They can only survive through "work". Humans survive on the result of their own work, or they must survive by taking the result of someone else's work.
It is "work" that makes humans "free". If one has come to the realization that one must work to be "free", then to fall back on one's basic instinct "not to work", and instead to just take from someone else (or to use politicians as the middlemen), he engages in an act against God (Natural Law).
The German SS Guards placed signs with "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") over the gates to the concentration camps. It was a devious play on words using the dilemma of human instinct.
To give in to the temptation posed by politicians who promise "to get you something for nothing" is giving in to being enslaved. The politicians, and those who have corrupted them, will then be the slave masters.
You'll be surprised how easily people will sell themselves into slavery for a promise of "something for nothing".
Thank you Mr. Bishoff, and you too Bluebird.
Until we can free people from the yolk of socialism they will be afraid. Fear trumps knowledge. Socialism must be torn down brick by brick in the reverse order that it was created, starting with wellfare.
Most people on welfare do not want to be on wellfare. They were put in a position where they had no choice. Look what it has done to them: they are forced into bankruptcy and kept there; their children are often taken away from them; they are encouraged to take psychotropic drugs that cause depressive and suicidal tendancies. That's just for openers.
They hate socialism more than you do. Socialism robs you of your money but it robs them of their souls. If you want an army of voters to help repeal the 17th amendmant, give advice to the folks on "Legally Kidnapped", which is a website for people who are being abused by social services.
Mr. Biscoff, you will be surprised how many of these people will agree and fight with you. Don't count them out.
Until we can free people from the yolk of socialism they will be afraid. Fear trumps knowledge. Socialism must be torn down brick by brick in the reverse order that it was created, starting with wellfare.
Most people on welfare do not want to be on wellfare. They were put in a position where they had no choice. Look what it has done to them: they are forced into bankruptcy and kept there; their children are often taken away from them; they are encouraged to take psychotropic drugs that cause depressive and suicidal tendancies. That's just for openers.
They hate socialism more than you do. Socialism robs you of your money but it robs them of their souls. If you want an army of voters to help repeal the 17th amendmant, give advice to the folks on "Legally Kidnapped", which is a website for people who are being abused by social services.
Mr. Biscoff, you will be surprised how many of these people will agree and fight with you. Don't count them out.
 |
Posted by Bischoff on 11/28/11 10:03 PM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/28/11 12:29 PM
How can anyone decide they don't want to be free afterall... ???
I have learned to be cautious. I come from a state where Jay big "R" has been a leader since 1966!
I have learned to be cautious. I come from a state where Jay big "R" has been a leader since 1966!
Bluebird,
Human nature is such that "work" is not instinctive. Genetically, humans are not designed to live on the ground. However, in the environment that humans are forced to exist, they cannot exist by instinct. They can only survive through "work". Humans survive on the result of their own work, or they must survive by taking the result of someone else's work.
It is "work" that makes humans "free". If one has come to the realization that one must work to be "free", then to fall back on one's basic instinct "not to work", and instead to just take from someone else (or to use politicians as the middlemen), he engages in an act against God (Natural Law).
The German SS Guards placed signs with "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") over the gates to the concentration camps. It was a devious play on words using the dilemma of human instinct.
To give in to the temptation posed by politicians who promise "to get you something for nothing" is giving in to being enslaved. The politicians, and those who have corrupted them, will then be the slave masters.
You'll be surprised how easily people will sell themselves into slavery for a promise of "something for nothing".
Human nature is such that "work" is not instinctive. Genetically, humans are not designed to live on the ground. However, in the environment that humans are forced to exist, they cannot exist by instinct. They can only survive through "work". Humans survive on the result of their own work, or they must survive by taking the result of someone else's work.
It is "work" that makes humans "free". If one has come to the realization that one must work to be "free", then to fall back on one's basic instinct "not to work", and instead to just take from someone else (or to use politicians as the middlemen), he engages in an act against God (Natural Law).
The German SS Guards placed signs with "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") over the gates to the concentration camps. It was a devious play on words using the dilemma of human instinct.
To give in to the temptation posed by politicians who promise "to get you something for nothing" is giving in to being enslaved. The politicians, and those who have corrupted them, will then be the slave masters.
You'll be surprised how easily people will sell themselves into slavery for a promise of "something for nothing".
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/28/11 12:29 PM
Posted by Bischoff on 11/28/11 11:14 AM
You are absolutely correct about Soros being the most visible individual representing the central government crowd. According to a television report, Soros finances a team of two "reporters" in each of the fifty states to cover the "news" at the states' capitols. He knows exactly what a common understanding of the need to repeal the 17th Amendment would do to his plans.
There is always going to be corruption in the political process. It is part of human nature. It is the moral teaching of the churches that tries to mitigate it, but absent that teachings to guide politicians, they have to be watched like a "hawk".
Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, there were 10,000 state legislators to be tempted to be "bought". Today, at least 60 U.S. Senators are bought outright with unlimited campaign money from the central government crowd. It is much easier to concentrate your effort on sixty people, than have to spread your attempts to bribe out over 10,000 legislators.
We have to get away from the fear that this monetary elite will always eat our lunch, that they will even get their way in a convention stocked with 100% of like minded conservatives. Their MSM has so bamboozled people, they don't even try anymore. That is a grave, grave mistake.
You go to an Article V convention with the clear wording of the proposed amendment. You have agreement about it from the people. At the Article V convention you merely go through the process. There should be no fear that such convention could be high jacked.
The only fear I have is, that people start doubting themselves about what they want. To doubt yourself after you accepted that you want to be free, I call a sin.
There is always going to be corruption in the political process. It is part of human nature. It is the moral teaching of the churches that tries to mitigate it, but absent that teachings to guide politicians, they have to be watched like a "hawk".
Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, there were 10,000 state legislators to be tempted to be "bought". Today, at least 60 U.S. Senators are bought outright with unlimited campaign money from the central government crowd. It is much easier to concentrate your effort on sixty people, than have to spread your attempts to bribe out over 10,000 legislators.
We have to get away from the fear that this monetary elite will always eat our lunch, that they will even get their way in a convention stocked with 100% of like minded conservatives. Their MSM has so bamboozled people, they don't even try anymore. That is a grave, grave mistake.
You go to an Article V convention with the clear wording of the proposed amendment. You have agreement about it from the people. At the Article V convention you merely go through the process. There should be no fear that such convention could be high jacked.
The only fear I have is, that people start doubting themselves about what they want. To doubt yourself after you accepted that you want to be free, I call a sin.
How can anyone decide they don't want to be free afterall... ???
I have learned to be cautious. I come from a state where Jay big "R" has been a leader since 1966!
I have learned to be cautious. I come from a state where Jay big "R" has been a leader since 1966!
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/28/11 11:14 AM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/28/11 07:55 AM
Mr. Bischoff, Thank you for clarifying the difference. I did know there was a difference in an Article V and a 2nd Constitutional Convention, but did not know you should not use "Constitutional" with Article V. I was trying to use the shortcut to the big words. Wrongly I guess. I am sorry, I did not mean to mislead.
Yes, there is a lot of scare tactics going on. A LOT of discussions and it is due to the misleading info that I favor just repealing instead of re-writing anything. Even if 38 states need to agree on whatever is proposed, due to those with vested interests it could wind up being a disaster to go farther than repealing-at this time anyway. Us average citizens just do not know the laws well enough to know when we are being snookered. Big money reaches out to the state leaders as well as the federal government. Even if you could root out the ones in the states easier, the damage would have already been done if they agreed to a wrong amendment.
Mr. Holland has the interests of freedom in mind. Others do not. Soros comes to mind.
Yes, there is a lot of scare tactics going on. A LOT of discussions and it is due to the misleading info that I favor just repealing instead of re-writing anything. Even if 38 states need to agree on whatever is proposed, due to those with vested interests it could wind up being a disaster to go farther than repealing-at this time anyway. Us average citizens just do not know the laws well enough to know when we are being snookered. Big money reaches out to the state leaders as well as the federal government. Even if you could root out the ones in the states easier, the damage would have already been done if they agreed to a wrong amendment.
Mr. Holland has the interests of freedom in mind. Others do not. Soros comes to mind.
You are absolutely correct about Soros being the most visible individual representing the central government crowd. According to a television report, Soros finances a team of two "reporters" in each of the fifty states to cover the "news" at the states' capitols. He knows exactly what a common understanding of the need to repeal the 17th Amendment would do to his plans.
There is always going to be corruption in the political process. It is part of human nature. It is the moral teaching of the churches that tries to mitigate it, but absent that teachings to guide politicians, they have to be watched like a "hawk".
Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, there were 10,000 state legislators to be tempted to be "bought". Today, at least 60 U.S. Senators are bought outright with unlimited campaign money from the central government crowd. It is much easier to concentrate your effort on sixty people, than have to spread your attempts to bribe out over 10,000 legislators.
We have to get away from the fear that this monetary elite will always eat our lunch, that they will even get their way in a convention stocked with 100% of like minded conservatives. Their MSM has so bamboozled people, they don't even try anymore. That is a grave, grave mistake.
You go to an Article V convention with the clear wording of the proposed amendment. You have agreement about it from the people. At the Article V convention you merely go through the process. There should be no fear that such convention could be high jacked.
The only fear I have is, that people start doubting themselves about what they want. To doubt yourself after you accepted that you want to be free, I call a sin.
There is always going to be corruption in the political process. It is part of human nature. It is the moral teaching of the churches that tries to mitigate it, but absent that teachings to guide politicians, they have to be watched like a "hawk".
Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, there were 10,000 state legislators to be tempted to be "bought". Today, at least 60 U.S. Senators are bought outright with unlimited campaign money from the central government crowd. It is much easier to concentrate your effort on sixty people, than have to spread your attempts to bribe out over 10,000 legislators.
We have to get away from the fear that this monetary elite will always eat our lunch, that they will even get their way in a convention stocked with 100% of like minded conservatives. Their MSM has so bamboozled people, they don't even try anymore. That is a grave, grave mistake.
You go to an Article V convention with the clear wording of the proposed amendment. You have agreement about it from the people. At the Article V convention you merely go through the process. There should be no fear that such convention could be high jacked.
The only fear I have is, that people start doubting themselves about what they want. To doubt yourself after you accepted that you want to be free, I call a sin.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/28/11 07:55 AM
Mr. Bischoff, Thank you for clarifying the difference. I did know there was a difference in an Article V and a 2nd Constitutional Convention, but did not know you should not use "Constitutional" with Article V. I was trying to use the shortcut to the big words. Wrongly I guess. I am sorry, I did not mean to mislead.
Yes, there is a lot of scare tactics going on. A LOT of discussions and it is due to the misleading info that I favor just repealing instead of re-writing anything. Even if 38 states need to agree on whatever is proposed, due to those with vested interests it could wind up being a disaster to go farther than repealing-at this time anyway. Us average citizens just do not know the laws well enough to know when we are being snookered. Big money reaches out to the state leaders as well as the federal government. Even if you could root out the ones in the states easier, the damage would have already been done if they agreed to a wrong amendment.
Mr. Holland has the interests of freedom in mind. Others do not. Soros comes to mind.
Yes, there is a lot of scare tactics going on. A LOT of discussions and it is due to the misleading info that I favor just repealing instead of re-writing anything. Even if 38 states need to agree on whatever is proposed, due to those with vested interests it could wind up being a disaster to go farther than repealing-at this time anyway. Us average citizens just do not know the laws well enough to know when we are being snookered. Big money reaches out to the state leaders as well as the federal government. Even if you could root out the ones in the states easier, the damage would have already been done if they agreed to a wrong amendment.
Mr. Holland has the interests of freedom in mind. Others do not. Soros comes to mind.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/28/11 12:28 AM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/27/11 05:53 PM
I am afraid I must join Mr. Bischoff in hoping to keep our Constitution intact and only repealing those amendments that gave us the mess we find ourselves in. There are sooo many ideas on what should be done. Clearly most of them are scary. It may not be perfect, but I shudder to think where we would be if we had not had it.
I believe our current lawmakers have been testing just how far they can go around it before we yell "ouch". Of course this has always been the way, but it is a mega sized attempt now.
Some say that it is dangerous to have an Article V ConCon at this time. But if not now, we won't have a country left. I found some very good information from Robert G. Natelson. He says there are stops to prevent a runaway convention. 38 states must radify whatever the convention generates as a proposed amendment. And we hae nothing to lose because no matter which party controls congress, the status quo is a runaway fed gov.
We must apply the brakes and this is provided for by our Constitution. Guard it at all costs or you lose all. I will give a link to a video on this. Or you can simply search Robert G. Natelson. Give a listen.
Click to view link
I believe our current lawmakers have been testing just how far they can go around it before we yell "ouch". Of course this has always been the way, but it is a mega sized attempt now.
Some say that it is dangerous to have an Article V ConCon at this time. But if not now, we won't have a country left. I found some very good information from Robert G. Natelson. He says there are stops to prevent a runaway convention. 38 states must radify whatever the convention generates as a proposed amendment. And we hae nothing to lose because no matter which party controls congress, the status quo is a runaway fed gov.
We must apply the brakes and this is provided for by our Constitution. Guard it at all costs or you lose all. I will give a link to a video on this. Or you can simply search Robert G. Natelson. Give a listen.
Click to view link
"Some say that it is dangerous to have an Article V ConCon at this time."
I assume the "ConCon" stands for "Constitutional Convention".
May I say, that there is no such thing such as an "Article V Constitutional Convention". It does not exist.
There is an "Article V Convention", which is called by the U.S. Congress upon application by the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the States (34). The call of such convention is for a narrow, limited purpose, that of proposing and ratifying a constitutional amendment. Nothing can be changed in the Constitution or its Amendments during an Article V Convention, except by amendments proposed and ratified. The call of an Article V Convention is a provision of the existing U.S. Constitution.
Then, there is a "Constitutional Convention" which could be convened on the desire of any number of states. Such Constitutional Convention can rewrite or totally scrap the existing U.S. Constitution. It would be known as the 2nd Constitutional Convention, following the 1st Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The 2nd Constitutional Convention is totally outside the present U.S. Constitution. Essentially, its purpose would be to draft a new Constitution, and to form a new government.
As you may see, there is a world of difference between an "Article V Convention" and a "2nd Constitutional Convention".
We are yet far, far away from the need to call for a 2nd Constitutional Convention. Only, if the Congress keeps refusing to call an Article V convention on the application of 34 States, and the American people themselves are fully aware of the intransigence of the Congress should the a demand for a 2nd Constitutional Convention ever be considered in order to avoid bloodshed.
To proclaim that there is a danger in calling an Article V convention at this time or at any time, IMHO is a ploy to discourage the states from making an application. If people are scared by "danger" mongering, state legislators just as soon not upset their constituents by calling for an Article V Convention. Its playing on the fear of the masses that secures the positions of the elites.
Yet, everybody wants to have power returned to the states and to the people. However, it must be done constitutionally. If it is not done by an Article V Convention, then it should be done by a 2nd Constitutional Convention. A revolution is not the answer.
Also, why fear an Article V or 2nd Constitutional Convention. The majority of the people by 2/3 want a return of power back to the states and to the people. How could the elite's representatives, who favor power for central government, ever dominate either of those conventions... ???
I assume the "ConCon" stands for "Constitutional Convention".
May I say, that there is no such thing such as an "Article V Constitutional Convention". It does not exist.
There is an "Article V Convention", which is called by the U.S. Congress upon application by the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the States (34). The call of such convention is for a narrow, limited purpose, that of proposing and ratifying a constitutional amendment. Nothing can be changed in the Constitution or its Amendments during an Article V Convention, except by amendments proposed and ratified. The call of an Article V Convention is a provision of the existing U.S. Constitution.
Then, there is a "Constitutional Convention" which could be convened on the desire of any number of states. Such Constitutional Convention can rewrite or totally scrap the existing U.S. Constitution. It would be known as the 2nd Constitutional Convention, following the 1st Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The 2nd Constitutional Convention is totally outside the present U.S. Constitution. Essentially, its purpose would be to draft a new Constitution, and to form a new government.
As you may see, there is a world of difference between an "Article V Convention" and a "2nd Constitutional Convention".
We are yet far, far away from the need to call for a 2nd Constitutional Convention. Only, if the Congress keeps refusing to call an Article V convention on the application of 34 States, and the American people themselves are fully aware of the intransigence of the Congress should the a demand for a 2nd Constitutional Convention ever be considered in order to avoid bloodshed.
To proclaim that there is a danger in calling an Article V convention at this time or at any time, IMHO is a ploy to discourage the states from making an application. If people are scared by "danger" mongering, state legislators just as soon not upset their constituents by calling for an Article V Convention. Its playing on the fear of the masses that secures the positions of the elites.
Yet, everybody wants to have power returned to the states and to the people. However, it must be done constitutionally. If it is not done by an Article V Convention, then it should be done by a 2nd Constitutional Convention. A revolution is not the answer.
Also, why fear an Article V or 2nd Constitutional Convention. The majority of the people by 2/3 want a return of power back to the states and to the people. How could the elite's representatives, who favor power for central government, ever dominate either of those conventions... ???
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/27/11 05:53 PM
I am afraid I must join Mr. Bischoff in hoping to keep our Constitution intact and only repealing those amendments that gave us the mess we find ourselves in. There are sooo many ideas on what should be done. Clearly most of them are scary. It may not be perfect, but I shudder to think where we would be if we had not had it.
I believe our current lawmakers have been testing just how far they can go around it before we yell "ouch". Of course this has always been the way, but it is a mega sized attempt now.
Some say that it is dangerous to have an Article V ConCon at this time. But if not now, we won't have a country left. I found some very good information from Robert G. Natelson. He says there are stops to prevent a runaway convention. 38 states must radify whatever the convention generates as a proposed amendment. And we hae nothing to lose because no matter which party controls congress, the status quo is a runaway fed gov.
We must apply the brakes and this is provided for by our Constitution. Guard it at all costs or you lose all. I will give a link to a video on this. Or you can simply search Robert G. Natelson. Give a listen.
Click to view link
I believe our current lawmakers have been testing just how far they can go around it before we yell "ouch". Of course this has always been the way, but it is a mega sized attempt now.
Some say that it is dangerous to have an Article V ConCon at this time. But if not now, we won't have a country left. I found some very good information from Robert G. Natelson. He says there are stops to prevent a runaway convention. 38 states must radify whatever the convention generates as a proposed amendment. And we hae nothing to lose because no matter which party controls congress, the status quo is a runaway fed gov.
We must apply the brakes and this is provided for by our Constitution. Guard it at all costs or you lose all. I will give a link to a video on this. Or you can simply search Robert G. Natelson. Give a listen.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/27/11 04:37 PM
@ DB
"There is a theory that the US was declared insolvent and surreptitiously turned into a corporation either after the Civil War or during the Great Depression. That's what we were referring to."
That is a very interesting theory. I wonder who indorsed the Articles of Incorporation. Under this theory then "USA, Inc." must be the owner of the government constituted by the Articles of the U.S. Constitution.
Any idea who is the Chairman of the Board of "USA, Inc."... ??? Did the theory mention it... ???
"There is a theory that the US was declared insolvent and surreptitiously turned into a corporation either after the Civil War or during the Great Depression. That's what we were referring to."
That is a very interesting theory. I wonder who indorsed the Articles of Incorporation. Under this theory then "USA, Inc." must be the owner of the government constituted by the Articles of the U.S. Constitution.
Any idea who is the Chairman of the Board of "USA, Inc."... ??? Did the theory mention it... ???
Reply from The Daily Bell
Probably the Queen ...
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/27/11 04:17 PM
@ DB
"Throwing around the red meat of "USA, Inc." If it's true, how's it a cheap trick?
It is not a cheap trick, if it is TRUE.
However, both you and I know that it isn't true. Don't we... ???
The United States government was NOT created by Articles of Incorporation. It was created by Articles in the U.S. Constitution. Not at all the same thing, true... ???
So, you tell me whether calling the United States government a corporation by the name of "USA, Inc." is throwing around red meat to stir the emotion of the masses, or whether it is not.
"Throwing around the red meat of "USA, Inc." If it's true, how's it a cheap trick?
It is not a cheap trick, if it is TRUE.
However, both you and I know that it isn't true. Don't we... ???
The United States government was NOT created by Articles of Incorporation. It was created by Articles in the U.S. Constitution. Not at all the same thing, true... ???
So, you tell me whether calling the United States government a corporation by the name of "USA, Inc." is throwing around red meat to stir the emotion of the masses, or whether it is not.
Reply from The Daily Bell
There is a theory that the US was declared insolvent and surreptitiously turned into a corporation either after the Civil War or during the Great Depression. That's what we were referring to.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/27/11 03:17 PM
Posted by chessmaster on 11/27/11 02:00 PM
The problem with this idea is that all of the existing States are corporate subdivisions of the USA Inc. The State is nothing but a piece of paper. A piece of paper cannot be sovereign. Only a man can be sovereign.
"The problem with this idea is that all of the existing States are corporate subdivisions of the USA Inc. The State is nothing but a piece of paper. A piece of paper cannot be sovereign."
This is clearly a statement which is intended to evoke an emotional response. It is designed to take advantage of the frustration people feel about the unresponsiveness of the system to their demands.
Then instead of giving a specific solution as to resolve the problem which gives concern to the people, the statement, "Only a man can be sovereign" is hinting at a solution. IMHO, this can only be ANARCHY. Libertarianism again has the answer by suggesting our form of government ought to be "Anarchy".
According to libertarians, the Articles of Confederation constituted just enough government to be tolerable. Except that IMHO, the North American States under the Articles of Confederation would not have lasted past the turn of the century, that is from 1700 AD to 1800 AD.
The fact is, that we DO HAVE the U.S. Constitution now. If you are born under it, and you do not like it, you can move. There are no restrictions on travel. If you are born under it, and you don't like it and you don't want to move, can can work to change it. However, this change has to be done peacefully.
The U.S. Constitution has been seriously demaged in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. It has been damaged to the point where its demise is a certainty, unless the damage is repaired. The repair is not accomplished by feeling superior satisfaction by emotionally addressing people.
It can only be done by understanding how and why the U.S. Constitution was settled with the 16th and 17th Amendments, and how the damage to the freedoms and the wealth of the American people must be repaired by the repeal of the two detrimental amendments.
"We the People" is a concept to point to the ultimate power. "Democracy" is not synonymous with "We the People". "Democracy" as a form of government is something the founders abhorred. Yet, the referenced website, which supposedly represents your point of view, in its masthead calls for "greater democracy". What is it... ??? More "Rule under Law", or more "Democracy"... ???
Throwing around the red meat of "USA, Inc." to stir up emotions is a cheap trick. How about practical suggestions as to how to bring change, which is legal, constitutional and peaceful, to return power to the states.
The website cites the 10th Amendment as the basis on which to indite rogue federal politicians. The 10th Amendment is nothing but a declarative amendment to point out that all powers not prohibited to the states, rest with the states or the people. The 10th Amendment DOES NOT compel. Supreme Court has clearly stated it.
On the other hand, the repeal of the 17th Amendment will restore the power of the states to shape federal legislation and affairs.
This is clearly a statement which is intended to evoke an emotional response. It is designed to take advantage of the frustration people feel about the unresponsiveness of the system to their demands.
Then instead of giving a specific solution as to resolve the problem which gives concern to the people, the statement, "Only a man can be sovereign" is hinting at a solution. IMHO, this can only be ANARCHY. Libertarianism again has the answer by suggesting our form of government ought to be "Anarchy".
According to libertarians, the Articles of Confederation constituted just enough government to be tolerable. Except that IMHO, the North American States under the Articles of Confederation would not have lasted past the turn of the century, that is from 1700 AD to 1800 AD.
The fact is, that we DO HAVE the U.S. Constitution now. If you are born under it, and you do not like it, you can move. There are no restrictions on travel. If you are born under it, and you don't like it and you don't want to move, can can work to change it. However, this change has to be done peacefully.
The U.S. Constitution has been seriously demaged in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. It has been damaged to the point where its demise is a certainty, unless the damage is repaired. The repair is not accomplished by feeling superior satisfaction by emotionally addressing people.
It can only be done by understanding how and why the U.S. Constitution was settled with the 16th and 17th Amendments, and how the damage to the freedoms and the wealth of the American people must be repaired by the repeal of the two detrimental amendments.
"We the People" is a concept to point to the ultimate power. "Democracy" is not synonymous with "We the People". "Democracy" as a form of government is something the founders abhorred. Yet, the referenced website, which supposedly represents your point of view, in its masthead calls for "greater democracy". What is it... ??? More "Rule under Law", or more "Democracy"... ???
Throwing around the red meat of "USA, Inc." to stir up emotions is a cheap trick. How about practical suggestions as to how to bring change, which is legal, constitutional and peaceful, to return power to the states.
The website cites the 10th Amendment as the basis on which to indite rogue federal politicians. The 10th Amendment is nothing but a declarative amendment to point out that all powers not prohibited to the states, rest with the states or the people. The 10th Amendment DOES NOT compel. Supreme Court has clearly stated it.
On the other hand, the repeal of the 17th Amendment will restore the power of the states to shape federal legislation and affairs.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Throwing around the red meat of "USA, Inc."
If it's true, how's it a cheap trick?
|
Posted by chessmaster on 11/27/11 02:00 PM
The problem with this idea is that all of the existing States are corporate subdivisions of the USA Inc. The State is nothing but a piece of paper. A piece of paper cannot be sovereign. Only a man can be sovereign.
|
Posted by OneSovereignCitizen on 11/27/11 01:41 PM
Ron - Combine your Proposal with Click to view link
In other words, put TEETH into the SOLUTION so those who dare cheat "We, The People" are thrown out of public service forever!
In other words, put TEETH into the SOLUTION so those who dare cheat "We, The People" are thrown out of public service forever!
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/26/11 11:17 PM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 10:51 PM
I agree with this. I don't have much to add, only to let you know I read it, liked it and agree. I did not want to make it look like you went to this trouble and I did not come back to it. I don't do social networks, but I do send out emails and will make pleas and ask them to pass it on to others. Plus will try to talk with others around me. I guess us older folk are just not ready to just give up on America. America, the Beautiful. Things don't look so good now, but in my heart I still hold that song and a few others above the fight song they adopted. Amber waves of grain, purple mountains majesty... Peace to you, Mr. Bischoff.
We are all the world has left to believe in. It isn't our politicians that give the world hope. It is the American people with their goodness which does. Believe me, I know what I am talking about.
I am certain that the American people have had enough of the central government crowd to put a stop to it now. What we do to fight off tyrrany, we do for each other. Peace to you, Bluebird.
I am certain that the American people have had enough of the central government crowd to put a stop to it now. What we do to fight off tyrrany, we do for each other. Peace to you, Bluebird.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 10:51 PM
Posted by Bischoff on 11/26/11 05:29 PM
Bluebird,
What I say a "brain dead" electorate, it isn't something that I use exclusively to describe today's electorate. The present state of affairs isn't exactly all their fault. Our great grandparents and our grandparents were lulled into a false sense of security, and they were influenced to surrender their power as sovereign individuals. They failed to understand the Constitution and the necessity to be constantly vigilant against an attack upon it. The Constitution affirmed their freedoms by specifying what the government couldn't do. Yet, they were prompted to unwittingly give up some of their freedom to be governed locally by letting state legislators ratify the 17th Amendment. After "state power" is gone, it is difficult to get it back. Now, Washington, DC governs the people within the sovereign states. The people are no longer governed by their own state government, and the federal government is getting more brazen to absorb more and more of the states' powers. Ask Arizona, ask Texas, ask Utah, ask South Carolina... .Yet, the people don't know what to do about it. That's the story of the 17th Amendment and the detrimental effects it brought. What happend to the American people with the ratification of the 17th Amendment ought to be a tremendous lesson to us.
Obama Care is another humongeous attack on the few freedoms which Americans have left. We can quietly acquiesse to Obama's tyrranical health care legislation, or we can do something about it in the next federal election, lest we are prepared to loose the remainder of our freedoms.
The internet and the social network systems are an ideal way by which to spread the message for the need to repeal Obama Care and the 17th Amendment. Through the social network, you can reach anybody in fewer than six degrees of separation.
Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
The original U.S. Constitution was constructed to withstand attacks upon through the separation of powers and through checks and balances that work in a myriad number of ways.
We also now have a communication network which can withstand attacks upon it in many different ways. This means that the need to repeal the 17th Amendment can be passed on without interference to a multitude of people. However, there has to be an initial effort. The communication push has to start somewhere. There is a tendency to shy away from a topic, if it isn't already generally discussed. This is what the opponents of the repeal effort on. The more people make the effort to call for the repeal, the more people will join in the effort.
I gave an interview to the Daily Bell several years ago in which I discussed the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. While I had some encouraging responses, there existed at that time only a half dozen websites devoted to the topic. If you look on the internet today, there are thousand such sites.
The 400 applications by state legislatures to the Congress to call an Article V convention were ignored by Washington politicians, because they did not fear public sentiment. There was no public sentiment for the repeal 17th Amendment, because nobody knew about the 17th Amendment. That situation is changing. You can google a clip of Judge Napolitano speaking out about the 17th Amendment, assitant editor the Washington Times, Tony Blankley had a long article favoring the repeal, and Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to the detrimental effects of the 17th Amendment, while still at the Fox News Channel.
Remember, with only six degrees of separation, people can learn about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment very quickly. However, people have to make the effort to talk about it. A walk of a 1,000 miles starts with the "first step".
What I say a "brain dead" electorate, it isn't something that I use exclusively to describe today's electorate. The present state of affairs isn't exactly all their fault. Our great grandparents and our grandparents were lulled into a false sense of security, and they were influenced to surrender their power as sovereign individuals. They failed to understand the Constitution and the necessity to be constantly vigilant against an attack upon it. The Constitution affirmed their freedoms by specifying what the government couldn't do. Yet, they were prompted to unwittingly give up some of their freedom to be governed locally by letting state legislators ratify the 17th Amendment. After "state power" is gone, it is difficult to get it back. Now, Washington, DC governs the people within the sovereign states. The people are no longer governed by their own state government, and the federal government is getting more brazen to absorb more and more of the states' powers. Ask Arizona, ask Texas, ask Utah, ask South Carolina... .Yet, the people don't know what to do about it. That's the story of the 17th Amendment and the detrimental effects it brought. What happend to the American people with the ratification of the 17th Amendment ought to be a tremendous lesson to us.
Obama Care is another humongeous attack on the few freedoms which Americans have left. We can quietly acquiesse to Obama's tyrranical health care legislation, or we can do something about it in the next federal election, lest we are prepared to loose the remainder of our freedoms.
The internet and the social network systems are an ideal way by which to spread the message for the need to repeal Obama Care and the 17th Amendment. Through the social network, you can reach anybody in fewer than six degrees of separation.
Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
The original U.S. Constitution was constructed to withstand attacks upon through the separation of powers and through checks and balances that work in a myriad number of ways.
We also now have a communication network which can withstand attacks upon it in many different ways. This means that the need to repeal the 17th Amendment can be passed on without interference to a multitude of people. However, there has to be an initial effort. The communication push has to start somewhere. There is a tendency to shy away from a topic, if it isn't already generally discussed. This is what the opponents of the repeal effort on. The more people make the effort to call for the repeal, the more people will join in the effort.
I gave an interview to the Daily Bell several years ago in which I discussed the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. While I had some encouraging responses, there existed at that time only a half dozen websites devoted to the topic. If you look on the internet today, there are thousand such sites.
The 400 applications by state legislatures to the Congress to call an Article V convention were ignored by Washington politicians, because they did not fear public sentiment. There was no public sentiment for the repeal 17th Amendment, because nobody knew about the 17th Amendment. That situation is changing. You can google a clip of Judge Napolitano speaking out about the 17th Amendment, assitant editor the Washington Times, Tony Blankley had a long article favoring the repeal, and Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to the detrimental effects of the 17th Amendment, while still at the Fox News Channel.
Remember, with only six degrees of separation, people can learn about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment very quickly. However, people have to make the effort to talk about it. A walk of a 1,000 miles starts with the "first step".
I agree with this. I don't have much to add, only to let you know I read it, liked it and agree. I did not want to make it look like you went to this trouble and I did not come back to it. I don't do social networks, but I do send out emails and will make pleas and ask them to pass it on to others. Plus will try to talk with others around me. I guess us older folk are just not ready to just give up on America. America, the Beautiful. Things don't look so good now, but in my heart I still hold that song and a few others above the fight song they adopted. Amber waves of grain, purple mountains majesty... Peace to you, Mr. Bischoff.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/26/11 05:29 PM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 11:53 AM
I checked to see who my state reps were, and yes, they were who I thought they were-a mini version of what we have in US congress. I will do as you say, but I honestly think it is too late for either your recommendation or the proposal of this article. But at least I am not sitting silent, thereby agreeing with what I see happening.
I researched both ideas, and yes, they have to go through Congress. Not going to happen. Re: your statement that this only needs 34 states for an application for the convention. I see where this is being refused even though there have been over 400 requests from 49 of the 50 states legislatures. I do not see this changing and we are running out of time. The power in office is not going to mess in its dinner plate. But as they say, never say never... so I will just say, when pigs fly!
I thank you again, Mr. Bischoff. I have indeed tried to see your views and appreciate your dedication to the Constitution and your tireless efforts to help educate us. Just because I don't think it will work does not mean I won't work for it. I will start today.
I researched both ideas, and yes, they have to go through Congress. Not going to happen. Re: your statement that this only needs 34 states for an application for the convention. I see where this is being refused even though there have been over 400 requests from 49 of the 50 states legislatures. I do not see this changing and we are running out of time. The power in office is not going to mess in its dinner plate. But as they say, never say never... so I will just say, when pigs fly!
I thank you again, Mr. Bischoff. I have indeed tried to see your views and appreciate your dedication to the Constitution and your tireless efforts to help educate us. Just because I don't think it will work does not mean I won't work for it. I will start today.
Bluebird,
What I say a "brain dead" electorate, it isn't something that I use exclusively to describe today's electorate. The present state of affairs isn't exactly all their fault. Our great grandparents and our grandparents were lulled into a false sense of security, and they were influenced to surrender their power as sovereign individuals. They failed to understand the Constitution and the necessity to be constantly vigilant against an attack upon it. The Constitution affirmed their freedoms by specifying what the government couldn't do. Yet, they were prompted to unwittingly give up some of their freedom to be governed locally by letting state legislators ratify the 17th Amendment. After "state power" is gone, it is difficult to get it back. Now, Washington, DC governs the people within the sovereign states. The people are no longer governed by their own state government, and the federal government is getting more brazen to absorb more and more of the states' powers. Ask Arizona, ask Texas, ask Utah, ask South Carolina... .Yet, the people don't know what to do about it. That's the story of the 17th Amendment and the detrimental effects it brought. What happend to the American people with the ratification of the 17th Amendment ought to be a tremendous lesson to us.
Obama Care is another humongeous attack on the few freedoms which Americans have left. We can quietly acquiesse to Obama's tyrranical health care legislation, or we can do something about it in the next federal election, lest we are prepared to loose the remainder of our freedoms.
The internet and the social network systems are an ideal way by which to spread the message for the need to repeal Obama Care and the 17th Amendment. Through the social network, you can reach anybody in fewer than six degrees of separation.
Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
The original U.S. Constitution was constructed to withstand attacks upon through the separation of powers and through checks and balances that work in a myriad number of ways.
We also now have a communication network which can withstand attacks upon it in many different ways. This means that the need to repeal the 17th Amendment can be passed on without interference to a multitude of people. However, there has to be an initial effort. The communication push has to start somewhere. There is a tendency to shy away from a topic, if it isn't already generally discussed. This is what the opponents of the repeal effort on. The more people make the effort to call for the repeal, the more people will join in the effort.
I gave an interview to the Daily Bell several years ago in which I discussed the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. While I had some encouraging responses, there existed at that time only a half dozen websites devoted to the topic. If you look on the internet today, there are thousand such sites.
The 400 applications by state legislatures to the Congress to call an Article V convention were ignored by Washington politicians, because they did not fear public sentiment. There was no public sentiment for the repeal 17th Amendment, because nobody knew about the 17th Amendment. That situation is changing. You can google a clip of Judge Napolitano speaking out about the 17th Amendment, assitant editor the Washington Times, Tony Blankley had a long article favoring the repeal, and Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to the detrimental effects of the 17th Amendment, while still at the Fox News Channel.
Remember, with only six degrees of separation, people can learn about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment very quickly. However, people have to make the effort to talk about it. A walk of a 1,000 miles starts with the "first step".
What I say a "brain dead" electorate, it isn't something that I use exclusively to describe today's electorate. The present state of affairs isn't exactly all their fault. Our great grandparents and our grandparents were lulled into a false sense of security, and they were influenced to surrender their power as sovereign individuals. They failed to understand the Constitution and the necessity to be constantly vigilant against an attack upon it. The Constitution affirmed their freedoms by specifying what the government couldn't do. Yet, they were prompted to unwittingly give up some of their freedom to be governed locally by letting state legislators ratify the 17th Amendment. After "state power" is gone, it is difficult to get it back. Now, Washington, DC governs the people within the sovereign states. The people are no longer governed by their own state government, and the federal government is getting more brazen to absorb more and more of the states' powers. Ask Arizona, ask Texas, ask Utah, ask South Carolina... .Yet, the people don't know what to do about it. That's the story of the 17th Amendment and the detrimental effects it brought. What happend to the American people with the ratification of the 17th Amendment ought to be a tremendous lesson to us.
Obama Care is another humongeous attack on the few freedoms which Americans have left. We can quietly acquiesse to Obama's tyrranical health care legislation, or we can do something about it in the next federal election, lest we are prepared to loose the remainder of our freedoms.
The internet and the social network systems are an ideal way by which to spread the message for the need to repeal Obama Care and the 17th Amendment. Through the social network, you can reach anybody in fewer than six degrees of separation.
Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer.
The original U.S. Constitution was constructed to withstand attacks upon through the separation of powers and through checks and balances that work in a myriad number of ways.
We also now have a communication network which can withstand attacks upon it in many different ways. This means that the need to repeal the 17th Amendment can be passed on without interference to a multitude of people. However, there has to be an initial effort. The communication push has to start somewhere. There is a tendency to shy away from a topic, if it isn't already generally discussed. This is what the opponents of the repeal effort on. The more people make the effort to call for the repeal, the more people will join in the effort.
I gave an interview to the Daily Bell several years ago in which I discussed the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. While I had some encouraging responses, there existed at that time only a half dozen websites devoted to the topic. If you look on the internet today, there are thousand such sites.
The 400 applications by state legislatures to the Congress to call an Article V convention were ignored by Washington politicians, because they did not fear public sentiment. There was no public sentiment for the repeal 17th Amendment, because nobody knew about the 17th Amendment. That situation is changing. You can google a clip of Judge Napolitano speaking out about the 17th Amendment, assitant editor the Washington Times, Tony Blankley had a long article favoring the repeal, and Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to the detrimental effects of the 17th Amendment, while still at the Fox News Channel.
Remember, with only six degrees of separation, people can learn about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment very quickly. However, people have to make the effort to talk about it. A walk of a 1,000 miles starts with the "first step".
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 11:53 AM
Posted by Bischoff on 11/26/11 11:08 AM
Bluebird,
The best thing to do is to discuss the matter with as many of your friends and acquaintances that will listen. Then, approach the state assembly man or state senator for your district and tell him/her that people are fed up with the corruption in the U.S. Senate, and that you want them to choose the U.S. Senators again as was done before 1913. You want them to work for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, if they want your vote for office in the next election.
The best thing to do is to discuss the matter with as many of your friends and acquaintances that will listen. Then, approach the state assembly man or state senator for your district and tell him/her that people are fed up with the corruption in the U.S. Senate, and that you want them to choose the U.S. Senators again as was done before 1913. You want them to work for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, if they want your vote for office in the next election.
I checked to see who my state reps were, and yes, they were who I thought they were-a mini version of what we have in US congress. I will do as you say, but I honestly think it is too late for either your recommendation or the proposal of this article. But at least I am not sitting silent, thereby agreeing with what I see happening.
I researched both ideas, and yes, they have to go through Congress. Not going to happen. Re: your statement that this only needs 34 states for an application for the convention. I see where this is being refused even though there have been over 400 requests from 49 of the 50 states legislatures. I do not see this changing and we are running out of time. The power in office is not going to mess in its dinner plate. But as they say, never say never... so I will just say, when pigs fly!
I thank you again, Mr. Bischoff. I have indeed tried to see your views and appreciate your dedication to the Constitution and your tireless efforts to help educate us. Just because I don't think it will work does not mean I won't work for it. I will start today.
I researched both ideas, and yes, they have to go through Congress. Not going to happen. Re: your statement that this only needs 34 states for an application for the convention. I see where this is being refused even though there have been over 400 requests from 49 of the 50 states legislatures. I do not see this changing and we are running out of time. The power in office is not going to mess in its dinner plate. But as they say, never say never... so I will just say, when pigs fly!
I thank you again, Mr. Bischoff. I have indeed tried to see your views and appreciate your dedication to the Constitution and your tireless efforts to help educate us. Just because I don't think it will work does not mean I won't work for it. I will start today.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/26/11 11:08 AM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 08:20 AM
Thank you Mr. Bischoff! This was great. Article V convention. State legislators. I will read up on the Art.V and see who my state legislators are. I think I know. There is zero chance of getting anything done from this Democratic state with the government leaders here. I believe my state legislators ar the ones who are busy doing such things as building little doggie parks for pets to play together while at the same time throwing hundreds of pounds of food away in the school lunch program because they are not allowing the kids to have food they will actually eat. (It's not healthy.) Little chance, but I will check. Thank you.
Bluebird,
The best thing to do is to discuss the matter with as many of your friends and acquaintances that will listen. Then, approach the state assembly man or state senator for your district and tell him/her that people are fed up with the corruption in the U.S. Senate, and that you want them to choose the U.S. Senators again as was done before 1913. You want them to work for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, if they want your vote for office in the next election.
The best thing to do is to discuss the matter with as many of your friends and acquaintances that will listen. Then, approach the state assembly man or state senator for your district and tell him/her that people are fed up with the corruption in the U.S. Senate, and that you want them to choose the U.S. Senators again as was done before 1913. You want them to work for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, if they want your vote for office in the next election.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 11/26/11 08:20 AM
Posted by Bischoff on 11/25/11 09:01 PM
Bluebird,
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
Thank you Mr. Bischoff! This was great. Article V convention. State legislators. I will read up on the Art.V and see who my state legislators are. I think I know. There is zero chance of getting anything done from this Democratic state with the government leaders here. I believe my state legislators ar the ones who are busy doing such things as building little doggie parks for pets to play together while at the same time throwing hundreds of pounds of food away in the school lunch program because they are not allowing the kids to have food they will actually eat. (It's not healthy.) Little chance, but I will check. Thank you.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/25/11 09:01 PM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/25/11 11:24 AM
Okay, Mr. Bischoff, now that I am up out of the floor where I was LOL at this reply, tell me where I can sign up to get these amendments repealed. It IS something that "we the people" can do, right? I mean, we aren't to depend on our current leaders for this are we?
Bluebird,
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 11/25/11 09:01 PM
Posted by Bluebird on 11/25/11 11:24 AM
Okay, Mr. Bischoff, now that I am up out of the floor where I was LOL at this reply, tell me where I can sign up to get these amendments repealed. It IS something that "we the people" can do, right? I mean, we aren't to depend on our current leaders for this are we?
Bluebird,
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
It was in a constitutional way that the states lost their power. It is important that returning the power to the states be done constitutionally, as well.
As the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, so the 17th Amendment must be repealed by the 28th Amendment (Proposed).
BTW, the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, in their effect, are diametrically opposit to the provisions of the original U.S. Constitution. The amendments didn't add to, or modify the original constitution. They instead went counter to the intent of the framers. These three amendments, in fact, eliminated valued protections guaranteed to the American people, and to the sovereign states in the original U.S. Constitution.
As to the mechanism by which the constitution is amended, there are two distinct avenues set out in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Before an amendment can be ratified, it must first be proposed. One way to propose an amendment is for 2/3 of both Houses of the Congress to propose an amendment, and to send it to the states for ratification. Every ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), was proposed by the Congress. No amendment was ever proposed via the second avenue prescribed to amend the Constitution.
The second avenue to amend the Constitution has 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states make application to the Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. This type of convention is commonly called an Article V convention. It is limited in its purpose in that it can only propose amendments and ratify them, if 3/4 of the delegates of the several states are in favor.
You have likely heard of the dangers of holding a "constitutional convention". However, an Article V convention is NOT a "constitutional convention". An Article V convention is within and under the umbrella of the existing U.S. Constitution. That is why the states make an application to the Congress to call such convention. It includes the federal legislature in the proposed amendment desired by the state legislatures.
Only, if the Congress refuses to call an Article V convention (and I am not certain that they have not already done so in the past), are the states left with no other choice than to gather in a 2nd Constitutional Convention to effect the changes.
This situation can and should be avoided. If people understood the Constitution and its history, they would realize that the individual, sovereign states created the federal government, which then gives them "the finger" and says "get lost". (This was possible during the first two years of the Obama administration)
The alternative to a refusal by the Congress to call an Article V convention, would be for the states to send delegates to a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make the desired changes to the original constitution which upon ratification would be known as the "Second Constitution of the United States".
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) has already been repealed with the 21st Amendment. It is not feasible to repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) before repealing the 17th Amendment. After the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the new U.S. Senate will deal with the repeal of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment is intimately connected to the Fed central banking system. The new U.S. Senate has to make it possible for a national currency under the gold standard to reappear. Also, the individual states require sufficient time to overhaul their own state taxation systems.
All concentration has to be first on the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The Congress will never propose the necessary amendment. Therefore, it is left to the legislatures of at least 2/3 of all states (34) to make application to the Congress to call an Article V convention.
In order to get the state legislators to call for an Article V convention, the people of the several states have to get active and contact their state legislators. Herein lies the sincerety of the people who demand that power be returned to the states. The people within the state are the POWER and they have to display it to the state legislatures.
The founders wanted sovereign states in which people vested their power in the state legislators to govern them, and to select U.S. Senators to represent the interests of the state in the Congress. This is different then PEOPLE being represented by U.S. Representatives in the Congress.
By ratifying the 17th Amendment, the state legislators said to the people "you handle it, elect your own U.S. Senators".
However, the founders knew that it wouldn't work. They had looked at "mass democracy" in the city states of Athens and concluded that it was an utter failure. That's why they wanted the state legislators to select the U.S. Semators. So, if the people are serious, they will tell the state legislators to take back the responsibility to select U.S. Senators which can be recalled by them. The people (tea party people are in that frame of mind) have to insist on returning to the original constitution. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY WAY IN TODAY'S INTERNET WORLD.
Who OPPOSES the repeal of the 17th Amendment... ??? The mega banks, the big corporations, U.S. Senators... . It makes no difference with which political party these special interests are identified. They have bought off the education establishment, the media, etc. Most people have no idea what the 17th Amendment does, and how it is detrimental to the freedom and wealth of the American people.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment will trigger the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which in turn spells the destruction of the Fed central banking system. Furthermore, the repeal of the 16th Amendment will place the burden of raising all taxes at the local government level within the sovereign states, which undoubtedly will create a monumentous battle among different interest groups.
When fifty individual, sovereign states compete with each other, without having to worry about constant interferene from the federal government, capital, talent and labor will flow were it is best appreciated and employed.
|
|
