|
 |
|
Stolen from TexasFred
The Quote of the Decade:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006~
“America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Barack Hussein Obama IS that failure of leadership, and he is right, Americans DO deserve better.
Pass it on ’til eternity… It was so nice of him to give us this great quote for posterity! SO, USE IT!
The following was sent to me via email, I have no link to it for citation, so please, just take it as it is written and if you agree, fine, if not, oh well, I am tired of arguing with the BRAIN DEAD of America.
The Truth about the Health Care Bills
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.
What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Once again, a Texan is speaking the truth, and another Texan, yours truly, is spreading the word and fanning the flames.
Are you listening America?
BELLEVUE, WA – A call for banning so-called “assault weapons” in the wake of Thursday night’s shooting in a Chicago park, believed to be part of an ongoing war between two rival gangs, shows the Windy City needs to concentrate on banning gangs, not guns, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy was quoted by Chicago reporters insisting that the shooting, which seriously wounded a 3-year-old boy, is ample proof that “assault weapons” should be banned.
But when the Chicago Tribune noted that police think the shooting was the latest episode of violence between the Gangster Disciples and the Black P. Stones, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said this puts the real problem in perspective.
“When you have street thugs opening fire on groups of people in a gang war,” he observed, “that suggests the city has not advanced much since the days of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Law-abiding Chicago residents continue to face bureaucratic obstacles, wade through red tape and jump through hoops before they can legally own a gun, while criminals obviously don’t bother with any of that, and just drive around shooting people.
“If Superintendent McCarthy and his boss, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, want to make the streets safer,” he continued, “they should concentrate their efforts on ridding the city of its criminal element rather than push for bans on the kinds of firearms that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. Those citizens haven’t hurt anyone, and neither have their guns.
“McCarthy and his department could pull a little ‘Shock and Awe’ operation, one neighborhood at a time, rousting these thugs, arresting those who have outstanding warrants, jailing those found to be illegally carrying guns and sending a message to straighten up or you’re going down,” Gottlieb suggested. “It’s time for Chicago authorities to face the fact that they’re not going to get rid of their crime problem until they start getting rid of their criminals.”
Control freaks by any other name. Read on…
Imagine this brand of “help” appearing at your doorstep…Please read on.
Your elementary school aged child misses several days of school. First because of the flu, then when you thought things were getting better, pneumonia symptoms set in.
What started out as a “cold” lingered as an illness that is so unpredictable that even when your child was given the green-light to go back to school, the nurse sends them home for more rest.
You do what any parent will do, make sure your child gets plenty of chicken soup, take that awful tasting cough medicine, and go to the school to pick up any make-up lessons.
Now let’s fast forward. Later in the same year you find out your spouse has to “go under the knife”. As any loving spouse would do, you plan to go through the ordeal with them. And at the same time your “little one” is now distraught as one of their parents is suffering with chronic illness.
So far this is a true story happening in the Wheatland WY School District.
Well as anyone would do, this family appealed this order and retained an attorney.
And Wheatland prosecutor Eric Jones (who ran as a Republican) is now retaliating.
By making this a special case. As a matter a fact, it’s so special, that everything will be under a — gag order — claiming that keeping it all behind closed doors is to protect the minor child.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned, is that sleazy prosecutors like Eric Jones love to keep their dirty deeds deeply under cover. His actions are proof he doesn’t give one iota about the children.
To Eric Jones it’s all about power!
Eric Jones is guilty of doing what many prosecutors in America do best –WIN CASES…and if it means making a Wyoming family go bankrupt, it’s just part of the “game” he plays as a prosecutor.
As of now the avenues of diplomacy have been exhausted. You see, every single member of the School Board and the County Commissioners (even Sandy Contour who ran as a “pro-freedom” candidate”) tell me, “there is nothing they can do.”
And it’s all a bald faced lie! Under WY-Statute the “elected officials” can force Eric Jones to step down.
Of course, as usual the job of holding “other politicians accountable”, in this case the prosecuting attorney, is something that no one wants do.
By now you probably know how things really work…When a politician is asking for your vote, even for school board, they are certain to speak in a manner to win the popularity contest.
Then once this same politician is safely in office, by their “actions”, they become part of the slimy “business as usual” club. (Commissioner Sandy Contour, in case you are reading this email, YOU should be paying close attention since many people are watching)
Here is the call to immediate action!!!
The good news is, if Governor Mead hears from enough people like you he could put a stop to this merciless harassment of a Wyoming family.
Even though we know Mead has been on the wrong side on gun issues, surely Mead will stand up in defense against this egregious abuse of power that has been directed against this innocent family.
I pray that Mead would realize that bankrupting this family will only leave long term scars.
Please contact Governor Mead and ask him to stop this attack that started as a criminal no guns order, and has now turned into a retaliatory act by a out of control prosecutor Eric Jones.
Mead’s office (307) 777-7434
Other contact info here
Platte County Attorney Office
Eric Jones
307) 322-2045
jones@plattecountywyoming.com
If you’re on Facebook — be sure to go to WyGO’s page and like us. We’ll be publicizing this atrocity on social media as well.
To Liberty,
Anthony Bouchard
Executive Director
Wyoming Gun Owners
P.S. Prosecutor Eric Jones is going to show a Wheatland family just who the boss is unless you get involved.
Since this family decided that a probation order treating them like felons — including a NO GUNS ORDER — went too far. Since they decided to fight, Eric Jones is now on a mission to get even.
Please call Governor Mead’s office ASAP!
Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator. So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.
In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights. But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition. Bullets are hard to come by, of late. Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire. In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.
It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.
There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted. In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.
The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.” A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.
We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere. The word “regulated,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.
The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.
The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them. A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.
But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative? What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?
In Concord was our largest munitions depot. Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord. So, it can be said that the final straw – what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England – was when they came for our guns.
The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves. The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.
The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do. The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one. The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could. The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.
Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.
Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.
We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here. All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.
This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however. Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people. They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue. But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights? They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.
My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.” Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.
The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights. With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.
Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.
In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void (if one believes that the courts have that kind of overpowering rule over the legislative power in the States, and can dictate to the States what they can and can’t do). The courts applying the 2nd Amendment to the States would mean the Second Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms. However, studying the language of the Second Amendment carefully, it says that all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The final words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions. If that is the case, and if the 2nd Amendment also applies to the States, then technically it would also make all State gun laws unconstitutional.
The reason that the Second Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
The U.S. Constitution applies only to the federal government, except where specifically noted otherwise. Besides, even if on the surface it seems to be for a good cause, do you really want the federal government forcing the States to do something? Do we really want the federal government controlling the States in such a manner? When it comes to the McDonald v. Chicago case, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or State what they have to do.
If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? The case regarding Chicago’s handgun ban created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and in that I recognize a great danger to state sovereignty, and ultimately, to our Gun Rights.
The final argument against gun control is a need for an armed militia. Leftists do not accept the need of an unorganized civilian militia. In fact, the most common argument I hear regarding gun rights is that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past. According to these people, the citizen militia is no longer necessary, and all functions a militia would facilitate are now covered by the military, and more specifically, when it comes to local protection, the National Guard.
The National Guard is indeed much like the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but that does not mean an unorganized militia does not exist, nor is necessary.
Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. I also think the requirements will go out the window if the unorganized militia ever needs to be called into action. The requirement at that time will be, “If you can aim and fire, you are a part of our militia.”
So, according to the U.S. Code, the unorganized militia exists.
But why, I am often asked, is it so important to have a right to keep and bear arms in this civilized society?
You have a right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment says, because it is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Here, the word “State” does not mean “civil government” as assumed, but instead refers to the individual States. So, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of your State, be it Virginia, Maryland, New York, California, or wherever. And the word “necessary” is a pretty definitive term. So our gun rights are “necessary” to the security of a free State. From whom? Invaders? Don’t we have the organized military forces for protecting our States from foreign invaders?
If we don’t need to be armed to protect our states from foreign invasion, then why was it so important to the Founding Fathers to ensure that Americans remained armed?
Who does that leave as a potential enemy that the founders felt it “necessary” to arm the citizens to protect their States?
I believe the language is as such to remind us that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to protect the States against a tyrannical central government, should one rise at the federal level.
I was once asked, “Does that mean you would fire upon government employees?”
I replied, “If necessary.”
Probably going to turn this into a series. Should have done that a long time ago.
Well, good evening, my good friends, and welcome to another segment of Musings After Midnight. I hope all of you are well, which is more than I can say for myself. Another bout with inflammation of the eyes has beset me of late, stemming from an underlying inflammatory condition that can effect multiple body systems. This, of course, carries with it some rather peculiar difficulties that must be worked around.
But over all, the situation is improving with treatment, although progress is rather slow.
Summer is now in its final days, and here in the South we have been abundantly blessed with one of the mildest seasons I ever remember. In fact, I never remember a summer that has been this unseasonably mild. Rarely has the temperature gone above 90 degrees, which for this area is highly unusual. We have also been the recipients of an amazing amount of rainfall, totally obliterating a drought that has beset us for several years and shattering rainfall records that have stood in place for nearly a century.
If all summers could be like this in this area, I would have no complaints about the weather, although my heart does go out to those who have been hit with flooding. I could do without this much rain, but the temperatures have been wonderful.
And now, down to business.
Things have gotten demonstrably worse politically since we last met together. Obama not only continues to ignore the Constitution but has doubled down in his disdain for its provisions, particularly its clear limitations on executive power. He has made a complete mess out of foreign policy, pushing through and exploiting a precarious situation in Egypt to get a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and now sides with that terrorist organization against the military that ousted him and seeks to maintain stability in a nation that is precariously close to disintegrating into Islamic extremism along the lines of Iran, Libya, and Yemen.
On the home front, Obama defied the Constitutional mandate for presidents to follow the law by granting a delay to the implementation of the employer mandate in his infamous and unconstitutional ObamaCare program. The law he and his cronies wrote expressly fixes the date of implementation. Yet by executive fiat he decides that he will delay the implementation of the employer mandate while refusing to grant the same delay to the individual mandate. This is a clear violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution, and is a high crime/misdemeanor.
In the midst of all of this, Congress does nothing. We already know that Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are worthless. But now we know that the Republican leadership in the House — Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy — are just as worthless.
As I have stated before in previous Musings After Midnight, the ballot box has completely failed us at this point. So-called “Tea Party” candidates turn out to be complete duds once they get in office, except for Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.
But one major development that has occurred since the last time we talked is that at least one major conservative thinker has concluded the same thing we have, that the electoral process in America today has failed. The difference is that he has a more orderly Constitutional process for correcting it.
First, I want to consider the proposal and then offer a critique.
Mark Levin, radio talk show host, attorney, and former member of the Reagan Administration, has just released a new book that shot up to number one on the Amazon best seller list called, The Liberty Amendments. Already the book has created quite a stir in the conservative/libertarian world. Some have immediately slammed the book and its proposals while others have enthusiastically embraced them.
Levin’s basic premise is that the Constitution itself has provided a remedy for predicaments exactly like ours when the ballot box has failed us. And make no mistake. Levin agrees that the ballot box has failed. He has lambasted the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for their systemic failures to uphold the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. And he also debunks the notion that merely electing more conservatives to Congress will correct the problem, or that electing a conservative president with a conservative Congress will correct it.
As we have seen over the past 12 years, any Tom, Dick, and Harry can sound and act like a conservative to get elected or even to get appointed to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush and a Republican Congress (2001-2006) are prime examples. Can you say, Patriot Act? And John Roberts at the Supreme Court is perhaps the joke of the centuries.
So, what are citizens to do in order to stop this brazen tyranny and get the nation back on course? If another election or two are not guaranteed to do the trick, then what will?
Levin proposes a list of amendments to the Constitution that he calls “the liberty amendments.” And how does he propose to get these amendments approved? By using the provisions set forth by the Constitution itself in Article V.
Article V is referred to as “the amendment process.” Some erroneously refer to the amendment process remedy as a “Constitutional Convention,” the very name of which is enough to strike fear in the hearts of patriots who fear that having such a convention will possibly result in a runaway mob that approves measures that obliterate sacred protections of hard fought liberties.
Detractors of Levin’s book are already going into hysterics over the proposal. Some of that hysteria was evident today on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show not only by the host but by his guests.
But Levin correctly observes that Article V is erroneously viewed as a “Constitutional Convention” that can either discard portions or the entirety of the Constitution. The provision of Article V is more correctly referred to as “an amendment convention,” or “a convention to add amendments to the Constitution.” Such a process is bound by certain time honored limitations. A convention of this sort cannot vote on whether or not to abide by the Constitution. That is off the table and has already been decided. The agenda of the convention is set before the meeting commences. In fact, the convention is called only to consider and decide on proposed amendments, despite Cornell School of Law’s contention that this is up for debate and that the issue has never been decided.
The process itself, however, would seem to work against the possibility that such a convention would go rogue. For example, a specific proposal to amend the Constitution must originate with the states, precisely, two thirds of the state legislatures are required to call such a convention, and any proposal coming out of it eventually must be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures or three fourths of state amendment conventions (yes, a state can call an Article V convention).
Here is the precise wording of Article V of the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Cornell provides this interesting tidbit of annotation to Article V:
The Convention Alternative.—Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur[p.900]rounded by a lengthy list of questions.21When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two–thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.
Regardless of what one thinks about the prospects of such a convention or what may or may not happen therein, Levin’s book, in my opinion, is essential reading for anyone interested in liberty and in putting a stop to the growing tyranny and its concomitant encroachments on the liberties of the people. The book is sure to spawn a lively debate, even among conservatives and libertarians, a healthy exercise for a nation in which a sizable portion of the population has been conditioned to think they have absolutely no power or recourse at their disposal to fight the dictates of a growing oppressive, monolithic surveillance state.
Now, on to the critique.
I have great respect for Mark Levin. He understands the liberty movement, is sympathetic to its goals and objectives, and speaks our language. But he has invited critique with the belief that his is by no means the final word and that the nation needs to have a lively and healthy ongoing discussion concerning these issues.
It is in this spirit that I offer the following observations.
In the first place, having a convention to propose amendments is no guarantee that any of them actually will be followed even if they gain the approval of the necessary number of state legislatures. Granted, merely having the discussion, the debate, and the convention will enhance the chances that such amendments will be enforced. The attention of the entire nation will be focused on the issues addressed in those amendments, and thus, there will be a natural tendency to gauge the extent to which their provisions are adequately implemented.
However, that alone is not enough to guarantee adherence by Congress, the Courts, the president, or even the states. The lawlessness that ravages our land at the present hour provides ample proof that an alarming number of citizens, states, and elected officials do not care what the law says. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has proposed that the state of California officially be designated as a “sanctuary state” for illegal aliens, in defiance of federal law. Barack Obama himself has refused to obey several direct court orders. Congress has failed to hold him accountable.
It is very difficult to imagine any of these people suddenly deciding to obey Constitutional directives just because an Article V convention was held and the states approved. Regardless of how popular Levin’s proposed amendments may be in some states and with some elected representatives, this in no way guarantees that the current crop of lawless despots will leave or change their ways. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, and others will continue to be the very same criminal vermin they have always been. Barack Obama will not stop lying or defying the Constitution, or ignoring court orders when they are inconvenient to him.
Further, it is also very hard to believe that a majority of voters in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Illinois will change the way they vote. They are going to continue to send to Congress the very same tyrants they have for at least 10 to 20 years. Term limits will help, for sure. But the removal of one entrenched tyrant career politician will only result in his/her being replaced by another tyrant. Massachusetts got rid of Ted Kennedy when the senator died of cancer. But they replaced him with a Republican whose only sensible act was voting against ObamaCare, and now they have turned around and placed a kooky, loony bird liberal in that Senate seat, who is even worse than Kennedy or Brown.
In short, if the Constitution is not now being followed, then how on earth will several more amendments to it guarantee that they will be followed?
Lawless, elected thugs will ignore the new amendments as thoroughly as they do the current document.
America has not followed its Constitution in over 100 years. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that the Constitution was discarded as soon as the Income Tax was approved, along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. While I agree that both of these acts are deplorable and unconstitutional, I take it back even further. As soon as Abraham Lincoln, as great as he was, made it illegal for a state to withdraw from the union, the Constitution was on its death bed. The Framers were able to secure the approval of the Constitution only upon the promise to many patriots that the authority of states would never be usurped and that they could leave at any time. Lincoln broke that sacred promise although his heart was in the right place with regard to slavery.
Not long afterward the nation saw the advent of the Progressive Movement, which viewed the Constitution as a great roadblock to its agenda. And when one takes an objective look at the most well known progressives at the time, one is immediately struck by the fact that in one accord they believed the Constitution posed a problem for them. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst. So was FDR. And in reality, so was Teddy Roosevelt.
Wilson stated openly while he was a college professor that the Constitution was too restrictive in its approach to government. Years later before he was elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said the very same thing…in 1926. Both Wilson and FDR advocated putting the Constitution on the back burner, ignoring it, or outright defying it, in order to pursue an agenda that would result in a powerful, controlling centralized government-industrial-military complex — one of the very things our Framers wanted to avoid. Thus, by the time we went to war with Germany in the 1940s, there was actually little philosophical-economic difference between the United States and Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union. The only difference was a matter of degrees.
Lyndon Baines Johnson solidified and expanded what FDR and Wilson started with his Great Society. And here we’ve been ever since attempting to figure out how we lost so many of our freedoms, when the answer has been right in front of our eyes all along, and in fact, was set in motion by our very citizens in the voting booth.
Bill Buckley, one of my mentors, was famous for having said that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than those who have been elected to Congress. At one time I agreed with him. That day is long gone. I no longer trust my fellow citizens in the voting booth. They invariably make boneheaded decisions that culminate in more and more tyranny for me. So, why would I want to trust you with my liberties?
Frankly, it sickens me to no end to have to say these things, but it is the truth. We have been betrayed not only by our courts, our presidents, and our elected representatives in Congress, but by our fellow citizens as well. Promise them a $200 subsidy for national healthcare, a government apartment on the cheap, and a Social Security check, and they will vote for a modern equivalent of Chairman Mao.
Don’t get me wrong. I have long advocated for political solutions to our current quagmire even while we make preparation for more convincing solutions. To give up on that entirely would be a travesty and a big mistake. Thus, I hope Levin is right and that eventually we can get what he has proposed. I will do my part to work toward it. But I am not willing to pin all my hopes on that, for the reasons listed above.
In a very real sense, Levin is showing some naivete in his proposal. If we could trust the electorate as we once could, then yes, he would be 100 percent correct. If we were not facing the current dire straits brought on by evil men in high places, then yes, his treatise would be a most welcomed and refreshing solution. But reality tells me something entirely different, something that Levin may not be able or willing to accept. The enemy has not only gotten through the gate but he has become entrenched in command central. And most Americans are simply not informed enough to recognize him as the enemy.
The moral and ethical decay that has afflicted, infested, and infected modern American society makes it well night impossible for normal remedies to work effectively. Evil interlopers intent to do harm will say and do anything to get elected or to become entrenched in places of power in the unconstitutional Fourth Branch of government, the vast, nameless bureaucracy that controls most everything behind the scenes along with their allies and financiers in shadowy, duplicitous organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, the organizations formerly known as ACORN (which, by the way, are still there), and at least several hundred others. These groups know no bounds, no limitations, no restrictions ethically, morally, politically. Their only focus is on the agenda, the end game, to change America from a Constitutional Republic to something else that is a strange combination of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or more appropriately, collectivism. The individual person does not count. Persons are entirely expendable as long as the end game is achieved. Thus, you and I have no rights. We are mere pawns in a deadly game designed to turn us from citizens into subjects or slaves to the state.
Thus, a convention designed to approve commendable amendments to the Constitution, as noble an idea as it may be, will not change anything as long as we do not address the deadly cancer that is growing in the very center of the nation. And in this case, only radical surgery will do the trick.
This means Resist, Defy, Evade, Smuggle, and Sabotage.
The kind of enemy we fight is not reasonable, nice, respectful, or fair. Our only recourse, thus, is to thwart their march into tyranny at every hand, and then, when we get the chance, rout them out by sheer force. Force the criminals in public office to pay the price for their crimes. Place them on trial. Imprison them. And if they murdered the innocent in their pursuit of the “progressive vision,” implement the death penalty if Congress decides this is a fair punishment for their murderous actions.
Sounds rather harsh, doesn’t it? Well, would you rather be a slave with no rights? Would you prefer that government goons kill thousands if not millions of citizens, like Stalin and Chairman Mao? Would you rather political dissidents be thrown into the ovens?
If not, your choices are limited. Either get rid of the monsters that would do these things to you and me, or get set for a bloodbath initiated by a government that is just as oppressive and dangerous as anything we have ever seen.
It really is as simple as that.
Modified letter from NAGR, if only the NRA had balls like this!
If you agree, I’m counting on you to sign an open letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urging him NOT to advance Governor Christie as the future of the GOP.
You see, Governor Christie’s long support for gun control is no secret. In fact, in campaign materials, he attacked pro-gun opponents for opposing so-called “assault weapons bans!”
And just last week, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey signed MANY new gun control measures into law!
To add insult to injury, he even bragged about his state’s draconian firearm restrictions, saying his new gun control schemes would worsen “New Jersey’s already tough gun laws.”
The new bills Governor Christie signed into law last Thursday include:
*** A bill to strip law-abiding residents of New Jersey of their Second Amendment rights if the government bureaucrats ever label them “terrorists.”
After the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about men and women with the “wrong” Presidential candidate’s bumper sticker on their car possibly being “domestic terrorists,” you and I can be sure this power will be abused;
*** A “turn-em-in” bill to coerce otherwise law-abiding New Jersey residents to destroy or surrender certain firearms to the state within 180 days or get stuck with stiff penalties;
*** An “anti-gun trafficking” bill, which would treat ordinary gun sellers like criminals, terrorists, and gang members for minor oversights.
Under this legislation, not only would you be arrested, and have your firearms confiscated for minor infractions, the government of New Jersey could even seize your car!
The gun-grabbers and their anti-gun national media can hardly get enough of Christie’s attacks on guns and pro-gun members of his own Republican Party!
In fact, the anti-gun left-wing website, The Nation, ran a headline asking, “Can Chris Christie Change the Gun Control Debate?”1
Mentioning a possible future presidential run for the governor, The Nation wrote:
“[Governor Christie] will have little choice but to defend those [gun control] bills during the 2016 Republican primaries. Perhaps that will allow a forceful — and with Christie, one would expect no less — defense of sensible gun control on the national stage, and one directed at his own party.”
After eight years of President Obama’s madness, what a slap in the face this would be!
Worse, if nominated, gun-grabbers will know they’ll have someone they can “work with” in the White House regardless of who wins in November of 2016.
Can you possibly imagine a better political scenario for gun-grabbers like Sarah Brady and radical anti-freedom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg?
But, Patrick, as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, it could be very tempting for Chairman Priebus to start pushing and praising Governor Christie as the “future of the GOP.”
After all, when else does the anti-gun national media “ooh” and “ah” about a fellow Republican?
If all Republicans have to do is ignore their pro-Second Amendment party platform plank to get praised, why not just do it?
Why not just start asking for Republican candidates all over the country to start “easing up” on their defense of the Second Amendment?
Patrick, that’s why I’m asking you to sign the open letter to Chairman Priebus IMMEDIATELY.
Please don’t delay.
And if you could, please agree to a generous contribution, as well.
Even if all you can do is chip in $10 or $20, it will help me send the message to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus that you and I are serious about protecting our Second Amendment rights.
But most importantly, please sign the open letter to Chairman Priebus at once.
For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President
P.S. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey just signed many new gun control bills into law and bragged about it!
Is this the future of the Republican Party?
With all the national media attention Governor Christie is getting, it could be very easy for Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to start promoting Chris Christie as the future of the GOP.
You and I can’t let that happen.
If you agree, please sign the open letter to RNC Chairman Priebus and agree to your most generous contribution — even if it’s just $10 or $20 — TODAY!
References:
1 – http://www.thenation.com/blog/175649/can-chris-christie-change-gun-control-debate#axzz2c4dU8zWz
 | Patrick Sperry on On Not so civil wars… |
 | TexasFred on Guest commentary… |
 | MaddMedic on Guest commentary… |
| Patrick Sperry on The Stupid runs deep… |
| Patrick Sperry on Math for planning in the comin… |
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 