Topic: Secession
A VIABLE plan to save our Constitutional Republic No, the title of this article is not just a cheap hook to boost readership. There is a way to take back our Constitutional Republic within perhaps a matter of months by the current number of the “informed” Americans who still see our Constitution as the supreme law of the land. All it takes is for us to come together and implement a fairly simple strategy.by USAF Vet Dan
(libertarian)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
"Is it working for you?"
While Ron Paul has arguably done more to wake up and educate the masses than anyone in recent history, it isn't enough to just "know". You may know the bus is coming down the road but if you don't move out of the way, you'll get run over. We may know that our Constitutional Republic is rapidly being replaced by Socialistic Statism controlled by the multi-national corporate elite, but if we don't take action immediately, we will lose forever that grand experiment of government of the People, by the People, and for the People.
For years, we "informed" have been keeping ourselves educated and have educated others, but little else has been accomplished. We have used the soap box from which to educate. We have tried to use the ballot box but those attempts have been thwarted by a sham "two party" RepubliCrat system secured by draconian ballot access laws that are akin to a third world Banana Republic. Others have tried to use the jury box, fighting the IRS, ballot access laws, etc., only to find that, in the halls of justice, justice can only be found in the halls themselves. And finally, we hear cries that the cartridge box will be the only way to save our Constitutional Republic. Does anyone really think an armed revolution will be successful or desirable?
It's been said that the only time it feels good when you beat your head against the wall is when you stop. The Dr. Phil-ism, "Is it working for you?" seems appropriate. I don't think anyone will argue with me that what we've all been doing isn't going to save our Republic. "So what can we do, Genius?" you may ask. Here is my suggested solution.
Background: The inverted power hierarchy
Let's start from the beginning. The People created and empowered the States who subsequently created and empowered a limited central federal government. By the very nature of this sequence of events, the People held the most power, followed by the States and the federal government respectively. But government left unrestrained has a habit of growing bigger and bigger. When you combine apathy of the People with the nefarious intentions of those with wealth and influence, the growth and distortion of government is inevitable. And so the proper hierarchy of power became intentionally inverted over the past century or so. Take, for instance, the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913. Prior to this, US senators were appointed by the States which could quickly recall rogues who failed to respect the 10th Amendment. Hence we had a stratified system of governance where the People were represented by the House of Representatives, the States by the Senate, and the federal government by the Executive Branch. The 17th Amendment stripped the States of their power to control and restrain their agent. This allowed the federal government to grow in size and power... leading to the mess we're currently facing.
One only has to read the 18 short paragraphs of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment to see how far the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Gross distortions of portions such as Article 1, Section 8's preamble, incorrectly labeled the "general welfare clause", and the "interstate commerce clause" by legislators and the courts have occurred countless times. Decades of such interpretive contortions have led to a total abandonment of our Supreme Law. Today, legislators don't even attempt to create the illusion of Constitutional compliance as evidence by the "bailouts". Whereby prohibition of alcohol was imposed via the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of drugs was imposed without such Constitutional trappings. And so the dominoes started to fall.
Beyond the myriad of unconstitutional programs, regulations, spending, etc., the federal government usurps the 10th Amendment by threatening to withhold "federal" funds from those states who attempt to resist its will. This has occurred countless times including the post 70's oil embargo national 55 mph speed limit, minimum drinking ages, etc.
Whose funds? After all, every dollar the federal government has came from We, the People. So we send our tax dollars to the federal government only to it dole them back to our states with their restrictions. What's wrong with this picture?
Putting teeth into the State Sovereignty Resolutions
Over the past few months a number of states have passed or are in the process of passing "State Sovereignty Resolutions". While these make a powerful statement, a resolution carries no force of law. What is needed is a State Sovereignty "Act". What actions should the states take? Some believe secession is the answer. But for many Americans, that carries negative connotations derived from the Civil War (or the war of Northern Aggression as some prefer to call it). There is another answer.
Default by the Landlord
If you are a renter and your landlord fails to fix the hole in your roof, he is in default of your lease agreement. If you stop paying your rent because of his infraction, you too will be in default. In some cases, you can opt to put your landlord on notice that, until he cures his default, your rent payments will be made into an escrow account. These funds cannot be used by either party. Once the landlord cures his default, the money will be released to him as per the terms of the escrow agreement. Since the federal government is in default of its "agreement" with the states which created it, why not treat them like a bad landlord?
The State Sovereignty Act
The Act is simple. Each state creates a federal tax escrow account and makes it illegal for its citizens, corporations, and trusts to pay their federal tax dollars directly to the feds. Instead, by state law they have to pay their federal taxes directly to the state-controlled escrow accounts. What is created is legalized tax protesting. The states then dole the money to the federal government with THEIR restrictions. The pipeline of money to the federal government is shut off. And thus the Constitutional chains will begin to be placed once more on the federal government and the proper hierarchy of power begins to be restored.
The passage of the State Sovereignty Resolutions gives us the ability to determine the strongest state most likely to pass the Act. Starting with the strongest, momentum will begin and other states will join in the effort.
A Radical Idea?
Some may say that this is a very radical idea but, compared to secession or, even worse, an armed rebellion, it seems far less radical. America is going through some very tough times which all indications show will become much tougher in the coming months. Tough times call for tough solutions... tough actions.
While I have a draft of the Act which we created more than 15 years ago, I have opted not to publish it because I don't want minutia to get in the way of the core idea. The most important first step is to attempt to have this concept go viral across the Internet. If you feel this concept has merit, please redistribute this to all your contacts and message boards. A run up the proverbial flag pole will see how many salutes it gets.
May God bless our Republic.
USAF Vet Dan
www.TimeForDan.com
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 59 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of USAF Vet Dan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. USAF Vet Dan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Your "solution" has one flaw. It is a violation of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gives the power to collect income tax to the federal government. If the states did as you suggest, the federal government would be within its legal and constitutional rights to seize such funds as you describe from the states for taxes that they are legally and constitutionally owed. They would also be within their rights under currently existing federal law to arrest anyone who either did this or, and this is important for you personally, even advocates doing it if they attempt anymore than discussing as you have here. The IRS could interpret this "proposal" as a income tax avoidance scheme and they prosecute people for doing that. Hence, anyone reading this "idea" should be aware there are in place federal laws prohibiting this "idea" be it done by states or individuals. That's why he's not published it.
Why not simply repeal federal income tax altogether as a solution? Given that 39 states have applied for such an action in an Article V Convention, repeal is almost certain and you achieve the same end as you suggest.
The reason is simple: you oppose an Article V Convention and therefore have to contrive this idea of violating the Constitution in order to work around your opposition to doing what must be done, repeal of federal income tax meaning a convention and a proposed amendment.
So instead you come up with a criminal act and suggest people risk prison to impliment it while you sit fat and safe and won't even publish your "idea" so you can face the IRS instead of them.
Learn the truth about repeal of federal income tax. You can read the applications at www.foavc.org. All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention. Take time to study them.
I can't disagree with you completely regarding the Constitutionality of the concept. I can only say that extreme situations call for extreme measures. Our founding fathers understood this. While they gave us the 2nd Amendment in part for protection against a despotic government, they did not include provisions within the Constitution for its use in that manner. I think the same applies to the 10th Amendment.
The bottom line is that the federal government is in total default of the "agreement" and the strategy I propose seems to be the most "do-able" and least radical way to reign in this rogue agent.
An Article V Constitutional Convention call by the states in order to abolish the IRS is NOT an option as, in today's political environment, the Constitutional baby will most certainly be thrown out with the convention bath water. Convention delegates are unrestrained. Those who push for a Con Con are not without this knowledge. If you weren't aware of this, I'll educate you.
From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9
The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)
and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)
They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)
and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)
and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
Citations:
(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149
Your assertion that pushing the Act through the states and, if inacted, paying federal taxes into the state escrow account is "a criminal act" is balderdash. What are the feds going to do? ...throw the entire state polulation into jail???
I think you and your pro-Con-Con cohorts see the state of affairs today as creating a favorable environment for your nefarious efforts. I think you see the Act I'm promoting as a dangerous side tracking of your efforts and that's why you've attacked it with inflated claims of "criminal actions". Now, do you want me to tell you how I really feel? ;-)
One thing's for certain - to do nothing and subsequently lose our Republic is not an option.
Your article also assumes that the reader is familiar with the concept of the Constitution being a contract.
I think it's a missing piece of your argument. Most US citizens are ignorant of contract law in general, and even those who know something about it are not likely to look on the supreme law of the land as nothing more than a contract between the federal government, the many states, and the people.
For them, Leviathan is simply a fact of life, to be harnessed and made to do their bidding, or to wear another's harness to their chagrin. They either love the first amendment and hate the second, or love the second and hate the fifth.
So I think the flaw in this idea is that even those who profess allegiance to the idea of a constitution tend to treat ours like a buffet. Bringing them to an understanding that the entire contract is enforcable may help in bringing them to the understanding that it has already been breached.
Take Bill Walker's response: you can't ignore the constitution just because the federal government ignores the constitution.... but that seems like your entire point. The tenant is bound by the contract to pay rent, but is refusing to continue to meet its terms until the landlord also meets his terms.
In short, I got what you were trying to say, but only because I'm familiar with the "Constitution as contract" idea.
I understand and, for the most part, agree with the points you made. If "most" Americans had even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. For those of us who do know something about it (and our numbers have never been larger, thanks in part to Ron Paul as well as this horrible economy), I think the Act may be the best thing we can all push.... unless you have a better idea of what we should be doing. I, for one, think the days of merely lamenting about the problems are over. If we don't act soon, there will be nothing left to save.
____________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I think you and your pro-Con-Con cohorts see the state of affairs today as creating a favorable environment for your nefarious efforts. ____________
Since when was wanting the Constitution obeyed nefarious? How lame to challenge others' motives when one's own weak case fails to convince?
After all, you (USAF Vet Dan) already wrote in another article ([link edited for length]): _____________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: "Furthermore, the most glaring flaw in the pro Con Con position is this. The problems we face in America today stems from the federal government ignoring the Constitution. To think that amending it would make them less likely to ignore it makes no sense at all... it is void of all logic." _______________
Yes, the federal government is ignoring Article V of the U.S. Constitution. [link edited for length]
It is also ignoring many other laws (e.g. immigration laws, SEC violations, etc.). And it is violating some laws too (e.g. eminent domain abuse).
However, the problems we face today are not solely the fault of government. Voters are culpable too, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt politiciains with 85%-to-90% re-election rates ([link edited for length]), despite voters' dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress makes no sense, and voters will reap what they sow, and things are not likely to improve until the painful consequences of the majority of the voters' irresponsibility has become too painful.
____________ AF Vet Dan wrote: To think that amending it would make them less likely to ignore it makes no sense at all... it is void of all logic. ____________ The "ignoring"is a problem, as you say above. However, your are advocating continued "ignroing" of Article V. Many people that want the Constitution obeyed is largely because they do no want more and more parts of the Constitution to become ignoredtoo.
And the case above about the BALANCED BUDGET Amendment ([link edited for length]) also makes a very strong case that some amendments are needed. After all, this nation many not be struggling with a massive debt-problem of nightmare proportions had Congress not ignored Article V and over 100 BALANCED BUDGET amendment applications from over 34 states.
So, your comments appear to be advocating the continued ignoring of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, your comments challenge others' motives? What is logical about that, when you just stated that a large part of the problem is the Constitution being ignored?
Regarding legal cases, the Supreme Court and other courts have already (many times) dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (including Article V) and its provisions:
#01 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.”
#02 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.”
#03 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “Where the text of the constitution is "clear and distinct", no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.”
#04 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816): “The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution.”
#05 Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827): “Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.”
#06 Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): “[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.”
#07 Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “The departments of the government are legislative, executive and judicial. They are coordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, right-fully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, any thing which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful. … It is supreme over the people of the United States, aggregately and in their separate sovereignties, because they have excluded themselves from any direct or immediate agency in making amendments to it, and have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the congress of the United States, when two thirds of both houses shall propose them; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, be-come valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths of them, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress.”
#08 Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880): “A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.”
#09 Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “The framers of the Constitution realized that it might in the progress of time and the development of new conditions require changes, and they intended to provide an orderly manner in which these could be accomplished; to that end they adopted the fifth article. This article makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed. … The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by the action of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or conventions in a like number of states. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
#10 Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921), the Court reaffirmed its previous interpretations of Article V saying: “An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since it expired subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the senate. A further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is, that on the application of two thirds of the states Congress shall call a convention for the purpose.”
#11 United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), the Supreme Court stated: “The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
#12 U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction [re-interpretation] and no excuse for interpolation.”
#13 Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938): “In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning.”
#14 U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941): “Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.”
#15 Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “Nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process, and nothing old can be taken out without the same process”.
#16 Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956): “As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.”
I like debating this subject, because those that attempt to argue for the continued ignoring of the Constitution (e.g. Article V), about the dangers of enforcing the Constitution, or the real meaning of Article V, always dig themselves into a very deep hole, and then silently disappear with no admission that their case was very weak, if not totally lame.
d.a.n. wrote: "The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention is totally flawed, because those that oppose it always omit to tell you that it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendment."
Because the delegates' powers are unrestrained, they can create new ratification requirements. This occurred in the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates and ratified according to the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution.
On your assertion that Congress is ignoring the hundreds of state calls for a Con Con... balderdash, propaganda, etc. "Sine die" Resolutions die at the end of the session and have to be passed again in the new session. You're going back to the 1700s to total the number of state con con calls you assert. Silliness.
The rest of your diatribe isn't worth responding to.
I'm sorry for sounding trite, but I cannot imagine that anyone who gives this issue more than an initial glance won't immediately and firmly conclude that an Article V Convention is very dangerous and would do nothing to solve the problems our nation faces. Therefore, I can only conclude that those who continuously bang on this broken drum have more nefarious motives. That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly.
Posted By: reboot Liberty
Date: 2009-03-07 17:00:12
All comments and case law cited is fine and good but rest on the false premise that the constitution was ratified by the states it was not.. You will be surprised to learn tax on income by ones labor it not a law. complance it is only enforced by intimidation and fear check your facts and start with the states record who ratified the amendment.
Posted By: Brian McCandliss
Date: 2009-03-07 22:26:42
USAF Dan:
The problems we face in America today, isn't due to the federal government ignoring the Constitution, since that was always seen as inevitable; the problem is that the states lack any sovereign recourse against such. In his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, Madison wrote that this "would subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
The Framers, particularly Madison, knew that it was simply impossible for the majority to preserve the Constitution aginst itself; the minority-states therefore retained their sovereign status as individual nations. Even Jackson and Lincoln didn't claim that the Constitution changed this, but on the contrary claimed that the Union was always a nation, from 1776 onward-- and that it was the federal government's job to uphold the Constitution.... the majority-elected federal government.
So the solution, one of two options: 1) either recognize the sovereignty of the individual states, or 2) continue to try to educate the majority about the Constitution, and convince them to vote for the right candidates who will honor it-- rather than candidates who promise them personal benefits at the minority's expense.
When I stumbled upon this website I had hoped to find something that strenghtened my belief in this state sovereignity movement. Is it possible that there still might be time for quick decisive action? Are there people willing to come to an agreeable solution to slowdown or even stop the pain that is to come? After listening to the bickering in the comments section I have so far come to the conclusion that it probably won\\\\\\\'t do much to combat these thieves from robbing the country of our future. I\\\\\\\'m speaking of those responsible for driving this nation to the place we are in at this moment. Too much damage has been done financially to turn this around. These stimulus packages put forth by many countries will bury this and those other nations. The results are going to be ugly. Consequently there is only preservation of one\\\\\\\'s family and friends as we ride this out to the end. I will say that if there were more time these arguments would be exhilarating and hopeful to read. I am impressed that there are people who care or have a passion to read and understand our constitution as well as those who have made their comments. You have my admiration.
And yes, I'm aware of the assertion that the income tax is not backed by law. The jails filled with Patriots who correctly took that position are a testament to the fact that there is no justice in the federal court system.
Don't let the enemies of our Constitution (the pro-Con-Con cons) succeed - they posted their rubbish here to specifically dissuade readers like yourself. They are insignificant in numbers and impact. Also, don't give up. The battle has just begun. It had to get this bad (or worse) to counter the People's apathy and laziness and wake the sleeping giant. Sad, but that's the way it is. Besides, you probably have already bought and stored all your food and ammo by now.
So just out of curiousity, what would be the demand you would make on the Federal Government in order for the states to release the tax money held in escrow? Or more precisely, who would interpret the constitution and which laws are in violation of it? Not to mention, you are trying to enforce the constitution by effectively violating it; states have no lawful means to confiscate federal income taxes and hold them in escrow. The Fed will just throw the constitution back in your faces.
By the way, just saying secession has a negative conotation because of the Civil War is ridiculous. Why even have states if they are going to act as nothing but bounderies. We have states to represent the will of its inhabitants. If the constituents no longer feel the government is serving their interests or has ignored the contract, then its their right to effectively nullify the constitution and create their own. Given the Federal Government's predisposition to aggression, it is best to have as many possible states involved as possible and create a confederation.
Or if you wish to keep our present despotic Constitution in force, you can try and have the states amend it so that it clearly states its powers under the 10th amendment (among other things).
First of all, "I" wouldn't be making any demands... the states would so that would be up to them. I would envision a coalition of the states that passed the Act creating a list of "demands" which they would, in mass, deliver to the federal government. This could be an incremental list - with the highest priorities listed first as a condition to release $X.
On the issue of violating the Constitution, the 17th Amendment stripped the states of their recourse to reign back in a federal government out of control. But let's use the 2nd Amendment as an example. As you probably know, the founding fathers secured our rights to keep and bear arms by including it in the Bill of Rights - not to be able to just hunt squirrels, but as a defense against a despotic government. The Constitution does not include a provision for the People to implement such defense, but such use of this right was implied. The same goes for state governments which were always supposed to hold more power than the federal government. The Constitutional authority for the feds to collect taxes is valid so long as expenditures of such money is for Constitutional expenditures. As they have grossly exceeded this authority, they are in default of their agreement with the states. The 10th Amendment says that "all" powers not specifically granted to the feds by the Constitution are reserved to the states... so the power to take action against its rogue agent (set up the escrow accounts and seize the federal tax payments) is derived from the 10th Amendment.
You say, "just saying secession has a negative connotation because of the Civil War is ridiculous." I disagree from a practical perspective. The number of people who have responded negatively to the rumblings of secession has been too large to ignore. Your suggestion to "nullify the constitution and create their own" has also drawn negative reactions - from me included. The best plan won't work if it doesn't have enough support to make it happen.
You also said "Or if you wish to keep our present despotic Constitution in force..." Our Constitution is not despotic, the rogue government is.
"The 10th Amendment says that "all" powers not specifically granted to the feds by the Constitution are reserved to the states." ....Unfortunately, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constiution and the 16th amendment gives Congress these powers.
The Constitution was imperfect to begin with, but the 16th and 17th amendments made it despotic (IMO anyways).
The 16th Amendment says, in part, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..."
Not to split hairs but, the 16th doesn't address from whom these taxes would be collected. I assert that the 10th Amendment gives the States the power to intercept those tax dollars so the federal government would have to "collect" the money from them instead of directly from the taxpayer.
We agree on one thing - the 16th and the 17th Amendments should be repealed. And then there's that question about whether or not the 16th was properly ratified... but I won't go there ;-)
Reply to Bill Walker
Bill, you're right about the 16th amendment being a possible roadblock, but there are many of us who feel that this amendment isn't even Constitutional in it's own right. There is some evidence that it was actually one state shy of even being a legal amendment in the first place. But of course, as Dan stated, just try arguing that in court. And since our Congresscritters aren't listening to us now, getting that repealed would be near impossible. It will have to start at the State level if anything is to be accomplished.
The States have to take back their authority. It still comes down to violations of the 10th and 17th Amendments. States Rights have been usurped.
_________________________ d.a.n. wrote: "The fear-mongering about an Article V Convention is totally flawed, because those that oppose it always omit to tell you that it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendment." _________________________
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Because the delegates' powers are unrestrained, they can create new ratification requirements. This occurred in the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates and ratified according to the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution. _________________________ Nonsense. Again, nothing can legally be changed without 3/4 vote by all of the United States. So such fear-mongering is logically flawed.
Also, there have been 679 Constitutional Conventions ([link edited for length]) by all 50 states, and none of them got out of control.
You choose to overlook numerous facts that are inconvenient to your argument which is growing weaker and weaker (if not totally lame).
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: On your assertion that Congress is ignoring the hundreds of state calls for a Con Con... balderdash, propaganda, etc. "Sine die" Resolutions die at the end of the session and have to be passed again in the new session. You're going back to the 1700s to total the number of state con con calls you assert. Silliness. _________________________ False. Look here ---> [link edited for length]
Merely calling something silly and proving it are two different things.
You don't have a credible explanation for these 730+ amendments, so you merely call them "silliness". What is true "silliness" is your evasions, twisting of the facts, and re-interpretations of the Constitution. So, where in Article V does it say proposed amendments expire? How about the 34+ BALANCED BUDGET amendment applications submitted between 1975 and 1980? How about the 104 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Article-V-Call applications submitted by 37 different states? How about the 154 Amendments by 34 States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1963 to 1969? How about the 102 Amendments by 35 States (sorted by State) in 7 years from 1965 to 1971? How about the 730+ amendments applications by all 50 states? That's 14.6 amendment applications per state. Many occurred in a short period of time (e.g. BALANCED BUDGET Amendment). How many does it take? Where in Article V does it state anything about time-limits or same-subject requirements?
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The rest of your diatribe isn't worth responding to. _________________________ That's because your arguemnt is very weak indeed. Thus, it's easier to just call things "silliness" and "diatribe", rather than provide credible facts.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I'm sorry for sounding trite, . . . _________________________ Yes, Now we agree on something. That's the usual response when one's arguments are so weak and failing.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I'm sorry for sounding trite, but I cannot imagine that anyone who gives this issue more than an initial glance won't immediately and firmly conclude that an Article V Convention is very dangerous and would do nothing to solve the problems our nation faces. _________________________ Nonsense. It requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any amendments, and all 50 states have had 679+ Constitutional Conventions ([link edited for length]) without any of them getting out of control. So such fear-mongering simply doesn't make any sense.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Therefore, I can only conclude that those who continuously bang on this broken drum have more nefarious motives. _________________________ More unsubstantiated nonsense. What motives? Since when did wanting the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become nefarious?
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. _________________________ OOOOOOOOOOOOooooohhh . . . that sounds like a threat, eh?
I'm shaking in my boots.
Such statements are a sure sign of a failing argument. Such comments such as that are all the proof needed to prove that your arguements are lame and unsubstantiated, and your assertions of time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements are completely false. If you would be so kind, where exactly in Article V does it mention anything about time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements? _____________________________ Article V of the U.S. Constitution ([link edited for length]): 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 [1808] 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. _____________________________
Thus, due to the frustration of a failing argument, you now resort to calling people your "enemy" and other nonsense?
If I had a nickel for every time someone dug themselves into a deep hole trying to defend a weak (or lame) argument, I'd be rich.
ISSUE #01: While Article V contains no mention of any "contemporaneous" requirement, some have argued that amendments must be "contemporaneous" (i.e. occurring about the same time) before Congress must call an Article V Convention.
REBUTTAL #01: Once an amendment is provided to the states for ratification, Congress can set a time limit (typically 7 years: [link edited for length]) for amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. However, the 27th Amendment was ratified after 203 years. Beginning with the proposed 18th Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within 7 years ([link edited for length]) from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) ([link edited for length]), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act to ratify an amendment is a political question to be determined by the Congress.
If 7 years is acceptable for ratification, then it seems reasonable that 7 years is acceptable for the expiration of proposed amendments. If so, that condition has been satisfied at least twice (for the 7 years from 1963 to 1969, and from 1965 to 1971), as shown below in TABLE 06 ([link edited for length]) and TABLE 07 (http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm#Table07) respectively.
Therefore, the question is: Why has Congress not yet called an Article V Convention ?
REBUTTAL #02: Another important point about whether the intended meaning of "whenever" in Article V (above) implies some sort of expiration time-limit was intended by the framers is weakened by the fact that the framers of Article V carefully specified an expiration time-limit within Article V for restrictions on amendments to the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article prior to year 1808. Therefore, if the framers intended for there to be an expiration time-limit on proposed amendments for other parts of the U.S. Constitution, how likely is it that they would so explicitly include restrictions on amendments to the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article prior to year 1808, but forget to specify expiration time-limits for restrictions for future amendments to other parts of the U.S. Constitution?
REBUTTAL #03: Also, there is nothing in the Federalist papers that support the theory of any expiration time-limits.
REBUTTAL #04: The Supreme Court, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act to ratify an amendment is a "political question" to be determined by the Congress. However, there are no Supreme Court cases or statements supporting the "contemporaneousness" requirement for proposed amendments; only for the ratification process. That may possibly due to the word "whenever" in Article V (above), and the other cases in which the Supreme Court has also dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (some which explicitly referred to Article V: [link edited for length]).
However, if Coleman V. Miller is going to also be used as a requirement for "contemporaneousness" for the proposal of amendments, then why should the expiration time-limit for proposed amendments be less than the ratification time-limit (e.g. typically 7 years)? Any argument for a shorter time limit for proposing amendments would clearly begin to appear as though Congress and/or the Supreme Court have a conflict of interest. Especially when some proposed amendments are very likely to contain amendments for Term-Limits for Congress, Term-Limits for Supreme Court Justices, Balanced Budget, Campaign Finance Reform, Tax Reform, etc. More obfuscation and obstructionism by Congress will most certainly begin to give credibility to the assertions that Congress and/or the Supreme Court are flagrantly violating the U.S. Constitution.
ISSUE #02: While Article V contains no mention of a "same-subject" requirement, some have argued that amendments must be same-subject before Congress must call an Article V Convention.
REBUTTAL #05: As for the argument for a "same-subject" requirement, that condition has also been met at least twice, as show below in TABLE 03 ([link edited for length]) and TABLE 04 (http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm#Table04). Since General calls for an Article V Convention do not specify any specific amendment subject, General calls can supplement any other amendment subject to satisfy requirements for Congress to call an Article V Convention (i.e. when requested by at least 2/3 of all states).
REBUTTAL #06: The Supreme Court has also, many times, dealt with cases in interpreting the Constitution (some which explicitly referred to Article V: [link edited for length]). There are some cases and statements by the Supreme Court that support the literal text of Article V as being consistent with the intended meaning of Article V.
"...nothing can legally be changed without 3/4 vote by all of the United States. So such fear-mongering is logically flawed."
My comment to which you responded (but ignored) proves you wrong. On this issue, you continue to ignore:
* the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates - resulted with the utilization of the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution.
* Corpus Juris Secundum 16 (previously posted in full) clearly states that the delegates have unlimited power.
* If you have to resort to blanket, baseless statements and personal attacks, you are demonstrating that your position is undefendable.
Your argument in support of collective, perpetual resolutions calling for the con is trumped by the facts - the fact that all resolutions die at the end of session (as opposed to acts), the fact that a con-con would be forced by the courts if you were correct, and the fact that your assertion flies in the face of logic... that a con con call from the 1700's could and should be considered valid in 2009.
"More unsubstantiated nonsense. What motives? Since when did wanting the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become nefarious?"
If Constitutional compliance was your true motivation, then why spend all your time on this issue? Why not focus your efforts on the 90% of the feds' programs that are unconstitutional and bleeding us financially dry? Why not the loss of civil liberties?
"where exactly in Article V does it mention anything about time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements?"
Where does it say that a state cannot withdraw its call - either by direct action or by expiration?
Same-subject amendments? I never made such a claim. A con con call CANNOT be limited to any particular intended amendment (that makes it that much more dangerous).
And finally, there is that pesky 10th Amendment which gives the states virtually unlimited power (except for those few powers given the feds in Art. 1, Sect. 8). Where does the Constitution detract from those 10th Amendment powers of the states with regard to withdrawing their con con calls or having their legislative rules let them expire?
I'll ask you to do the same thing I asked Bill to do. Answer the average American's PRIMARY concerns about a con-con con that I previously posted.
_________________________ d.a.n. wrote: "...nothing can legally be changed without 3/4 vote by all of the United States. So such fear-mongering is logically flawed." _________________________
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: My comment to which you responded (but ignored) proves you wrong. On this issue, you continue to ignore: * the only Con Con this nation has ever seen - when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out in favor of the new constitution drafted by the delegates - resulted with the utilization of the NEW ratification procedure contained within the NEW constitution. _________________________ Nonsense, since the Articles of Confederation ARE NOT the U.S. Constitution. Besides, 3/4 of the states ratified the changes.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: * Corpus Juris Secundum 16 (previously posted in full) clearly states that the delegates have unlimited power. _________________________ More nonsense, since there is nothing in Corpus Juris Secundum 16, nor any law that trumps the U.S. Constitution. There is no law or court case that invalidates Article V of the U.S. Constitution. As someone else already pointed, your attempt to use "Corpus Juris Secundum 16" to somehow invalidate Article V is severely flawed. No where does state that it is OK for Congress to ignore Article V.
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: * If you have to resort to blanket, baseless statements and personal attacks, you are demonstrating that your position is undefendable. _________________________ Personal attacks?
It was you that resorted to personal attacks. For example: _________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. _________________________ OOOOOOOOOOOOooooohhh . . . that sounds like a threat, eh?
I'm shaking in my boots.
Such statements are a sure sign of a failing argument. Such comments such as that are all the proof needed to prove that your arguements are lame and unsubstantiated, and your assertions of time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements are completely false. If you would be so kind, where exactly in Article V does it mention anything about time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements?
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Your argument in support of collective, perpetual resolutions calling for the con is trumped by the facts - the fact that all resolutions die at the end of session (as opposed to acts), the fact that a con-con would be forced by the courts if you were correct, and the fact that your assertion flies in the face of logic... that a con con call from the 1700's could and should be considered valid in 2009. _________________________ Nonsense. Nothing trumps the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no law or court case that invalidates Article V.
_________________________ d.a.n wrote: What motives? Since when did wanting the U.S. Constitution to be obeyed become nefarious?" _________________________
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: If Constitutional compliance was your true motivation, then why spend all your time on this issue? Why not focus your efforts on the 90% of the feds' programs that are unconstitutional and bleeding us financially dry? Why not the loss of civil liberties? _________________________ There are many other constitutional violations ([link edited for length]).
What makes you think I think any of those violations are acceptable. As you can see from my list of constitutional violations ([link edited for length]), the violation of Article V is not my only focus. I have focused on other constitutional violations too, such as the 2nd amendment violation in D.C. for decades (finally over-turned and corrected). Thus, your comment about "focus" is baseless, as are most (if not all) of your comments.
________________________ d.a.n wrote: "where exactly in Article V does it mention anything about time-limits, same-subject amendments, and contemporaneous requirements?" ________________________
________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Where does it say that a state cannot withdraw its call - either by direct action or by expiration? ________________________ It doesn't. What does that have to do with anything?
________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Same-subject amendments? I never made such a claim. ________________________ You inferred that by many of your statements . . . for example . . . ________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: A con con call CANNOT be limited to any particular intended amendment (that makes it that much more dangerous). ________________________ Dangerous? Nonsense, since it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify any proposed amendments.
________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: And finally, there is that pesky 10th Amendment which gives the states virtually unlimited power (except for those few powers given the feds in Art. 1, Sect. 8). Where does the Constitution detract from those 10th Amendment powers of the states with regard to withdrawing their con con calls or having their legislative rules let them expire? ________________________ More obfuscation. The 10th Amendment doesn't change Article V. There are also no time-limits in Article V.
________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: I'll ask you to do the same thing I asked Bill to do. Answer the average American's PRIMARY concerns about a con-con con that I previously posted. ________________________ OK.
To summarize: (01) Fear-mongering about a run-away convention are unfounded, since all 50 U.S. states have had over 679 constitutional conventions between 1776 and 1917 ([link edited for length]), and none of those got out of control. Iraq and Afghanistan had constitutional convention too. The state of Texas amends its constitution all the time. Many states do. So such fear-mongering about constitutional conventions is not substantiated by any historical precedent. (02) Fear-mongering about a run-away convention is also unfounded, since it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. (03) Attempts of construction to re-interpret Article V violate rules already established for the interpretation of Article V ([link edited for length]) (04) Article V ([link edited for length]) is plain and unambiguous and that has already been established. (05) There are many court cases that explicity speak of Article V and its original intent, and unambigous meaning ([link edited for length]). (06) There is nothing in the Federalist papers that disputes the original intent, and unambigous meaning of Article V. (07) There is no law or case anywhere that allows Congress to ignore Article V. (08) There is nothing in Article V, or any court case, or any existing law that establishes any same-subject or contemporaneous requirements. (09) Even if there was a same-subject requirement, that requirement has already been met. (10) Even if there was a requirment of contemporaneousness, that requirement has also been met (34+ BALANCED BUDGET amendment applications between 1975 and 1980). 104 BALANCED BUDGET/General-Article-V-Call applications have been submitted by 37 different states. 154 amendments applications were submitted by 34 States in 7 years from 1963 to 1969. 102 amendments applications were submitted by 35 States in 7 years from 1965 to 1971. (11) Article V states "whenever". That does not mean "optional". (12) It does not matter if some people think an Article V Convention is a good or bad idea. It's the law. Those that don't like the law have the option to try to change it. (13) 730+ (14.6 amendments per state on average) Article V amendment applcations from all 50 states is starting to look very much like Congress has a conflict of interest. That's actually a no brainer. It's a no-brainer by Congress doesn't want an Article V Convention, because those that have (and abuse) power are rarely willing to give it up. Congress doesn't want a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, campaign finance reform, TERM-LIMITS, or a number of other reforms that have growing popularity because Congress is growing increasingly corrupt, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt. Consider these many clever and unfair advantages ([link edited for length]) for incumbent politicians. They don't want anything to upset that, or possibly reduce their power or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.
Thus, the fear and fear-mongering of Article V is nonsense.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
More dizzy tail chasing on your part. When quoting law suits you, you do so. When I quote law, you simply say it doesn't trump the Constitution. When I point out huge, gaping, festering holes in the Con, you ignore them and shift the focus to something else.
The points you'll never address are:
Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored.
Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue.
Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty.
And finally, I can only assume that the State Sovereignty Act has merit in your eyes because you Con men saw the need to pollute my article with your lies and propaganda. You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. You make me sick. If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: d.a.n. More dizzy tail chasing on your part. _____________________________________ Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are doing themselves. Always a sure sign of a weak and failing arguments. When all else fails, attack the messenger, eh? _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When quoting law suits you, you do so. _____________________________________ That's because the court cases are very relevant ([link edited for length]).
Your frustration with these law suits is obviously their import and relevance. Especially since several of those court cases explicitly reference Article V and the rules of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When I quote law, you simply say it doesn't trump the Constitution. _____________________________________ That's rignt.
Simply quoting court cases and laws doesn't cut it, when they have little (or no) relevance.
What ever other evidence, court cases, or reasons you think you have found, they do not trump the U.S. Constitution. There are no court cases, there is nothing contradictory in the Constitution, or any rationale that trumps Article V of the U.S. Constitution. _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: When I point out huge, gaping, festering holes in the Con, you ignore them and shift the focus to something else. _____________________________________ What gaping hole? What shifted focus?
You've done a good job of fear-mongering about Article V, but all of your arguments are very weak (if not totally lame).
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: _____________________________________ Not true. I've addressed and knocked down every single strawman you have erected.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: (1) Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution. _____________________________________ The ignoring of the Constitution is a serious problem which we have no disagreement on whatsoever. Congress is ignoring Article V, despite 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states: [link edited for length]
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: The points you'll never address are: . . . Amending it will only mean that an amended constitution will be ignored. _____________________________________ Some parts of the constitution will probably always be ignored, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate it, does it? So that logic is weak (if not totally lame). Corruption is only tolerated for so long (that is, until it becomes too painful). The Congress most likely will not be able to ignore the Constitution forever. A good example is the reversal of the D.C. gun ban after 30 years (a clear violation of the 2nd amendment). Anyway, we agree that the Constitution is being ignored. However, I do not agree that it should be tolerated or allowed to continue. So why condone it? Why try to rationalize it? Why accept violations and ignoring the Constitution? Why not uphold the Constitution? Why advocate continued ignoring of Article V of the Constitution?
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Con Cons are dangerous because they cannot be controlled, no matter how much you try to side step and obfuscate the issue. _____________________________________ Dangerous?
Not true, because: (a) it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. Also, (b) there have been 679+ state constitutional conventions ( [link edited for length] ), and none of them were dangerous or out-of-control, were they? Thus, such fear-mongering on that basis is illogical. The only obfuscation is the attempts to fear-monger despite reasons (a) and (b) above.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Anybody who looks for a second beyond the MSM propaganda sees the strength of the grip the Elite have on all elements of our government (duopoly RepubliCrat parties, courts, legislation, etc.). _____________________________________ You'll get no argument there.
I understand this all too well. However, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is no longer the only source of information, and the MSM hates that. The internet also contains a lot of lies and scams, but at least the truth is now out there too (even if it requires due diligence to research, cross-reference, validate, and verify the facts and the truth). _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty. _____________________________________ Not true.
Advocating the continued ignoring of Article V is advocating the violation of the supreme law of the land.
Your conclusions are not supported by the evidence, historical precedence, and ignores the fact that (a) it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. And (b) there have been 679+ state constitutional conventions( [link edited for length] ), and none of them were dangerous or out-of-control, were they? Thus, such conclusions are mere fear-mongering and illogical. _____________________________________
USAF Vet Dan wrote: And finally, I can only assume that the State Sovereignty Act has merit in your eyes because you Con men saw the need to pollute my article with your lies and propaganda. _____________________________________ No one is disputing state's sovereignty as outlined by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
States' sovereignty has little (if anything) to do with Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the states the power to amend the U.S. Constitution, provided 2/3 of the states request it, and provided 3/4 of the states agree to ratify any proposed amendment. To try to cloud the issue with the states' sovereignty is a perfect example of obfuscation, since no one is advocating the violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
I support the 9th and 10th amendments too. There is no conflict between Article V and the 9th and 10th amendments. That states have had their faces rubbed in the dirt for decades by the severely bloated and over-reaching federal government, and some state governments are now deciding to start pushing back. Good.
As of Jan-2009, 14 state legislatures have now either passed or have introduced BILLs to publicly declare their state's sovereignty as set out in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Another 10-to-20 states are expected to introduce similar measures by the end of year 2009. This is undoubtedly fueled by the federal government's many abuses and ignoring the U.S. Constitution. So, can the states declare their sovereignty and tell the federal government to back off? Yes they can. In fact, similar to Article V, the Constitution was also designed to give the individual states other powers and rights. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: _____________ "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." _____________
So how does this conflict with Article V of the Constitution? It doesn't. It is very odd that you admit the federal government is ignoring the U.S. Constituion, yet you are advocating that Article V continue to be ignored. How do you explain this contradiction. Your own web-site states the following ( http://www.timefordan.com/ ):
He [Dan Druck, a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan] believes that Our federal government's intended role - its lawful role - is clearly defined by our Constitution: that ageless, living document created to evolve with the ever-changing times via Article V.
So, how do you BOTH support and oppose Article V of the U.S. Constitution (see: http://www.timefordan.com/ ) at the same time.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. _____________________________________ Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: You make me sick. _____________________________________ Thats' really professional and mature, eh?
Do you feel better now? That sort of behavior, frustration, and lack of composure certainly would have taken you far in Congress, eh?
Again, such resorting to childish name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are very frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments.
If you were really so sure of your own position, you would have a quiet, calm confidence and composure and argue your case in a professional matter without resorting to childish name-calling. _____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. _____________________________________ How typical. Again, such childish personal attacks are a sure sign of your own frustration of the weakness and lameness of your own arguments. That is most likely what irritates you the most. Don't blame the messenger.
A little advice. If you want to avoid future similar frustration as you demonstrated above (by resorting to childish name-callingt), then try not to dig yourself into such a very deep hole trying to cloud the issues, obfuscate, crawfish, and defend a weak (if not totally lame) and illogical position (not to mention contradicting your own support of Article V on your own web-site (http://www.timefordan.com/ ).
_________________________ USAF Vet Dan wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. _________________________ How professional? Anyone who disagrees about Article V is your enemy? Yet, on your own web-site you promote Article V?
In closing, I am not your enemy merely because I wish Congress to stop ignoring Article V (and other parts) of the U.S. Constitution. I've read parts of your web-site, and I agree with much of if, including the part which states (http://www.timefordan.com/ ):
He [Dan Druck, a.k.a. USAF Vet Dan] believes that Our federal government's intended role - its lawful role - is clearly defined by our Constitution: that ageless, living document created to evolve with the ever-changing times via Article V.
So why are you now expressing so much disdain for others who support Article V of the U.S. Constitution? It clearly makes no logical sense.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
I said, "(1) Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution."
Again d.a.n. did not address my point in his response when he said, "The ignoring of the Constitution is a serious problem which we have no disagreement on whatsoever. Congress is ignoring Article V, despite 730+ Article V applications from all 50 states"
Beyond the dangers of a con con and that it will do nothing to reassert freedom and liberty, I am more concerned with the usurpations that erode our national sovereignty, makes tax slaves out of all of us, and the violations of my rights to privacy, etc. These are far more important issues than opening up a perfectly good Constitution to the certain destruction of a con con.
I said, "Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty."
d.a.n., "Not true."
That's it??? Not good enough!!!
You then go on to say that all the state con cons didn't wreck their constitution. BS!!! Illinois' last con con destroyed it!!! It was up for reconsideration this year and the voters soundly said "NO"!
You try to assert that con cons aren't dangerous because the outcome would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states... but you ignore that the only con con we had in America produced a constitution that was ratified by ITS rules.
I never said that Article V is in conflict with the 9th and/or 10th Amendments. ...more obfuscation on your part.
d.a.n. said, "Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments."
No, its a sign that I'm sick and tired of the Con Con cons' propaganda designed to bamboozle people into supporting something that will destroy the Constitution. I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position.
A final note: Just because the Constitution has the provision for a con con doesn't mean that we should do it... or that opposing it makes one anti-constitutional. To blindly support it is to be blind to the fact that those who wish to destroy our constitution are in control... they are the ones who are behind the usurpations and they are the ones who WILL control the con con if we ever have one.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I said, "(1) Our problems stem from our federal government ignoring the Constitution." : Again d.a.n. did not address my point . . . __________________ False again. I agreed with that, so that comment makes no sense.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Beyond the dangers of a con con and that it will do nothing to reassert freedom and liberty, I am more concerned with the usurpations that erode our national sovereignty, makes tax slaves out of all of us, and the violations of my rights to privacy, etc. __________________ The dangers you speak of are completely imagined and trumped up, since: (a) it requires 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments, (b) and all 50 states have had 679 Constitutional Conventions between year 1776 and 1917 ( source: [link edited for length] )
Also, all 50 states have proposed 730+ amendments ( [link edited for length] ). It appears the states want it, and Article V states they have that right. Congress can't ignore it forever.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: These are far more important issues than opening up a perfectly good Constitution to the certain destruction of a con con. __________________ Maybe, but that still does not justify ignoring the Constitution.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Therefore, those of intellectual honesty cannot ignore that the outcome of a Con Con would be controlled by those who oppose freedom and liberty. __________________ Nonsense. Such suppositions with no historical basis have no credibility. Especially since all 50 states have had 679 constitutional conventions and none of them were run-away convnentions.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You then go on to say that all the state con cons didn't wreck their constitution. BS!!! Illinois' last con con destroyed it!!! It was up for reconsideration this year and the voters soundly said "NO"! __________________ False. Neither Illinois, or its constitution has been destroyed. Such hystery is comical. Even if one constitutional convention actually had some bad results, that's only one out of 679. What's that? 0.147% (less than one-sixth of one percent). The benefits outweigh any perceived dangers.
__________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You try to assert that con cons aren't dangerous because the outcome would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states... but you ignore that the only con con we had in America produced a constitution that was ratified by ITS rules. __________________ False again, because the result was the U.S. constitution from a constitutional convention under the Article of Confederation. The current U.S. Constitution has Article V, which requires a huge hurdle of 3/4 of all states to ratify any proposed amendments. So, such hysterical fear-mongering of Article V makes no sense.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I never said that Article V is in conflict with the 9th and/or 10th Amendments. ...more obfuscation on your part. __________________ More nonsense. You wrote: __________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: And finally, there is that pesky 10th Amendment which gives the states virtually unlimited power (except for those few powers given the feds in Art. 1, Sect. 8). Where does the Constitution detract from those 10th Amendment powers of the states with regard to withdrawing their con con calls or having their legislative rules let them expire? __________________ States can eliminate proposed amendments simply by not ratifying them. Otherwise, there are no contemporaneousness or same-subject requirements in Article V.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You make me sick. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. _____________________________________ That is all doing wonders for your credibility.
Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments. That perhaps is what really frustrates you, eh?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: No, its a sign that I'm sick and tired of the Con Con cons' propaganda designed to bamboozle people into supporting something that will destroy the Constitution. I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. ___________________ Funny how some people accuse others of ducking while demonstrating their own mastery of ducking. And if you remove an "r" from Druck, guess what you get? Dan Duck. How apropos?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: A final note: Just because the Constitution has the provision for a con con doesn't mean that we should do it... ___________________ Interesting. So we should just ignore the Constitution? Or just the parts you don't like?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: A final note: Just because the Constitution has the provision for a con con doesn't mean that we should do it... or that opposing it makes one anti-constitutional. ___________________ So choosing to ignore the Constitution is not anti-constitutonal?
That's some bass-ackward logic. Have you ever considered a course in logic? However, I'm not sure commonsense can be taught.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: To blindly support it is to be blind to the fact that those who wish to destroy our constitution are in control... they are the ones who are behind the usurpations and they are the ones who WILL control the con con if we ever have one. ___________________ Nonsense. Ignoring the Constitution is a usurpation.
Delegates from the states control an Article V Convention, and once a Article V Convention is called, Congress has no control over it.
So why does your web-site promote Article V, but here, you want it to continue to be ignored? That doesn't make any sense either. But then, based on the childish name-calling, the circular illogical dialogue above, and hysterical, baseless fear-mongering above, it's no wonder.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
So the tail chasing continues. I answered all your points and my answers stand for all to see. No, I am not going to spend the next six months researching each and every state con con. Yes, Illinois' constitution was DESTROYED by its con con... the results are atrocious.
And finally, yes.... your convoluted arguments, your side-stepping of obvious concerns, your ignoring counterpoints to your diatribe, and your personal attacks all point to either gross stupidity or, more likely, your nefarious intent to destroy our Constitution. Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: d.a.n. So the tail chasing continues. _____________________________________ Yes, that appears to be exactly what you are doing.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I answered all your points . . . _____________________________________ Nonsense and childish name calling hardly suffices.
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: . . . my answers stand for all to see. _____________________________________ Yes, and I'm sure they will all be very impressed with the following demonstration of your professionalism and self composure . . .
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You make me sick. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap. _____________________________________ Yep. While entertaining, that sort of childish name-calling above is doing wonders for your credibility, eh?
Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments. That perhaps is what really frustrates you, eh? If you really had a decent case to debate, you probably would feel the need to resort to childish name-calling.
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: No, I am not going to spend the next six months researching each and every state con con. ___________________ Of course not. Don't dare let reality and facts shatter clinging delusions, eh?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Yes, Illinois' constitution was DESTROYED by its con con... the results are atrocious. ___________________ Nonsense. The benefits outweight the risks.
That's a lot of hysterical fear-mongering. While no states are perfect, Illinois is better of than many states. And there have been 679 state conventions between 1776 and 1917, and none of them were run-away conventions ( [link edited for length] ). Even if one or a few produced problems, the benefits out-weight the risks. Besides, it's the law. That's that don't like the law need to work to change the laws rather than ignore the laws. If we ignore some laws, it's a slippery slope to ignoring and selective enforcement of more laws and portions of the Constitution. Besides, the states want it, based on 730+ Article V Applications from all 50 states: [link edited for length] Who are you to arrogantly tell the states they should also ignore Article V of the U.S. Constitution?
___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: And finally, yes.... your convoluted arguments, your side-stepping of obvious concerns, your ignoring counterpoints to your diatribe, and your personal attacks all point to either gross stupidity or, more likely, your nefarious intent to destroy our Constitution. Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap. ___________________ Personal attacks? Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are masters of.
Side stepping? Ignoring? Where exactly?
Intent to destroy the Constitution. That's quite interesting from someone who supports Article V on their own web-site ( http://www.timefordan.com/ ), but then advocates that Article V continue to be ignored . . . ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: A final note: Just because the Constitution has the provision for a con con doesn't mean that we should do it... or that opposing it makes one anti-constitutional. ___________________ HHHMMMMMMmmmmmm . . . Yes. Advocating the continued ignoring of Article V is anti-constitutional.
IF you don't like Article V, why not work to get it legally changed and ratified, instead of trying to usurp and ignore the Constitution?
Your simultaneous support and ignoring of Article V is illogical to say the least. But then, based on the childish name-calling (see above), illogical dialogue, and hysterical fear-mongering above, it's really no wonder.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
"Such resorting to childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments. That perhaps is what really frustrates you, eh? If you really had a decent case to debate, you probably would feel the need to resort to childish name-calling."
I won the debate. My frustration lies in your refusal to address the points that nuke your positions.
If your position regarding the legitimacy of the hundreds of con con calls was correct, we'd have had a con con long ago. You and your little band of con men are the only ones who believe your BS. The Congress, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of Americans all disagree with you.
________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I won the debate. My frustration lies in your refusal to address the points that nuke your positions. ________________________________ HHMMMmmm . . . I think your frustration is with the weakness (lameness actually) of all of your arguments, which have all been answered one-by-one, and the following childish name-calling serves as evidence of that . . .
_____________________________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You are all despicable opportunists trying to deflect the positive energy behind the concept of State Sovereignty toward your goal of destroying the Constitution. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You make me sick. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: If you weren't so inept, you'd be dangerous. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: That makes you my enemy - and I don't use that term lightly. {OOHHHHHHhhhh . . . I'm shakin' in my boots). ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: I'm sick of you ducking the points made that blow holes in your lame position. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Under today's circumstances, anyone who looks at the facts for more than 5 minutes and still supports the con con is an enemy of our Republic. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: Both are inexcusable, but I suspect the latter is the case and that makes you the lower than whale crap. ___________________ USAF Vet Dan (Dan Druck) wrote: You and your little band of con men are the only ones who believe your BS. _____________________________________
Yes, resorting to such childisn name-calling and personal attacks is a sure sign that you are frustrated by the weakness and lameness of your arguments, and that is what truly frustrates you. If you really had a credible case to debate, you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to childish name-calling (as evidenced by the growing list above).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , . . . , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Great article! Regarding, The State Sovereignty Act, I am working on an article for the local paper and was going to suggest this idea. Thank you for giving me some ideas on how to word it. Fantastic!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/CR%20127%20%20%20Pg%2021538%20%20Yr%201981-Summary%20of%20Applications.JPG){kind=link}