It’s a smart idea, though I would much prefer an amendment that did away with automatic withholdings. If people had an idea about what they were actually paying to the government — instead of falling into the status quo trap of simply accepting their take home pay as their take home pay (most people don’t even really do the math) — I suspect they’d quickly re-embrace the free market system, clamoring for private sector competition to services now provided by the government at bloated prices operating inefficiently and with a taint of political and crony corporate favoritism, as well as demand a flat or fair tax.
It is precisely that kind of tax structure that takes some power away from politicians — not to mention, is (as I’ve noted for years now) the perfect antidote to class warfare arguments about “fair shares” and “skin in the game.”
The problem is, Republicans like the loophole / credits / deductions system, because it means that lobbyists must come to them, and the deals they strike enrich the politicians while helping the entities doing the lobbying — and we tend to bear there brunt of whatever deals are cut, either through calls for ever more “revenue” or through what we pay on the back end.
Levin has noted that he hopes his book starts a national conversation. And that may work — in the same way the TEA Party movement drew momentum from the several manifestos and conservative rebukes that came as a result of government bailouts under Bush and then Obama, and ObamaCare’s cynical passage — provided we get behind the ideas.
What I really am looking to do is take what Levin outlines and discuss it here, ignoring the sneers from the left and beating back the sophistry and capitulation from our Rovean “realists” who will assure us the best offense is to do nothing — cleverly — then enjoy a couple good belts of scotch and a recess.
It’s time the people rose up. And as I said back in my original outlaw! posts, I think there are plenty of traditional Democrats who would back a pro liberty, pro-growth agenda.
Already, though, races like the VA Governor’s race, where Cuccinelli is up against McAuliffe, is being painted by some as a referendum on the conservative movement in toto. If McAuliffe — who the Democrats are going all in for, as a precursor to staging VA for Hillary in 2016 — wins against a conservative like Cuccinelli (whom the GOP party men are in no hurry to finance) after Chris Christie won overwhelmingly in a blue state, the GOP establishment will think it’s “proven” that it has been able to kill off the grass roots conservatives / TEA Party challenge, and the “realist” branch of the party will be even more emboldened to push Christie or a Jeb Bush as its next nominee for President.
And will once again usher in either defeat or, even if they win, the status quo.
I know. I’m already so excited I could pee myself.
Let’s dismantle the IRS first. This will require a gross simplification of the tax code which I’m a big fan of, and an idea that people with a lot more name recognition than I have advocated for a long time.
Which means the chances such a thing will happen are near 0. So maybe this needs to happen first. Where do I sign up?
Eliminating automatic withholding means that people might decide to stop feeding that Beast On The Potomac when it starts demanding its Wagyu burger on a bed of arugala whilst vacationing in the oh-so-diverse Vineyard.
I have my doubts that such a Convention would work. It’s a wonderful idea, and a fail-safe to the depredations of an over-reaching, centralized behemoth posing as “civil servants”, but it requires several things that are going to end up beyond the control of the upset (and deservedly so) citizenry.
1. Even if we could manage to convince the legislatures in all 57 States (a non-trivial feat requiring in its turn, a more-active and politically-aware populace, the garnering of which has its own set of obstacles), who gets to attend, and who gets to decide? “It isn’t the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes.”
2. Given the ongoing lawlessness of the administration (either party), what if they simply refuse to acknowledge it, and declare such a meeting as illegal/sedition/treason? (Lots of historical examples for that one.)
3. Wouldn’t this essentially turn out like the post-revolution People’s Congress in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, where lots of loud-mouthed egomaniacs try to foist the way they think things should be?
The whole of the assemblage will be people like this, because the person who merely wants to be left alone won’t have anything to do with it.
4. What happens to the basic rights we want to be left inviolate (such as the 2nd Amendment)? In today’s society, isn’t it MORE likely that we would have some of it negotiated away (to our detriment, and FOR THE CHILDREN) than simplified down to “Keep your goddamned hands off the guns!”? (Not to mention demands that 4th-trimester abortion and definitions of marriage be written into it, of course.)
“Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” — John F. Kennedy
Can I still have the Scotch if I complain loudly about the establishment GOP and refuse to comply with the Rovians?
I also wonder what might happen to the various Territories under US control (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) if the basic document is “fundamentally transformed”. And what kind of information would be disseminated, and by who(m)?
A minor quibble — we aren’t deservedly upset at the violation of our liberties, but righteously upset. We’re angered because we don’t deserve such treatment and foul dealing. We demand justice, rather than unjust manipulation from our government.
To echo the sentiments that Drumwaster expressed, consider what the Massachussetts representatives to a Constitutional Convention would stand for. We recently had the governor propose a $2 billion tax increase, and the legislature say no, only a $.5 billion increase (and index it to inflation so it can rise without them having to voter on it again), all without a single public hearing on any of it.
We also now have more people drawing pensions from the Mass Bay Transit Authority (the MBTA) than currently “actively” work for it. Public unions, Baby!
I really like the idea of abolishing automatic withholding.
Drumwaster says August 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm – if the basic document is “fundamentally transformed
It isn’t supposed to be a Constitutional convention, it is supposed to be an amendment convention.
I can only think of two amendments that were by design fundamentally trans-formative: the 16th and 17th amendments directly altered or even subverted Constitutional concepts, and it appears that was the goal from the start. Most of the amendments were written as specific limitations to government power (Bill of Rights) or as a clarification, or even to address an Unconstitutional set of laws and rulings from the federal government (civil war amendments).
Most of the amendments have been misused in application (1st Amendment “Separation of Church and State”, 14th Amendment (vast, out of context usage of “equal protection” clause, 4th Amendment “right to privacy”), so this is likely the only way we have left to address the judicial tyranny, and the rampant lawlessness of all the federal branches.
link
consider what the Massachussetts representatives to a Constitutional Convention would stand for
Let me repeat mondamay’s answer: It isn’t supposed to be a Constitutional convention, it is supposed to be an amendment convention.
But thanks for ignoring that enormous difference, even though it was RIGHT THERE IN THE TEXT OF JEFF’S POST.
You’re regurgitating the objections to a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, which would leave every single word and phrase vulnerable to change. Levin already said he was against such a convention, for all the reasons you so carelessly enumerated.
Here, let me help you—Article V of the United States Constitution:
It’s obvious you haven’t listened to a single word of Levin’s program lately.
Thanks for derailing the thread, though, by asserting things that just ain’t so.
I’d call closing b-tag fail, but I’m in a boldface mood today.
Thanks for derailing the thread, though, by asserting things that just ain’t so
Thanks for assigning intent to my words, when you clearly have no freaking clue what I was trying to convey.
It’s obvious you haven’t
listened toread a single word ofLevin’s programJeff’s posts lately.FTFY.
Thanks for assigning intent to my words, when you clearly have no freaking clue what I was trying to convey.
You echoed Drumwaster’s words, then mentioned the hazard of what Massachusetts would bring to a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Jeff’s been addressing Levin’s proposals, not a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. So yeah, I have no freaking clue what you’re on about.
When I find that people don’t seem to be grasping what I’m saying, and if I want them to, I find it helps to restate my thesis in an attempt to be better understood.
But I’m weird that way.
So, Scott — what was the intent behind your comment?
2. Given the ongoing lawlessness of the administration (either party), what if they simply refuse to acknowledge it, and declare such a meeting as illegal/sedition/treason?
Article V provides for 2/3 of the states to propose amendments, which must then go through the normal ratification process.
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Can I say that enough? Apparently not. About 95% of the comments here and at Insty are enumerating the hazards of a constitutional convention.
THIS IS DIFFERENT: THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
If Washington refuses to recognize duly-ratified amendments, we can safely declare that the beltway is a rogue nation, relocate the capital to Omaha, and start over with our newly amended Constitution.
And if we’re smart, we won’t reconstitute any of the alphabet agencies.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Please limit your critiques to those conventions that are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS.
…and this is why we can’t have nice things!
So, Scott — what was the intent behind your comment?
I was trying to point out that the representatives to any “Amendment Convention” from my state would likely propose amendments that further the Progressive agenda, given that Mass. is so far left in its governance.
You’re regurgitating the objections to a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, which would leave every single word and phrase vulnerable to change.
That was not my intent, and I don’t believe that is a reasonable conclusion of my intent from my comment. But, hey, I’ve been wrong before and will be again.
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
THIS IS DIFFERENT: THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS.
And just for the record, generally, when you shout, you lose credibility.
Or in other words: Don’t look at me in that tone of voice!
My concerns remain valid to either, so can we please get back to figuring out how to eliminate the last half-century of social indoctrination before giving the drooling hoi polloi a voice over how the productive live their lives?
Hell, even incorporating “All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten” would shred what little liberty we have left…
Scott, don’t look now but McGehee stole your dog!
I hate to say it, but I remain fearful, as well. I fear that Amendments, (and yes, I know it’s not a “constitional convention,” would either be of the positive rights variety so beloved by the rest of the world/UN or would be of the “We really, really mean what we said in 1789” variety. Assuming our side prevails, how do we go about getting the progressive left which has destroyed all of our institutions to go along. They obviously think nothing of ignoring the Constitution we have now. My feeling is what hope we have exists in breathing fire into the 9th and 10th Amendments to the point where State governments have the balls to tell the Feds “no.” Whether that is a viable option, given how beholden States are to Federal cash remains to be seen.
I would also note, that until we take back the educational system in this country, we will not fix the real problem which is one of the soul/spirit and not one of words. Pass all the amendments you want, but our kids are still going to be captive to indoctrination, if not in the primary/secondary system, then off at college or even via the fellow travelers in the media.
Finally, expressing these trepidations is not evidence of failing to understand the point or listen to things or read things. Some of us have been pondering this problem for quite a long time.
Regards.
Without at least 33 other states supporting them, they’ll just be farting in a hurricane.
…or at least in a fairly stiff breeze…
How many
divisions has the Popestate legislatures do they control?Indeed. There’s next to nothing to fear, particularly if you’re of the DOOM! frame of mind in the first place (that we’ve got a decade or so, max, before the “We’ll Just Print More Money” policy spectacularly fails.
To get 3/4ths of the states to agree on anything, the ideas either have to be relatively populistic (term limits, balanced budgets, maybe some sort of flat/fair tax (but probably not)), or just obviously the right thing to do (see Reagan, 1980 and 1984). There’s no way any Lefty “hey, free healthcare for everyone” or “gay abortions for the military” agenda items come anywhere close to the required margins.
The downside is that any really great Rebublic-saving moves aren’t going to pass, either. But what the hell, worth a shot, right? It’ll get people thinking in the right direction at least. Certainly we’re doomed if we do nothing.
McGehee, I understand the theory. I would note, that we have feckless State legislatures now who are beholden to the Feds for everything from Medicaid payments to highway funds. My fear is that amending the constitution, even if we get 100% of what we want, would be simply playing around the margins. It is our soul as a country which is deformed, not our founding documents. Until our children are once again brought up to know, appreciate and venerate the genius of those documents and the philosophy underlying them, we are merely spinning our wheels. After all, we have a chief executive who believes he has a right to rule by decree. The public just yawns or sees no issue with that. That’s the problem I worry about.
Shermlaw’s concern about our souls is mine as well.
The cancer that is Leftist Thinking has so metastasized in all of our souls that I don’t wonder if we won’t have to wander forty years in the desert before we are cured.
I don’t fear the process Levin has in mind, but like others I question the usefulness even if we got everything we wanted. When they are ignoring the constitution, what good is expanding the constitution other than to give them more to ignore?
No, It’s nice to have alternatives to debate, but I still maintain the only way out at this juncture is for several states to join in open rebellion against unconstitutional federal overreach as it exists now. Unfortunately I find the chances of that happening around slim to none, as the feds have all the state politicians bought off, from the town level on up.
Shermlaw, there is truth in what you say about the soul of the people, but yet I believe there is still a very respectable number of patriots left. The problem is they are by nature individualists, and so widely scattered and unorganized. I think there are enough of us to do what needs doing, but it would take a polarizing event (along the lines of the shot heard ’round the world) to get us all in the trace and pulling together.
And that, God help us, would mean dark and terrifying times indeed…
Yes, let’s air our fears BEFORE READING THE GODDAMNED BOOK.
NO WAY DID LEVIN THINK TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
I hate people.
Out.
if i say “constitutional convention” can i get cap locks too;)?
” BEFORE READING THE GODDAMNED BOOK.”
clarice feldman alert
di, Xanax darling. And a nice cup of tea.
green tea no drugs and honey honey
OBVIOUSLY I NEED TO GET OFF THE WIRE.
I’LL GO SORT MY FLOWERS BY CLADE AND ORDER OVER AT PINTEREST.
Better living through chemistry, nr.
We love you, di. It’ll be okay.
for the cap locks gal
Tithonia rotundifolia
mine look great
Look how sick this is:
Genus Begonia > Family Begoniaceae > Order Curcurbitales > Clade Rosid.
Curcurbitales contains PUMPKINS and CUCUMBERS and all manner of gourds.
And they’re all in with the roses.
Which, in Order Rosales, you’ve also got blackberries and cherries and passionfruit and wisteria and maple trees and olive trees and grape vines.
Man, this classification business has been totally updended by gene sequencing. Why, even my own namesake, Dicentra spectabilis, has been renamed Lamprocapnos spectabilis.
DAMN YOU, WATSON AND CRICK!
TITHONIA USED TO BE IN FAMILY COMPOSITAE BUT THEY RENAMED IT ASTERACEAE FOR NO GOOD REASON THAT I CAN SEE.
CACTI IN WITH THE CARNATIONS!
TULIPS IN WITH THE TRILLIUM!
DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!
Also, check out Order Proteales, which features water lilies, plus freak plants from Australia.
be of good cheer dear
They’re doing all that just to screw w’itchu, di.
I just know it. The BASTARDS!
“TITHONIA USED TO BE IN FAMILY COMPOSITAE ”
colorful flowers outside my kitchen window.
for the caps gal
A Talented and Inspirational Singer
xxx’s& ooo’s
Vitamin B6 and Black Cohosh root, more like.
Thanks for the support. Them what find my all caps too miserable for words need to know that I’m not having a whole lot of fun, here. You can walk away from it. I can’t.
– I have spoken to this issue before. I see no point in amendments to something that is already routinely ignored.
– You want the Republic back when you have lost the press/schools/jusdiciary/gov theres only one way.
– If rule by democracy is rule by majority then right now Egypt comes closer to a democratic Republic than we do.
It’d be better if James Madison’s Way were in effect; with the productive having the vote, instead of having those on the public teat voting for more, more, more of the same…
Instead, any unthinking fool can vote his or her own welfare, despite that vote being a sustainability threat to the Republic.
Decades ago, when my wife was far, far too young to be anybody’s wife, she and her mother had occasion to move back in with said mother’s own parents (henceforth known as Granny and Pop). And Pop helped with the unpacking when they arrived.
Apparently the packing had been hasty and disorganized, for at one point during the unpacking Pop was heard to grumble, “Pisspots and flags!”
Then again, he was also heard (at least) once to say, “Anyone who cooks carrots and peas in the same pot is unsanitary.”
No, It’s nice to have alternatives to debate, but I still maintain the only way out at this juncture is for several states to join in open rebellion against unconstitutional federal overreach as it exists now.
I agree, that ultimately this is what will have to happen. And it should begin with States just picking there spots and saying no. It’s as simple as that. Let the Feds determine what happens next.
their spots
HILLARY AND TRUTH!
HILLARY AND SMART!
Is it safe to come out now? Has the “crazy” lady left?
And that, God help us, would mean dark and terrifying times indeed…
And we will be entering dark and terrifying times if we don’t revolt. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.
Let’s face it: the shit is gonna hit the fan sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. It could be 2016, it could be later. The only question is: “Who shoots first?”
The only question is: “Who shoots first?”
There is a substantial view which takes this stance as a kind of surrender (and this is the view Levin takes today). The thing is, shooting is an admission of a failure of reason to turn aside the necessity of shooting. Here, embodied in his new book, Levin seeks to apply reason to the problem and with it, devise a solution mastering and displacing potential necessity.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. — Justice Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court, in his dissent to Silveria v. Locker
The thing is, shooting is an admission of a failure of reason to turn aside the necessity of shooting. Here, embodied in his new book, Levin seeks to apply reason to the problem and with it, devise a solution mastering and displacing potential necessity.
It is not possible to use reason with the totalitarian/progressive Left. They will not yield the power they have seized and positions of influence they have obtained over the last 50 years – they will burn it all down before they release their grasp. So I willfully admit a failure of reason – there will be blood, and lots of it. The elites in control have proven they will use any means necessary to further and maintain their power. This will not be resolved peacefully.
It is not possible to use reason with the totalitarian/progressive Left.
This may be (it also may not), but, Levin does not propose to use reason with the political left: he proposes to overpower them politically, using reason with those who are already opposed to the political left and with those who currently lean against the political left without much intelligence (which is to say by a kind of ignorant unexamined instinct) and with those who may be amenable to persuasion without any particular self-motivated examination of any political matters (with these, attempting to awaken them to the peril they unknowingly face). He says as much.
He seeks to maneuver around the leftists and establishment ruling class in much the same manner as the US armed forces maneuvered around the Iraqi Army invested lesser cities on its drive to Baghdad and the destruction of the central regime, thus depriving the Iraqi Army of a contest on their ground and holding the contest on ground of the US military’s choosing.
Metaphor? You decide.
he proposes to overpower them politically
I don’t believe this can be done, regardless of the coalition of forces assembled or the choosing of the battleground. They (the Left) do not consider this to be only a political fight – it is a fight for power and control. They currently have it, and will not release it.
When IRS audits and EPA rulings and social justice court ruling don’t intimidate their opponents into silence/acquiescence, they will send in the SWAT teams and drones and domestic security forces (TSA, DHS anyone?) to enforce their will.
What you believe to be the case isn’t what Levin believes to be the case. If you believe you must surrender reason right now, falling on necessity and what will come from necessity once that situation takes hold, no one on Earth can stop you acting on your beliefs (acting once, that is). But you may find it a lonely path, and even possibly a mistaken and foolish path to have foregone Levin’s proffered solution.
something like “Dad burned dinner, so let’s get the dog to cook”? (with apologies to Mr. O’Rourke)
They have almost completely distorted the meaning of what little of the Constitution they haven’t ignored outright, so I must ask again, what makes you think that even if such an effort were to survive with all of Levin’s (admittedly admirable) goals intact, and nothing destructive to those ends buried in a sub-paragraph (see also the arguments over “militia” in the current 2nd Amendment and the definition of “citizen” as used in border town hospitals), what makes anyone think that they would completely refuse to accept such Amendments as valid to their control?
If such phrases as “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” and “shall not be violated” don’t make the point, will “we really mean it this time” do it?
Read “would” as “wouldn’t”. Apologies for any misunderstandings.
If such phrases as “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” and “shall not be violated” don’t make the point, will “we really mean it this time” do it?
Do we believe that such ‘phrases’ ever made the point? That is, that they ever held sway as the underlying political form of the conduct of the nation’s sovereign business, of government? If not, then we can easily see how no future requirement would be of any avail. If, on the other hand, they did constitute the form of our politics, then, I believe, we can reasonably think that they can do so again.
I’m all for openly talking about revolt even if only to convince the squishes they’ll be much, much worse off if they keep opposing us — but if they think that’s the only reason we talk revolt, we’ll have to revolt.
Which, okay.
I must leave off for a time: I’ve got mowing to do.
And would watering down the direct imperative make it any more certain that it would last?
I can’t see it happening, when they already have the positions of authority and influence. And I can see no way of eliminating the cancerous interference from the unelected drones, since the obvious cry from the 51% will be “who will do the job now?” (ignoring that the correct answer should be “nobody”, of course).
“In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: Do nothing.” — Robert Heinlein
What you believe to be the case isn’t what Levin believes to be the case.
Obviously.
If you believe you must surrender reason right now
Is it “surrender” to abandon a useless task? Is it “reason” to debate with the muzzle of a gun? If Levin is wrong and I am right, any attempts to reason with or maneuver against the left is wasted time and effort, and detracts from being prepared when they finally initiate real violent conflict. I do not propose initiating the violence – I say we should be spending our time and effort on choosing our ideological and physical battlegrounds and shoring up our defenses (logical and physical). I do not yet know the answer to the question of just what hill I think it is worth dying on; at what point do I draw a line in the sand and say “This, and no more.”. That is the internal debate that I (and all of us) must resolve, partially influenced by the knowledge that I am not yet ready mentally or physically for this conflict.
If, on the other hand, Levin is right and I am wrong, initiating violent resistance is foolhardy – I agree. Those who choose that path will be labelled criminals (Outlaw!), lonely and unsupported by both the Left and the Right, and quite probably end up dead. I would like to see a peaceful change – it is the preferred and easiest moral choice. If this happens, it would as much of a great victory for freedom as the fall of the Soviet Union.
But I don’t think that will happen. The battle over Obamacare is an example – the Left will not tolerate being denied.
Not to mention that judges have gotten it into their heads that they can declare constitutional amendments unconstitutional. Especially when they derive from popular referenda (which this is, when getting down to brass tacks). If CJ Roberts – allegedly the most senior jurist in the country – can’t tell a tax from a requirement-to-purchase, do you think that there won’t be dozens-if-not-hundreds of lawsuits trotted out to suspend enforcement, if not eliminate entirely?
See also the constitutional right to marry same-sex partners and kill unborn babies.
::crash::
If we undertake this project and the ruling class does not tremble before us, THEN we can declare them personae non gratae, of no confidence, beyond the pale, and as having had the consent of the governed duly and justly withdrawn.
We may only need start the effort to cause other things to happen. Just the proposals and the debates and the pervasiveness thereof may cause other needful things to happen.
It’s stupid to look at any proposal and say, “well, that’s not a silver bullet,” and discard it, when in fact we’re gonna need lots and lots of different kinds of projects on multiple fronts, simultaneously.
Like they did. Only we won’t need 100 years to push them back because we don’t have to hide what we’re doing. We don’t need to boil the frog slowly. We don’t have to take the time to conceal and inure. We can openly inspire and motivate.
Join Levin’s discussion. Do other things as well. Do all the things that move us in the right direction, even if a little bit.
Is it “surrender” to abandon a useless task? Is it “reason” to debate with the muzzle of a gun?
You’ll perhaps pardon me if I label this nonsense, and the rest of your proposition self-refuting; further excuse my pointing out what is already plain: that if you have a reasonable path, and most especially a better path of reasoning than Levin has proposed to turn our politics from any approaching necessity to the barrel of a gun, then Levin is ready to have it from you, as are any who are allied with him. In the meantime, sole devotion to anything other than seeking such a reasonable path looks very much like a waste of time while little time is available.
You’ll perhaps pardon me if I label this nonsense
You may label it so, but that does not automatically make it so.
Your writing is eloquent and smooth, but it is still saying “you’re wrong, this way is better”. You (the group “you” in this case) want us all to rally together and attempt to bring about change using a system our opponents have demonstrated that they will not honor or respect. It is a no-win game – we cannot succeed this way. We disagree on this point. You have honor and respect for the founding ideals, and a desire to work within the system designed by/for honest, honorable members to support your position. I have the history of the past 40+ years of the Left’s corruption of the system to support mine.
Since I think we cannot win playing a game where the other side doesn’t obey the rules, I think it is your approach that looks “very much like a waste of time”.
If I may be permitted to reduce my “approach” to a word, I think I’d call it politics. I don’t believe politics is now or has ever been a waste of time, since after all, politics produced both the separation of the British colonies from their former sovereign masters (exemplified in the Declaration), as well as the guiding document under our current consideration, the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the political antecedents without which either of those two high instruments would never have been achieved — reaching back very far into our past — were also not wastes of time, provided we understand that the production of the Declaration and the Constitution was a political good (and we might even allow, the greatest political good in the history of political goods, though that too is a long story and winding argument). But it is these that we wish to preserve in some measure. Or, is it not?
But it is these that we wish to preserve in some measure.
Yes. I want to. You want to. A significant number of other folks do, too. Our “political” opponents don’t, or don’t care, and have proven it again and again.
politics produced both the separation of the British colonies from their former sovereign masters (exemplified in the Declaration)
“Politics” produced the Declaration, the American Revolution produced the separation. Winning the American Revolution allowed the production of the Constitution.
I’m going to stop discussing this now. We have a difference of opinion on a fundamental tenant underlying our discussion – we will not agree.
Winning the American Revolution produced the moment for governance under the failed Articles of Confederation, and the political realization that they were failing produced the drive to change for the better, which attempt at change for the better (a political business) produced the Constitution of the United States, attendant to the State conventions of ratification, another political business.
I don’t think we actually disagree on much except in one particular, by the way, and that particular is the look and feel of the condition of necessity. You seem to think it is already upon us or nearly enough so that any intervening political action will be of little or no consequence, whereas I think there is yet time remaining to keep necessity from the door.
One problem that has not been addressed is that it will be the current Congress that will convene the convention and almost certainly appoint the membership. Whichever existing Congress in in session and the time the 34th application is received…
Quoting the relevant portion of Article V, adding bold for emphasis…
So my earlier concerns about what kind of end product is developed remain. Every profession has its own version of GIGO, after all.
. . . it will be the current Congress that will convene the convention and almost certainly appoint the membership.
Don’t think so as to appointing membership. The states will take care of this matter themselves.
“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”
congress just stamps it done. levin spoke of this tonite citing madison in the federalist papers.
Or citing Hamilton, but yeah, Federalist 85, the final number, where see the penultimate paragraph.
yes thanks
We’ve tried soap, ballot and jury.
Only one box left.
It reads “Congress … shall call a convention” and you think Congress would only blindly rubber-stamp it? It also reads nothing about the States appointing their own members, merely making the application en masse. And you can bet the dollar at the bottom that the current crop of congresscritters will interpret that particular phrasing in such manner as they will decide. Committee of the Whole, as it were…
Because, forward!
““Congress … shall call a convention” and you think Congress would only blindly rubber-stamp it”
well that is the “rule of law” dilemma isn’t it. hi baracky!!11!!
“” and you think Congress would only blindly rubber-stamp it? ”
either that or armed insurrection
have fun with epa targets
hi nsa
@ havel page 126
@havel page 127
hi rodeo clown!!11!!
Yep.
It was also extra-constitutional under the provisions of the existing constitution, i.e., the aforementioned Articles.
Whereas the convention Levin proposes is authorized in Article V of the present Constitution.
My only point was that these moments are fraught.
So have been the moments of gradual extra-constitutional abrogation all along the way the last three decades or so, as our temporary politicians have learned how to ignore or end-run every provision of law we once believed firmly established. Fraught with all manner of tyranny and inattention.