K-Bob over at the Right Scoop is running a continuing series to discuss how practically to bring about a return to constitutionalism — based around the document’s original intent — using the amendment 2 process Mark Levin highlights in his book as a way to circumvent the entrenched DC elite.
I discussed what I thought was a very important, if ancillary and theoretical (at this point), end-game question, because I think for all the practicality and potentiality in Levin’s idea, what it doesn’t address (and it need not, frankly, because it is beyond the scope of his book) is the ultimate contingency: what if the gambit is tried, support is strong, but ultimately, we just don’t have the numbers?
In K-Bob’s piece, he looks today at the present danger and the consequences of inaction.
Go read it and then let’s see if we can’t discuss it here.
Also, read Rob Natelson on the myth of the runaway amendments convention — which at this very moment is the establishment GOP’s supposed “thoughtful” response to the amendment 2 idea, and is pushed by them as yet another bit of protection for the status quo camouflaged as alarmism and, to some, simply surrender.
It’s more than that, though. They like the power they have and we are in a single party ruling class system. I’ve been noting this for some time now, and with every action the GOP takes contra to the wishes of its base, it becomes increasingly apparent that the GOP proper is more closely aligned with statist Democrats than it is with its own supposed constituencies.
The government is at war with those of us who refuse to accept the smooth transition from citizen with an ownership interest in government to a subject of a government who has assumed ownership over us.
I don’t wish to be misunderstood to say that we should do nothing. Levin’s proposal is the best we’ve heard and I would support it. Nonetheless, my pessimism causes my mind to conjur up all the ways the current worthies will attempt to subvert the will of the people. For that reason, I hope for the best, but will prepare for the worst.
Even if you have a “runaway convention” which is highly unlikely, you still need 3/4 of the 57 states to ratify all amendments. There are not enough states under control of progressives for this to happen if the amendments were against classical liberal principles.
Shermlaw, my attitude is pretty much identical to yours. My pessimism runs on questions 1 &5 of K-Bob’s piece.
I admit I haven’t read Levin’s book, but I listen to him every day, and haven’t been reassured by anything he’s said. Which is mostly “I don’t want to hear any doubting Thomas’s, if you’re not going to cheerlead, shuddup” (paraphrasing).
Anyway, I think it’s about all we have at this point, but my confidence is low, sorry.
Prissy: Lawzy, we got to have a doctor. I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ babies.
Oops, I meant questions 2 &5
Having not read the book, does Levin’s amendments outlaw public unions and real estate taxes? ‘Cuz those would be two of my favs.
By the way, when did property taxes become legal in the first place? Seems to me they destroy the idea of private property on their face. I mean, you “own” a acre, but you still have to pay the government or they seize it? Like it’s really theirs and you have to pay rent. How is that constitutional?
Are real estate property taxes paid to the Federal Government?
No. Can a state outlaw private property?
When did a state outlaw private property? But, if a certain answer were needed, I’d suggest looking to the oldest continuous functioning written Constitution in effect, to see how that works.
*** Part the First: Art. XXIII. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the legislature. ***
Whatever. Just be sure to pay the government their rent check, or you’ll be evicted.
Massholes are a damned masochistic lot. It seems they live to be violated.
I like whatever, as it is suitable to all possible or impossible eventualities, while simultaneously freeing one from any responsibility as being a source of cause whatsoever. Gee, it might even be useful for purposes of establishing a tyranny! Which, now, who would want that?
I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere. The tyranny of Obfuscation?
I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere. The tyranny of Obfuscation?
Very good, you got that part exactly! That is, to the extent that there is a point in there somewhere, it will be understood by those to whom it is addressed, and most likely not by those to whom it is not addressed (which latter will arrive at some other thing or thought instead of the point intended for those who understand). It’s a nifty sort of code about liberty, in other words.
Oh? Codes for the elite addressing the tyranny of objecting to taking responsibility for assuming the chains of the subject resulting from their own consent?
Heh. Like I said. Just so.
K, I’ll leave you to your codes designed for my designated bettors.
here’s some code
pgh 5 mil 2
Here’s DTs 3 – BRSs 0 final (Fister!), for another . . . and, BOs 5 – CIs 0, mid-5th (Norris workin’ a 1 hitter so far)
States have a taxing power too. The power to tax has never successfully been challenged as a usurpation of ownership.
Glenn Fisher of W State University has a nice explanation of the history of property taxes in America – a highlight:
Though Mr. Fisher doesn’t mention it, most of the states restricted the franchise to those who had to pay the poll and/or property taxes.
I like this idea, but, then again, I like the Poll Tax [ie: true Flat Tax].
Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fisher.property.tax.history.us
That would be ‘Glenn Fisher of Wichita State University’ – apologies.
The states are currently being bribed with borrowed money, to make it seem like they’re getting more than they give up to Uncle Sam. We need to keep working to make them understand that whatever cost/benefit ratio they’re using needs to be adjusted to account for the crushing debt that’s accumulating to the detriment of us all.
And that’s just as a single front in the larger battle to convince our various state legislatures and governors to stand up for our independence and sovereignty. The only way out of this mess (that I can see) is for a handful of states to stand up and demand the respect they are due as sovereign entities. And it needs to happen soon, because it won’t be long before the notion of military action between the Feds and the States goes from “unthinkable” to “expected.”
We really need to get back to a culture that says “The United States are,” and not “The United States is.”
To add a hearty “Yea!” to that Squid, in our American view, the States are sovereign only because the people, who are the ultimate sovereign, have ceded a portion of their sole power to the States (and to the Federal government) in order that the individual States and the Federal government may do the business the people want done. It starts and ends with us.
A (possibly) healthy dose of Lord Acton (h/t Cafe Hayek): The Influence of America
[…] Linked by Jeff at proteinwisdom (Thanks! – check out his discussion, too) Linked by TheOtherMccain (thanks!) Linked by Doug […]