'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)

[Sanguine]

The following amendment is proposed: Strike all text after the word "We". Replace with "own your ass."

Amendments can replace the entire document or materially change the meaning thereof. As such, they should be carefully used. The insertion of just a few words could change the entire focus and meaning of a large document, and anything more complicated than a sound bite will have its meaning and interpretation distorted before the ink is dry, but especially so in any attempt to ratify such an amendment. The only guarantee is that those who benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep those benefits in the face of anything which would remove them in favor of the States or the People.

There are too many jobs at stake at the Federal Level, and a powerful union behind the Union aimed at keeping them, not to mention the K Street industry and the golden parachutes for former Federal Employees as lobbyists. Ultimately, we will fund both sides of the fight.

The prevailing thought among Article 5 Convention supporters seems to be that the proposed and passed Amendments would be Conservative in nature, returning us to Original Intent, but that might well not be the case. There is a significant number of people who benefit handsomely from either the corruption of Original Intent or the jobs, power, and benefits of offices created by that corruption. Millions, no tens of millions, get some form of benefit, either directly or indirectly, from Social Security to WIC. The whole function of Obamacare was to put every American on the teat, one way or another, as much as possible.

With so many in conflict of interest, and even prevailing attitudes among those who consider themselves "conservative" (who are conservative, except....), I have little faith that such a convention would be able to produce Amendments which would be ratified and would return the Federal Government to the scope and size it was originally intended.

@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations.  What do you recommend we do?

[goatprairie]

You think he beat FDR?

FDR was not an ideological progressive like Wilson...although he certainly did his share, more than Wilson, to further the progressive cause. FDR simply loved power....if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that.  But a number of his advisors were real progressives and more than happy to urge FDR to take Marxist actions on many things.
However,  in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations.  What do you recommend we do?

Exactly.  It's really easy to imagine the worst possible outcome and automatically assume that that's what will happen.  All the nay-sayers are essentially giving up without trying.

[austingirl]

@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations.  What do you recommend we do?

The utter corruption of the entire DC cartel/power structure with the moneyed special interests of K street and Wall Street, and that includes both arms of the Uniparty, would be an immense hurdle to overcome. I can see their influence perverting the Originalist intent  of a COS. That is why secession is such an attractive option to me.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

[

However,  in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.

Seems to be the definition of a progressive to me.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, that's great and all and the number of reasons for not acting are probably only as limited as our imaginations.  What do you recommend we do?

First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.

That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.

Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.

The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).

People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).

How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?

Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...

The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.

People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.

[Sanguine]

First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.

That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.

Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.

The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).

People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).

How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?

Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...

The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.

People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.

@Smokin Joe, so, what's your plan?  Assuming that doing nothing or submitting is not a plan.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

First, my point is that any such Convention must be undertaken with extreme caution, with the assumption that the process will be subverted from without AND within. There are special interests on both sides of the aisle who benefit greatly from things as they exist, otherwise we would have had greater success at reversing the effects of the Liberals by just electing people who weren't.

That has not been the case, so alleged "conservatives" will be lined up to keep their trough full.

Apart from measures which would restore the interpretation of original intent, you can expect at least as many measures which would subvert it. That is the danger, because opening the process to a populace that generally (Not the relatively small contingent who want a true return to Original Intent, but the general population who have never read beyond the preamble of the Constitution, if that) is highly vulnerable to supporting a small chunk of the extra-Constitutional status quo. That is part of the problem with electing people to office who will perform the same task, whether they are at the State or Federal level.

The other massive problem is that the progressive and incremental distortion of just what the Federal Government's scope and powers should be has been distorted over several generations, so much so as to become a leviathan unrecognizable in terms of the original concept. The language was plain enough, but from fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, the 'income' tax, various (Constitutional, but used as control devices) excise taxes on specific items), Social Security, the FDA, "welfare" (relief) programs--as opposed to hiring for public works projects), and the rapid expansion of regulatory jobs and regulations, there isn't just a population which doesn't understand Liberty, there is a population which has its sacred cows deeply entrenched, from grandma's SS check to starving children to now health 'care'--the insurance you are penalized for not having (plus you get to pay your bill).

People don't viscerally understand the HOA they signed up for is petty tyranny, despite the alleged benefit of keeping their property values high(er).

How are you going to get through that mentality to get Amendments which will restore the Republic?

Consider, a few years ago there was a measure in North Dakota to eliminate the property tax. It's your land, you already paid for it, you would not have to pay rent to the State to keep it. Freedom! Despite setting up the means to fund schools from the general fund and fund townships and counties for road and other projects and maintenance...

The measure failed to pass a vote of the people.

People gladly don the chains of servitude and call them jewelry.

After considering your excellent comments, perhaps the best way to proceed is for a state to just avoid a COS altogether and take off on their own.

Should the federal govt try some draconian measures to prevent, am sure other states will rise to defend, and align with states of a similar nature.

I do not expect New York to align with Texas, but Oklahoma might.

[geronl]

.if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that. 

He did a lot of unpopular things too.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, so, what's your plan?  Assuming that doing nothing or submitting is not a plan.

Until you teach people to value freedom, no plan will succeed.
The vines of tyranny have so shrouded the structure put in place to guard our liberty that people think it is a bush. Maybe it is best to wean them off the teat (mentally) before getting them to vote on solid food. So teach people to recognize what should be, versus what is. That is the earthwork that has to be done, the foundation that needs to be present to unwind any of the mess.

Everyone wants a quick fix, but the problem has been 150 years in the making.
It isn't going to get fixed by a new rule if the people who are supposed to be following the rules don't anyway.
So...
You want me to come up with a solution? I don't have one at the moment.

If you think the COS will work, I have weighed in, because not only do I not think it will work, but it has the potential to get hijacked and make things far worse. I have fulfilled my moral obligation and said so.
What are you going to do? Say "I have the right to a gun and I really mean it when I say you can't make any rules about that"?

That wouldn't pass with people the way they are now, they wouldn't want it wide open, and the second you put down "...except...", they will clamor for their pet exceptions, which will be all the infringements and more that the Amendment was supposed to guard against in the first place, only now codified. Just follow the original rule,( but that isn't being done, and won't be until the electorate cleans house, maybe a few times).
Maybe a fair sized rock from space would clean out the mess and disrupt things enough that people would get back to basics, but I don't control those, nor does anyone else I know, so that isn't a solution either, not to mention the mess and loss of lives. I suppose there are other ways to 'break' the problem system so the replacement can be rebuilt the way it was supposed to be, but we don't likely have the people who would do the rebuilding who are as wise and are unselfish enough to set it back up based on equality, equal rights, limited government, etc. We were eminently fortunate to have had such a group once in our history, and I doubt there are a suitable cadre who would get the opportunity to do so again without a major problem.

Now, you may decry the idea that I said something won't work without having a solution to offer (which would be ideal). Some folks will even go so far as to say I should not criticize an idea because I don't have a solution, but I don't have to know something that will work to know when something likely won't.
That said, go for it. I'd be willing to work at it to try to get it to succeed, despite being skeptical that it would I'd give it my absolute best because any chance is better than none, and I am familiar with the Alinsky and Delphi tactics of the opposition.
However, I am afraid any peaceful solution will require a lot of time (generations), and more of that time to get people ready for it than to actually implement.

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe, if you have given up and assume there's nothing that can be done to regain our liberty, please don't stand in the way of those of us who disagree and are working toward just that end.  If you want to help even though you don't believe success is possible, you should go sign up with the Convention of States Project and work to get a resolution passed in your state.

[MACVSOG68]

@Smokin Joe I really do enjoy your posts.  They are thoughtful and very well written.  You give us all food for thought. 

[Oceander]

@Smokin Joe I gotta agree with the others:  I really enjoy reading most of your posts, including ones I disagree with. 

[kevindavis007]

Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.

[MACVSOG68]

Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.

It does make for interesting academic rumination from a historical perspective but people ought not get terribly worked up over it.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, if you have given up and assume there's nothing that can be done to regain our liberty, please don't stand in the way of those of us who disagree and are working toward just that end.  If you want to help even though you don't believe success is possible, you should go sign up with the Convention of States Project and work to get a resolution passed in your state.

Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.

So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.

As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.

I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.

[wolfcreek]

FDR was not an ideological progressive like Wilson...although he certainly did his share, more than Wilson, to further the progressive cause. FDR simply loved power....if passing conservative i.e.constitutional legislation would have been popular with the masses, he would have done that.  But a number of his advisors were real progressives and more than happy to urge FDR to take Marxist actions on many things.
However,  in the end Wilson was a real progressive while FDR was an opportunist. Whatever would keep him in power is what counted.

FDR was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by Wilson in 1913. The same people who brought Wilson to power were responsible for the rise of FDR.

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WallStFDR

Same groups who have bought HRC now want her in power.

[Bigun]

Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong as has been aptly demonstrated already on this very thread!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe I gotta agree with the others:  I really enjoy reading most of your posts, including ones I disagree with.

Thank you @Oceander. It is nice to be on a forum where we can even disagree civilly. That is a breath of fresh air.
Through disagreement, we refine our ideas, improve them, and if used constructively, come to conclusions we can all better live with.

[Smokin Joe]

Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.

Perhaps, but the issue of kicking out the dead weight and the bankrupt liberal enclaves pandering to foreign interests hasn't.

[Bigun]

Abe Lincoln's administration  was filled with communists as was his army. 

Woodrow  Wilson was, as has been already noted, a full fledged progressive AKA communist and was surrounded  but like minded people.

Franklin Roosevelt was, as has also been previously noted, simply a product of the Wilson administration.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sorry, but the issue of states leaving this union has been resolved over 150 years and cost many American lives.

You make history to be a static adventure, wherein no geographic boundaries or political entities can ever change.

Decidedly an opinion without merit, and easy to challenge.

[wolfcreek]

Abe Lincoln's administration  was filled with communists as was his army. 

Woodrow  Wilson was, as has been already noted, a full fledged progressive AKA communist and was surrounded  but like minded people.

Franklin Roosevelt was, as has also been previously noted, simply a product of the Wilson administration.

As history has shown over and over, if you oppose Communists, they simply perform genocide.

[Bigun]

Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.

So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.

As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.

I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.

Thank God there is someone else around here who has delved into the intricacies of this!   RIGHT ON!,, 

[Smokin Joe]

Thank God there is someone else around here who has delved into the intricacies of this!   RIGHT ON!,, 

Well, how can you know if you are for, against, or suspicious of something providing the anticipated results if you don't find out about it?

Or has everyone just been reading the headline and not the article? (Commenting without reading the article was a FR past time, which might have something to do with the situation their situation is in...)

BTW, if there is a single issue which should be the first to be brought up in an Article 5 convention, it is Term Limits for Congress. While some of them will see that as meaning they have to make their pile quickly, others just might listen to what we want them to do. At any rate, it would complicate the uniparty machinations in that every couple of terms they'd have to train in a new bunch of people to subvert the will of the people and the Constitution.