The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => News => Topic started by: johnwk on February 27, 2018, 04:53:45 am
-
On Mark Levin’s first show on Fox News Channel, 2/25/18, “Life, Liberty and Levinâ€, Mr. Levin suggests to Walter Williams that we should convene a convention under Article V to deal with our present government which is moving toward a totalitarian system as noted by Mr. Williams __ LINK (https://youtu.be/HWUL6bj-GJY?t=709)
In defending his desire for calling a convention, Mr. Levin notes that James Madison was in favor of the Convention of 1787, but he curiously neglects to acknowledge that James Madison later expressed his apprehensions of calling a convention under Article V which he did in a letter to George Tuberville dated November 2, 1788, months after New York and Virginia had ratified our existing Constitution and wanted a convention called under Article V in order to adopt a Bill of Rights.
In any event, in response to Mr. Levin’s desire to call a Convention under Article V, Mr. Williams, as did James Madison, expressed a fear that the people who would likely attend the convention will not be people line “Benjamin Franklin or George Masonâ€, it would more than likely be people like “Nancy Pelosiâ€, which is another way of telling Mark Levin the same thing Madison told George Lee Tuberville regarding a convention being called under Article V:
â€â€¦ an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.†See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0243)
In answer to Mr. Williams’s belief that such a convention would draw people like Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Levin responded by saying the Nancy Pelosi types won't be in "Kansas".
So, how do we know the type of people who would be selected as delegates if a convention were called under Article V? To answer that question one only needs to recall what happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to revise its State Constitution. During this time a suit was filed in U.S. District Court, claiming the makeup of delegates violated the separation of powers doctrine of the of the United States Constitution. Of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very type of people who are now causing our misery!
As reported in the Union Leader, the suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.â€
The bottom line is, Mark Levin’s assertion that Nancy Pelosi types won't be in "Kansas", is wishful thinking at best! At worst, you can bet your bottom dollar every snake on earth will be trying find, or buy their way into such a convention if one were to be called in order to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and the very cause of our existing sufferings . The fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its defined and limited powers.
Walter Williams, as usual, is once again spot on, just as Phyllis Schlafly, an American conservative icon was, who likewise spoke out against the call for a convention under Article V, and for some of the same reasons as James Madison.
JWK
“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire) (https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance†___Declaration of Independence
-
No, Mr. Williams is uncharacteristically dead wrong. "At worst, you can bet your bottom dollar every snake on earth will be trying find, or buy their way into such a convention if one were to be called in order to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and the very cause of our existing sufferings . The fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its defined and limited powers." The left is not honoring the Constitution now (nor are many supposedly on the right). And, anything that would be proposed would have to be passed by 3/4 vote.
-
They don't follow the limits on government as defined in the Constitution now as it exists. Why would anyone be stupid enough to assume that passing MORE amendments is going to get a lawless government to abide what it currently circumvents and ignores wholesale by the rulings of select justices who have the final say on what is and what is not lawful?
The aforementioned Blacked Robed gods, deny enumerated Rights written therein and have decreed that they can 'reasonably regulate' them into abolishment, and craft Rights out of thin air via being able read penumbras and emanations in the ether around the words in the Constitution.
So NO. Having an Article V Convention does not reign in a lawless corrupt government oligarchy. You cannot get the lawless to abide old or new restraints via civil means.
-
No, Mr. Williams is uncharacteristically dead wrong. "At worst, you can bet your bottom dollar every snake on earth will be trying find, or buy their way into such a convention if one were to be called in order to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional and the very cause of our existing sufferings . The fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its defined and limited powers." The left is not honoring the Constitution now (nor are many supposedly on the right). And, anything that would be proposed would have to be passed by 3/4 vote.
The ¾ vote you mention is no defense against organized tyranny!
And tell me, how many of our States now now receive one third or more of their budget from the federal government, almost all of which is for functions not authorized to be financed by the federal government? The fact is, we now have approximately $125 TRILLION in federal debt liabilities, and Republican leaders are just as guilty as Democrat leaders in creating this suicidal debt. And this debt does not even take into account State pension funds which are a ticking time bomb in both Republican and Democrat controlled States. And why is this important? It is important because during the convention of 1787 a deal was struck to have the federal government assume all state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War if the new Constitution were to be adopted.
How many existing State Legislatures and Governors would not submit to blackmail and agree to give the federal government more powers over the people and the States and nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if the federal government would assume existing state debt under a new constitution?
What you seem to be missing is ___ the fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its existing defined and limited powers. Why call for a convention to re-write our existing constitution if our sufferings spring from a failure to enforce its existing provisions? Logic tells me it may very well be to make constitutional the tyranny we now suffer under, and that includes the plundering of our federal treasury engaged in by the leadership of both political parties.
JWK
80% of green energy money, which amounted to $ BILLIONS and taxed away from the wages of hard working American Citizens WENT TO (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge) our Washington sewer rat donors!
-
I'm with Williams on this.
-
The ¾ vote you mention is no defense against organized tyranny!
And tell me, how many of our States now now receive one third or more of their budget from the federal government, almost all of which is for functions not authorized to be financed by the federal government? The fact is, we now have approximately $125 TRILLION in federal debt liabilities, and Republican leaders are just as guilty as Democrat leaders in creating this suicidal debt. And this debt does not even take into account State pension funds which are a ticking time bomb in both Republican and Democrat controlled States. And why is this important? It is important because during the convention of 1787 a deal was struck to have the federal government assume all state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War if the new Constitution were to be adopted.
How many existing State Legislatures and Governors would not submit to blackmail and agree to give the federal government more powers over the people and the States and nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if the federal government would assume existing state debt under a new constitution?
What you seem to be missing is ___ the fault is not in our existing Constitution. Rather, the fault is found in a failure to enforce its existing defined and limited powers. Why call for a convention to re-write our existing constitution if our sufferings spring from a failure to enforce its existing provisions? Logic tells me it may very well be to make constitutional the tyranny we now suffer under, and that includes the plundering of our federal treasury engaged in by the leadership of both political parties.
JWK
80% of green energy money, which amounted to $ BILLIONS and taxed away from the wages of hard working American Citizens WENT TO (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/80-obama-green-jobs-money-goes-obama-donors-green-energy-7-times-more-expensive-oil-and-coal-financial-numbers-are-stagge) our Washington sewer rat donors!
I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"? And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.
-
I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"? And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.
Last legal option available? We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
-
Last legal option available? We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
Really? Then why haven't we?
-
I'm with Williams on this.
I am as well! Our current problems are not related to the Constitution as it exists but rather what we have allowed ourselves to become.
-
I am as well! Our current problems are not related to the Constitution as it exists but rather what we have allowed ourselves to become.
And, that, of course, begs the question: "what do we do from here"? I notice Johnwk disappeared on this question.
-
And, that, of course, begs the question: "what do we do from here"? I notice Johnwk disappeared on this question.
We work toward taking our country back one step at a time. We vote for solid conservatives instead of the guy with the most money in our primaries for starters.
-
@Sanguine
Last legal option available? We have a legal option every two freaken years to elect honorable people to Congress who will obey our existing Constitution. I dare say, your premise is without foundation.
JWK
I think Dr. Williams and you are both terribly naïve. Saying the fault is not in our Constitution is completely beside the point.
-
I'm distilling your comment down to "why do a COS at all"? And, the answer is - because there is a chance it could make things better and is the last legal option available to us.
If you are going to attempt it for the sole purpose of illustrating that we tried every avenue of rectifying a lawless and burgeoning government tyranny before we do what must be done, then I can support the effort so long as it is understood that the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac is not going to allow itself to be limited by any law or amendment. They will either find a federal judge who will strike such amendments down from being implemented as a force of law, or they will do as they do now, and just ignore them.
We are a post-constitutional Socialist mobocracy in deed and practice.
The sooner we wake up to that reality, the sooner we can begin working on true and effective ways to put government back in the cage designed for it.
-
@Sanguine
I think Dr. Williams and you are both terribly naïve. Saying the fault is not in our Constitution is completely beside the point.
I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.
-
We work toward taking our country back one step at a time. We vote for solid conservatives instead of the guy with the most money in our primaries for starters.
Like the last presidental election? Or, all the other ones before that?
Two problems with that: conservatism is not well understood or liked, and conservatives, by their nature, frequently make lousy candidates in the social/cultural environment that we now have.
-
If you are going to attempt it for the sole purpose of illustrating that we tried every avenue of rectifying a lawless and burgeoning government tyranny before we do what must be done, then I can support the effort so long as it is understood that the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac is not going to allow itself to be limited by any law or amendment. They will either find a federal judge who will strike such amendments down from being implemented as a force of law, or they will do as they do now, and just ignore them.
We are a post-constitutional Socialist mobocracy in deed and practice.
The sooner we wake up to that reality, the sooner we can begin working on true and effective ways to put government back in the cage designed for it.
Agreed, I see this as the first step in dealing with it.
-
I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.
If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.
-
Agreed, I see this as the first step in dealing with it.
As long as everyone knows and understands that the effort is not going to fix or solve the problem of an out-of-control federal Beast.
It is merely an exercise to establish a marker to justify what will be required in the future.
-
If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.
Levin's repetitive statement that we are living in a "post constitutional" period suggests our existing constitution is no longer in effect. That kind of comment takes the spotlight off our federal government, especially Congress and particular members on our Supreme Court, who are acting in rebellion to our Constitution and pretending it means whatever they declare it means.
From where I stand, our Constitution is still there, eagerly waiting for the people to rise up and punish those in political power who impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as the supreme law of the land, even when those views are not in harmony with text of the Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
-
@Sanguine
@INVAR
@Smokin Joe
I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.
I understand where you're coming from, my good friend @Bigun, but I respectfully submit that my comment on this thread trumps your pessimistic concerns--i.e., I submit that we need to try to use a COS to start addressing our national corruption.
Saying we that we (merely?) need to enforce our existing Constitution is naïve in that it is banal.
I assume, based on your pessimism, that you would agree with that claim on my part, because you have surely recognized that our national problem lies with spiritual/social nitwits who vote for dishonorable people.
In that regard, I will dare to claim that you are ultimately siding with me against Dr. Williams and our TBR friend jwk and Phyllis Schlafly and the Birchers.
Given, then, that we can't fix stupid, I hope specifically to persuade you that we ought to use the Constitution to improve our Constitution. More to the point, we ought to allow our Constitution to strengthen itself against the spiritual numbskulls who keep putting spiritual monsters into office. (Alas, they stay in office so long, under deep cover and wielding enormous, Constitution-sabotaging power, that we can't ordinarily get them out of office.)
Nota Bene: A COS is a Constitutional approach for addressing problems that would surface after our Framers finished their work. Given that we now have terrible problems enforcing our Constitution, the failure even to try to use a Constitutional COS to facilitate enforcement of the Constitution (i.e. by blocking some of the awful consequences of stupid mobocracy and political corruption associated therewith) would be yet another dereliction of enforcement duty, would it not?
In short, the people who oppose the COS are part of the problem that they say they want corrected.
JWK says we just need to start voting better people into office. After all, we get a chance to do this every two years [ah, but that's not true for Senators or federal judges, of course]. But I would say to JWK, how's that plan been working out for you over the past hundred years or so? Not too well, IMHO.
Depending on the hoi polloi to fix the problem directly is PRECISELY THE PROBLEM THAT THE ANTI-COS FOLKS REFUSE TO ADDRESS.
Puh-leez wake up to that. A COS might not work, because we might be very well under an irrevocable judgment of God for our national wickedness. But if Trump can buy us some time by finally draining the swamp, we can strengthen our Constitution's protections of Itself against the corruptions inherent in the hoi polloi.
Yeah, I'm accusing the anti-COS crowd of having a paucity of insight, of having a deficit of real patriotic courage. I think that even Dr. Williams has gotten badly confused/frightened--so much so that he does not trust the Constitution to be showing us an important remedy for a terrible, pressing problem of federal overreach and monumental corruption.
-
Like the last presidental election? Or, all the other ones before that?
Two problems with that: conservatism is not well understood or liked, and conservatives, by their nature, frequently make lousy candidates in the social/cultural environment that we now have.
Changing the Constitution gets nowhere unless Conservatives themselves change their views on politics. They need to:
1. Sharpen their Persuasion skills
2. Accept the changes will not be sudden 100% across the board wins
3. Use some strategic mutually beneficial alliances
4. Learn to assign priorities
-
Levin's repetitive statement that we are living in a "post constitutional" period suggests our existing constitution is no longer in effect. That kind of comment takes the spotlight off our federal government, especially Congress and particular members on our Supreme Court, who are acting in rebellion to our Constitution and pretending it means whatever they declare it means.
From where I stand, our Constitution is still there, eagerly waiting for the people to rise up and punish those in political power who impose their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as the supreme law of the land, even when those views are not in harmony with text of the Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
While I agree with your sentiments, and I agree with Levin's statement that we now reside in a Post-Constitutional Mobocracy/Oligarchy - while we little people can regard the Constitution as Supreme, the government itself does not.
Punishment of those in political power is not going to happen or come via civil means. Period.
History and human nature bear that truth out.
We either willingly succumb to our fundamental transformation into this new order, or we defy it. Resolved that when it comes to impose its will, we water the tree of liberty.
-
Changing the Constitution gets nowhere unless Conservatives themselves change their views on politics. They need to:
1. Sharpen their Persuasion skills
2. Accept the changes will not be sudden 100% across the board wins
3. Use some strategic mutually beneficial alliances
4. Learn to assign priorities
You left out the first step. We need some military tribunals and hangings for treason--probably including a few so-called conservatives. If we do that, we jerk the slack out of our politically insane society as a whole.
(If you think my "first step" proposal is too harsh, just wait to see what your beloved POTUS has in mind along these same lines.)
-
A COS might not work, because we might be very well under an irrevocable judgment of God for our national wickedness.
^^^^THIS!
Without repentance, this nation will go into the depraved wickedness and corruption that this people want. Recall that God ALWAYS destroys His people by giving them what they demand, and handing them over to a reprobate and debased mindset that ensures their own destruction.
This happens because the fundamental foundation of our liberty was rooted in HIM and HIS Commandments that this people have largely rejected, demanding government replace Providence as Provider and Fairness Maker.
But if Trump can buy us some time by finally draining the swamp, we can strengthen our Constitution's protections of Itself against the corruptions inherent in the hoi polloi.
There is no evidence of that actually happening beyond hopeful blog essays extrapolating news as being a smoking gun towards imputing justice.
The same was said and done over Hillary's Benghazi and E-mail scandal; the IRS scandal and all the other various 'Investigations" Issa's Committee was looking into. Corruption my friend, has been institutionalized and protected by the very party and people who were supposed to be the vanguards of the Republic.
Like Ancient Israel before us, we have rejected our Provider as the people demanded a king.
And granted it The Lord has, along with all the consequences both The Lord and the Founders warned us of.
Yeah, I'm accusing the anti-COS crowd of having a paucity of insight, of having a deficit of real patriotic courage. I think that even Dr. Williams has gotten badly confused/frightened--so much so that he does not trust the Constitution to be showing us an important remedy for a terrible, pressing problem of federal overreach and monumental corruption.
I do not oppose a COS. I simply think it is a waste of time if it is assumed a COS will restore the Constitution and our eroded Rights and put the Beast back in the cage it was intended to remain. You have to recognize that HALF the population if not moreso oppose the limits the Constitution places on Government to act, and nearly ALL the creatures in Government power already refuse to acquiesce or abide by the existing Constitution. They will no more abide new constraints on it's authority and power than it already does. That is an historical fact of human nature and the course of history that plagued all forms of government not bound to a monarchy.
We do a COS to demonstrate that all avenues to rectify a corrupt and tyrannical government have failed and that the current Form of Government is destructive to liberty. Corruption now entrenched and institutional to the point that all the methods and vehicles intended to arrest it, have been compromised. Therefore we are of need to exercise our Right to alter and abolish the existing cabal of corruption, and to institute Government as intended, restoring its foundation upon the principles that once effected our Safety and Happiness to great measure.
We just have to understand and recognize that none of that is going to happen via civil means.
And God is not going to grant us victory over that until and after we go through II Chronicles 7:13 and end up DOING verse 14.
That is my position.
-
If we really are post-Constitutional, then electing conservatives will not solve the problem.
I said "for starters" didn't I! There is MUCH that needs doing, like retaking our education system, that will only be done IF we have people in office willing to do what's necessary.
I'm not yet to the point @INVAR finds himself but I'm getting real close!
-
@Sanguine
I think Dr. Williams and you are both terribly naïve. Saying the fault is not in our Constitution is completely beside the point.
Stating a fact is naive?
Considering the extreme political partisanship which has recently taken root in our country, and that includes a wave of violent protests, some of which have inflicted massive property damage and injuries, it may very well be naïve to think calling a convention is a rational approach to confronting the various problems which folks in government have created, folks who I might add would be in charge of the convention you dream of.
A constitutional convention could very well inspire rioting in the streets not to mention an actual civil war! Sometimes I believe there are those who wish for rioting and a civil war, thinking such events could actually lead to Marshall Law and an end to self governance and the establishment of an iron fisted, dictatorial type of government with current agitators at the helm.
Be careful of what you wish for, the consequences may not be what you desire.
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
-
I think that assuming a further amended Constitution will be any more effective than what we currently have in the currently existing environment is extremely naïve.
I agree!
To me, it [the calling of a constitutional convention] is a rope-a-dope gimmick to prolong our misery. Sadly, we were warned long ago about submitting to unconstitutional acts, and those acts include government cheese programs intentionally designed to create a captive and dependent voting bloc which our existing socialist/communist/progressive politicians need to keep themselves in power.
"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787
JWK
If we can make the majority of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, [food stamps, public housing, social security, Medicaid, etc.,] we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxists game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which America’s labor, businesses, and investors have worked to produced.
-
"When a people is corrupted, the press may be made an engine to compleat their ruin: and it is now notorious, that the ministry, are daily employing it to encrease and establish corruption, and to pluck up virtue by the roots.
Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence, than the body can live and move without a soul. When these are gone, and the popular branch of the constitution is become dependent on the minister, as it is in England, or cut off, as it is in America, all other forms of the constitution may remain; but if you look for liberty, you will grope in vain, and the freedom of the press, instead of promoting the cause of liberty, will but hasten its destruction, as the best cordials, taken by patients, in some distempers, become the most rancid and corrosive poisons.
...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775
I'd say this warning has arrived upon us in full.
And we this people, remain oblivious.
-
Stating a fact is naive?
Sounds strange, doesn't it? But see my post #19. Then re-read my #11.
A constitutional convention could very well inspire rioting in the streets not to mention an actual civil war! Sometimes I believe there are those who wish for rioting and a civil war, thinking such events could actually lead to Marshall (sic) Law and an end to self governance and the establishment of an iron fisted, dictatorial type of government with current agitators at the helm.
Be careful of what you wish for, the consequences may not be what you desire.
Please don't go off on a tangent about inciting riots. President Trump is already prepared for an outbreak of civil unrest, possibly with that unrest being bad enough to call it a civil war, but it will not be triggered by a COS. If triggered at all, and I hope not (as does the POTUS), a civil war would likely be triggered by Constitutional enforcement actions against sanctuary cities or by a banking collapse or by a devastating attack by terrorists.
-
We have laws against things like shooting people. When people get shot anyway, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.
We have laws against illegal immigration. When people break them, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.
We have a Constitution which is supposed to limit the size and scope of our federal government. When those limitations are ignored, we... propose more laws???
One of these things is not like the others...
-
We have laws against things like shooting people. When people get shot anyway, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.
We have laws against illegal immigration. When people break them, we mock those who propose that the answer is more laws.
We have a Constitution which is supposed to limit the size and scope of our federal government. When those limitations are ignored, we... propose more laws???
One of these things is not like the others...
I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."
-
I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."
How do you get a lawless Oligarchy to comply with any new restraints placed upon it when it ignores and circumvents current and existing restraints as an institutional practice?
If even new restraints make it to a ratification process unmolested or struck down by Judicial Activists as 'unConstitutional' because they assert penumbras and emanations in the ether of the parchment is determined to prohibit any such new restraints be put upon it to do the people's will?
-
I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have referred to them as "laws". Suggestions would be more accurate.
-
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have referred to them as "laws". Suggestions would be more accurate.
I am especially interested in pushing through term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and also interested in clarifying jurisdictional issues for lower courts created by the SCOTUS.
-
I am especially interested in pushing through term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and also interested in clarifying jurisdictional issues for lower courts created by the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS does not create courts. And they can't create laws either. At least not legally.
-
I don't believe that a COS would simplistically "propose more laws."
Perhaps you didn’t know it but, our Global Governance Crowd (https://www.cfr.org/programs/international-institutions-and-global-governance-program) who have given us such things as the Sixteenth Amendment, Federal Reserve System, WTO, World Bank, the NAFTA, CAFTA, and other such institutions designed to sap the sovereignty and independence of the United States has also been pushing a Constitutional Convention for decades.
And if by chance they get their way their changes to our system of government are found in The Constitution of the New States of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm)
JWK
"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.
-
SCOTUS does not create courts. And they can't create laws either. At least not legally.
You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court of the United States does not create courts. That power is exclusively vested in Congress. It's a sad shame that so many do not even know the basic fundamentals of our constitutionally limited system of government.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [the apportionment of direct taxes] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
-
You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court of the United States does not create courts. That power is exclusively vested in Congress. It's a sad shame that so many do not even know the basic fundamentals of our constitutionally limited system of government.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [the apportionment of direct taxes] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Yes! And the Congress has been VERY remiss in carrying out it's duties with regard to courts for a LONG time now! Which is one of the MAJOR reasons we find ourselves where we do currently!
-
SCOTUS does not create courts. And they can't create laws either. At least not legally.
@ Bigun
Ah, you are obviously correct, thanks.
What irks me is the fact that once Congress created the Court system, starting at the top (SCOTUS) and later fleshing out the larger court system skeleton (as you pointed out), the miscellaneous District and Appellate Courts essentially remained under the oversight of the SCOTUS only--and this despite the fact that Congress is authorized to limit jurisdictions by law for all of the lower courts.
Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts. Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.
-
Ah, you are obviously correct, thanks.
What irks me is the fact that once Congress created the Court system, starting at the top (SCOTUS) and later fleshing out the larger court system skeleton (as you pointed out), the miscellaneous District and Appellate Courts essentially remained under the oversight of the SCOTUS only--and this despite the fact that Congress is authorized to limit jurisdictions by law for all of the lower courts.
Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts. Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.
SCOTUS was created by the Constitution itself. ALL of the lower courts were created and can be regulated by Congress alone.
SCOTUS only has appellate JUDICAL powers and none other.
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
-
Levin has intimated that (ever since Marbury v. Madison?) Congress has essentially deferred to the SCOTUS for oversight in jurisdictional issues involving all of the lower courts. Congress, he has said, has simply failed to act to clean up the mess, which includes federal judge shopping and horrendous judicial activism.
Levin is essentially correct. Marbury vs Madison was the first in a long chain of Judicial usurpations that have failed to be properly addressed. The thing most people overlook with regard to that case is that ALL the members of the founding generation fully understood the role of the court and although Mr. Marbury won his case he NEVER received the commission that "victory" afforded him. That fact was not lost on the court and they stayed pretty much inside their boundaries for a very long time afterward. All that changed after 1865 and went into high gear under Woodrow Wilson.
-
SCOTUS was created by the Constitution itself. ALL of the lower courts were created and can be regulated by Congress alone.
SCOTUS only has appellate JUDICAL powers and none other.
No disagreement here.
-
Getting back to Mark Levin, one thing I noticed during his interview with Mr. Williams, LINK (https://youtu.be/HWUL6bj-GJY?t=709), Mark’s body language indicated he was furious when Mr. Williams expressed he was not too enthusiastic about calling a convention.
Mark’s body language, and use of the phrase “fear mongeringâ€, also indicated great frustration when Mr. Williams correctly pointed out if such a convention were called, it would more than likely be controlled by the very type of people [Nancy Pelosi] who have, and are now causing our sufferings, and that includes many Republicans and Democrats who now hold political power.
I think Mr. Levin ought to carefully consider Madison’s expressed fears if a convention were called under Article V. He should also take note of the reasons why Phyllis Schlafly battled against the calling of a convention up till the day of her death.
JWK
Chief Justice, Warren Burger, stated in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
-
.
In reviewing the following quote from a Hannity transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2013/08/13/mark-levin-discusses-liberty-amendments.html), keep in mind Mr. Levin is one of the primary leaders advocating the call for a convention under Article V.
HANNITY:
’’Let me ask you, and follow up on that. Because lawmakers exempt themselves from ObamaCare. And the American people, if it is good for them, why isn't it good for them and their staffs?’’
LEVIN:
’’Because we have these governing masterminds, this professional ruling class. And when you look at the framers (audio gap), there was never supposed to be a professional ruling class. There was this thing called rotation in and out of office. That's why the senator served six years. Congressmen, two years. But they didn't have term limits back then because it never even occurred to them that you would have senators serving 36, 42 years, or members of the House, 20, 30, 40 years. It didn't even occur to them. They felt strongly in a citizen legislature.
And it is interesting. Thomas Jefferson who was not at the constitutional convention, one of the complaints he had about the Constitution, and he ended up supporting it, was this issue of rotation. He thought members of the House shouldn't serve more than one year. And interestingly just on that one subject, in most of the 1800s, members of the House served two years and that was it. Fifty percent of them there was turnover.’’
Note how Mr. Levin refers to those who now hold political power as “governing mastermindsâ€, and a “professional ruling class.†Levin goes on to mention Thomas Jefferson’s support for a “rotation†of them [our “governing mastermindsâ€, and a “professional ruling class.â€]. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter, also referred to the delegates of the convention of 1787 as “demigodsâ€. Why is all this important with regard to Levin promoting a convention?
To answer that question we need to be fully aware as to who would attend a convention under Article V if one were called? Who would be in charge of appointing a State’s Delegates? Would it not be the very “governing mastermindsâ€, and a “professional ruling class†who Levin expresses a scorn for?
Considering our existing dangerous politically charged atmosphere, which in many cases has already erupted in numerous demonstrations resulting in property damage and mayhem, Madison’s fear of a convention under Article V is even more applicable to today’s circumstances than it was when he first expressed them:
â€â€¦ an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.†See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0243)
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary