Levin: Biggest News Yesterday Was Not Obamacare … and 'This Is Going to Be an Earthquake'

[Smokin Joe]

I think most people are sort of reluctant to move to a convention based upon the mostly bad publicity it has gotten (mostly from leftists) and also the tendency of smart people to look upon major change skeptically (since most of the major changes of the last 8 years have been horribly destructive).

Levin will surely be making the case on his radio program in the days ahead and dealing with the fears (both legitimate and otherwise) about the process far better than I could.

But based on what I've heard so far, the reasoning is thus:

- States with Republican, more-conservative majorities in their legislatures predominate across the country. This provides an opportunity to influence government at the federal level in ways that the Statist-laden U.S. Congress would never entertain.

-The moral case for this is founded in both the Federalist Papers (Levin's Liberty Amendments deals with this in detail, which renders moot the accusation that he is trying to sell a book since that book is already a best-seller) and in the fact that state legislatures better reflect the true constituencies of their populations than the U.S. Congress, because the voters of those states understand that legislatures are concerned with matters that affect the best interests of the inhabitants of the states, rather than serving some overweening national political agenda dominated by Statists of either party.

I think a fundamental fallacy is to ignore the symbiosis between the State and Federal level GOP and to ignore that those politicians who are not upholding the Constitution are all from the same stable.

The problem is that within the districts, those state people who are in positions of power, from the local level up, will be controlling who has a say, even at that level. You have to get past the local kingmakers first. Maybe they are in sympathy with the cause, and that is a leg up, but I think that despite indications of that, many will not be, any more than those propelled to Congress by the TEA party all turned out to be devout Conservatives.

Still, those are the local power players and will be the first obstacle.

Most people just aren't paying that much attention to who their state legislators are, what they stand for, or even what goes through the statehouse during a session if it doesn't gore their oxen or they aren't the ones pushing for the poke.

That's good, and bad, potentially, all at the same time.

Parts of the electorate will be watching to see how Federally distributed funds and State revenues are distributed at the State level. They want their piece of the pie for their district, funding they can point to, and the votes that buys, and that is a large part of statehouse legislative squabbles. It is also their perceived job, under the circumstances, not so much to say the funding shouldn't be there from the Federal Government in the first place, but to get as much for the folks back home as they can, or to make one heck of a show fighting for it.

If TPTB in the Statehouse support their interests, the voters will vote for the status quo, which means no change in the players or the party, which means the candidate pool will remain the same from the local district up. If that is a pool hostile to change (back to the COnstitutional Republic), it will stay that way.

The rest of what goes on in the statehouses is over taxation, and a relatively small fraction actually deals with issues which directly affect individual freedom. While the latter get exposure, good and bad, the behind the scenes, quiet allocation of millions, if not billions of dollars is where the heavy lifting goes on that pays off in votes on election day. Bringing home the bacon is enough to keep support in the voting booth, and little keeps party support like a 'safe' seat held by a 'team player'. Doing so from monies collected from Federal Sources (not directly identified by the voter as money taken by the State Legislature from their pocket) is a plus at the State level, where funding programs from the State coffers by balancing the budget through taxation would be unpopular.

It takes a really egregious breach of faith, abuse of power, or criminal activity to lose that support, and even those are no guarantee that someone will not get reelected. Ultimately, that all boils down to the electorate, and a stellar example is (the late) former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry, where even that did not matter.

Which gets back to reaching the voters, because they are the ones who will have to support, in principle, a return to the Constitution and vote for candidates who also do so, even if it hurts, provided they can get candidates who will be for that return. I'm seeing hints of that from the GOP, but not any strong groundswell at the Federal Level, which I believe reflects (or so we have been told in re: Obamacare) the desires of those voting GOP back home. Which indicates a need to rebuild the Party from the ground up.

That Party, as we have seen in Congress, remains worthless if it is not calling for the Article V convention in order to restore the Republic, and from what we have seen, may well support a convention and place delegates thereto who will further the aims of the State level Republican Party in subverting the Constitution for job security at both the State and Federal Level.

There is no guarantee that those GOP dominated legislatures will pick delegates who will support a return to the a Constitutional Republic, and, again, they may well choose delegates who will only entrench the status quo or make that even farther away from that goal, only now with the full force of a Constitutional Amendment.

That, for me, remains a concern.

[INVAR]

Your points haven't been ignored, they've been rejected as beside the point.

So Adams and the rest of the Founders including Franklin, Henry, Madison and others who warned that religion and morality was absolutely necessary and vital to keep a Constitution are rejected and beside the point in your estimation.

Okay then.

Have fun pissing in the wind of a hurricane.

[INVAR]

I think a fundamental fallacy is to ignore the symbiosis between the State and Federal level GOP and to ignore that those politicians who are not upholding the Constitution are all from the same stable.

The problem is that within the districts, those state people who are in positions of power, from the local level up, will be controlling who has a say, even at that level. You have to get past the local kingmakers first. Maybe they are in sympathy with the cause, and that is a leg up, but I think that despite indications of that, many will not be, any more than those propelled to Congress by the TEA party all turned out to be devout Conservatives.

Still, those are the local power players and will be the first obstacle.

Most people just aren't paying that much attention to who their state legislators are, what they stand for, or even what goes through the statehouse during a session if it doesn't gore their oxen or they aren't the ones pushing for the poke.

That's good, and bad, potentially, all at the same time.

Parts of the electorate will be watching to see how Federally distributed funds and State revenues are distributed at the State level. They want their piece of the pie for their district, funding they can point to, and the votes that buys, and that is a large part of statehouse legislative squabbles. It is also their perceived job, under the circumstances, not so much to say the funding shouldn't be there from the Federal Government in the first place, but to get as much for the folks back home as they can, or to make one heck of a show fighting for it.

If TPTB in the Statehouse support their interests, the voters will vote for the status quo, which means no change in the players or the party, which means the candidate pool will remain the same from the local district up. If that is a pool hostile to change (back to the COnstitutional Republic), it will stay that way.

The rest of what goes on in the statehouses is over taxation, and a relatively small fraction actually deals with issues which directly affect individual freedom. While the latter get exposure, good and bad, the behind the scenes, quiet allocation of millions, if not billions of dollars is where the heavy lifting goes on that pays off in votes on election day. Bringing home the bacon is enough to keep support in the voting booth, and little keeps party support like a 'safe' seat held by a 'team player'. Doing so from monies collected from Federal Sources (not directly identified by the voter as money taken by the State Legislature from their pocket) is a plus at the State level, where funding programs from the State coffers by balancing the budget through taxation would be unpopular.

It takes a really egregious breach of faith, abuse of power, or criminal activity to lose that support, and even those are no guarantee that someone will not get reelected. Ultimately, that all boils down to the electorate, and a stellar example is (the late) former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry, where even that did not matter.

Which gets back to reaching the voters, because they are the ones who will have to support, in principle, a return to the Constitution and vote for candidates who also do so, even if it hurts, provided they can get candidates who will be for that return. I'm seeing hints of that from the GOP, but not any strong groundswell at the Federal Level, which I believe reflects (or so we have been told in re: Obamacare) the desires of those voting GOP back home. Which indicates a need to rebuild the Party from the ground up.

That Party, as we have seen in Congress, remains worthless if it is not calling for the Article V convention in order to restore the Republic, and from what we have seen, may well support a convention and place delegates thereto who will further the aims of the State level Republican Party in subverting the Constitution for job security at both the State and Federal Level.

There is no guarantee that those GOP dominated legislatures will pick delegates who will support a return to the a Constitutional Republic, and, again, they may well choose delegates who will only entrench the status quo or make that even farther away from that goal, only now with the full force of a Constitutional Amendment.

That, for me, remains a concern.

That excellent observational analysis is sadly dismissed it seems.   We've been reminded several times now that no one can possibly "address exactly what will occur," (even though we have a lot of examples including a recent election to glean from) and the insistence that no one can know the future. 

So much for building coalitions and consensus by winning someone over to a cause.  I guess shoving us away and exclaiming 'either you are with us or against us' suits them better.

But then we saw that in the Primary last year with Trump's people while principles and beliefs continue to be ridiculed and waved away as erroneous, beside the point and/or stupid.

[Sanguine]

I think a fundamental fallacy is to ignore the symbiosis between the State and Federal level GOP and to ignore that those politicians who are not upholding the Constitution are all from the same stable.

.....
There is no guarantee that those GOP dominated legislatures will pick delegates who will support a return to the a Constitutional Republic, and, again, they may well choose delegates who will only entrench the status quo or make that even farther away from that goal, only now with the full force of a Constitutional Amendment.

That, for me, remains a concern.

@Smokin Joe, I agree - there are no guarantees.  But, then again, what is the downside?   

[corbe]

  Thank you both @INVAR and @Smokin Joe for bringing insight and history into such a perilous and fateful decision we may have before us in our Lifetime.

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe, of course there are no guarantees.  There are none in life.  But what alternative would you propose?  We can either try the method the Framers gave us, decide to let things continue as they are (and yes, that includes the ineffective attempts at reversing the administrative juggernaut that have been tried in the past), come up with some other, likely non-constitutional method of getting the feral government back in the control of the people, or go to a civil war of one sort or another.  I don't see any other possibilities.  For me, there's only one worth trying, and that's the Article V convention route.  If it doesn't work, civil war is still an option.

If you can think of any other possibilities, I would really like to hear them.

[INVAR]

@Smokin Joe, I agree - there are no guarantees.  But, then again, what is the downside?

If everyone wants the effort to be successful, then I do not understand why discussing fundamental core issues and obstacles that Smokin Joe, myself and others have listed that if addressed and tackled, would help the effort the Amendment process seeks to accomplish have success and achieve what is desired.  I'm told that the moral and spiritual issues are erroneous and are rejected out of hand - and if that is indeed the case - I'm telling you this Amendment effort has already failed in my estimation and there is no point for someone like me to advocate for it.

Ignoring what we have devolved into as a people, ignoring the political fiefdoms and cronyism that is rife within the local, state and federal parties and governments that Joe outlined (which is an indictment of the electorate BTW) to rush forward into having a convention to propose Amendments will become just another exercise in futility.

If you want to do this, then do it right - or you are just courting disaster.  Having an Article V for the sake of having it because we want to put blind faith that this people will fight for a return to Constitutional limits on the federal Beast is ignoring reality of the political landscape of this country and the character and ignorance of a majority of the people in this land.

[Doug Loss]

If everyone wants the effort to be successful, then I do not understand why discussing fundamental core issues and obstacles that Smokin Joe, myself and others have listed that if addressed and tackled, would help the effort the Amendment process seeks to accomplish have success and achieve what is desired.  I'm told that the moral and spiritual issues are erroneous and are rejected out of hand - and if that is indeed the case - I'm telling you this Amendment effort has already failed in my estimation and there is no point for someone like me to advocate for it.

Ignoring what we have devolved into as a people, ignoring the political fiefdoms and cronyism that is rife within the local, state and federal parties and governments that Joe outlined (which is an indictment of the electorate BTW) to rush forward into having a convention to propose Amendments will become just another exercise in futility.

If you want to do this, then do it right - or you are just courting disaster.  Having an Article V for the sake of having it because we want to put blind faith that this people will fight for a return to Constitutional limits on the federal Beast is ignoring reality of the political landscape of this country and the character and ignorance of a majority of the people in this land.

Fine, don't advocate it.  No one expects you to.  But like it or not, the people of this country whom you belittle have every bit as much right to self-determination as you do.  If they are no longer capable of governing themselves as you believe, then it doesn't matter what we do.  But we are going to try to convene an Article V convention to bring the federal government back under the control of the people, and that means all the people, not just those we might approve of.  Complain all you want, but even those who disagree with you get a say in this.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, I agree - there are no guarantees.  But, then again, what is the downside?

The downside is that the quislings who infest the GOP stack the delegations with people who will look out for the interests of the group we have commonly referred to as "the elite", "The GOPe". or "the Oligarchy", who despite party labeling are in favor of a continued bloated Federal Government and reduced State Power. It would be to their benefit to mouth all the platitudes we want to hear and do otherwise, just as they have done in Congress. With the State Legislatures the Farm Teams for the Congress and POTUS and other high offices, that is what could be expected.
Those ignoring their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in Congress did not drop from the sky, but passed up through the local, state, and national GOP food chain. Support (fiscal, GOP candidate support) comes from the top down, and anyone who doesn't play ball is expendable.
So, the Party controls who gets funding at election time, the local and State GOP control who is moved up.

 If those organs of the Party are against the idea of changing back to a reduced Federal Government and restoring power to the States (and I outlined the reasons they very well might be against that in my last post), there is the distinct possibility that the Party at the State level, or at the behest of the local Districts or even the National GOP (or all three) will ensure that the field of delegates will support the aims of Party and not the People.
With a relatively small group of GOP contingents thus contaminated, and sudden (unexpected) Democrat State support for an Article V Convention, the Convention could be used to entrench the very practices it is hoped it would terminate, much as the GOP has ensured the continued existence of Obamacare by 'fixing' it instead of removing the ACA from the books.

The downside is that the quislings in the GOP could subvert the process (in the spirit of bi-partisanship, to not only retain but legitimize the status quo), and ensure that the objective of Constitutional Restoration and the return of Power to the States could only be reached by yet another series of Constitutional Amendments which would likely not happen, ever.

[Sanguine]

If everyone wants the effort to be successful, then I do not understand why discussing fundamental core issues and obstacles that Smokin Joe, myself and others have listed that if addressed and tackled, would help the effort the Amendment process seeks to accomplish have success and achieve what is desired.  I'm told that the moral and spiritual issues are erroneous and are rejected out of hand - and if that is indeed the case - I'm telling you this Amendment effort has already failed in my estimation and there is no point for someone like me to advocate for it.

Ignoring what we have devolved into as a people, ignoring the political fiefdoms and cronyism that is rife within the local, state and federal parties and governments that Joe outlined (which is an indictment of the electorate BTW) to rush forward into having a convention to propose Amendments will become just another exercise in futility.

If you want to do this, then do it right - or you are just courting disaster.  Having an Article V for the sake of having it because we want to put blind faith that this people will fight for a return to Constitutional limits on the federal Beast is ignoring reality of the political landscape of this country and the character and ignorance of a majority of the people in this land.

@INVAR, but this sounds like you are looking for one neat tidy package of whatever that will fix everything.  I don't think that exists, and am willing to work in increments to keep things moving in the right direction.  This is only one, small part of a fix.

[Sanguine]

The downside is that the quislings who infest the GOP stack the delegations with people who will look out for the interests of the group we have commonly referred to as "the elite", "The GOPe". or "the Oligarchy", who despite party labeling are in favor of a continued bloated Federal Government and reduced State Power. It would be to their benefit to mouth all the platitudes we want to hear and do otherwise, just as they have done in Congress. With the State Legislatures the Farm Teams for the Congress and POTUS and other high offices, that is what could be expected.
Those ignoring their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in Congress did not drop from the sky, but passed up through the local, state, and national GOP food chain. Support (fiscal, GOP candidate support) comes from the top down, and anyone who doesn't play ball is expendable.
So, the Party controls who gets funding at election time, the local and State GOP control who is moved up.

 If those organs of the Party are against the idea of changing back to a reduced Federal Government and restoring power to the States (and I outlined the reasons they very well might be against that in my last post), there is the distinct possibility that the Party at the State level, or at the behest of the local Districts or even the National GOP (or all three) will ensure that the field of delegates will support the aims of Party and not the People.
With a relatively small group of GOP contingents thus contaminated, and sudden (unexpected) Democrat State support for an Article V Convention, the Convention could be used to entrench the very practices it is hoped it would terminate, much as the GOP has ensured the continued existence of Obamacare by 'fixing' it instead of removing the ACA from the books.

The downside is that the quislings in the GOP could subvert the process (in the spirit of bi-partisanship, to not only retain but legitimize the status quo), and ensure that the objective of Constitutional Restoration and the return of Power to the States could only be reached by yet another series of Constitutional Amendments which would likely not happen, ever.

How could they subvert the process, and what if they did? 

[INVAR]

Fine, don't advocate it.  No one expects you to.  But like it or not, the people of this country whom you belittle have every bit as much right to self-determination as you do.

So if this people want a Socialist Mobocracy/Dictatorship/Monarchy - they shall have it.  Thanks for making my point.

If they are no longer capable of governing themselves as you believe, then it doesn't matter what we do. 

You refuse to even address that point and have said the moral and religious solution to that reality is rejected out of hand.  The Founders told you that an immoral and non-religious people are incapable of governing themselves and they would need to be ruled and will want to be ruled rather than to afford liberty, just to keep order.

How do you plan to address that to the majority that do not want a limited Constitutional government?

Why do you continue to reject that fundamental core reality?  Look around man!  Look at this culture!  Look at the abject idiocy that exists wherein a people refuse to even recognize what sex they are, much less see evil for what it is.  Do you honestly expect such a people to comprehend the deep issues of self governance?  How do you plan to deal with that - or are you just planning to ignore it wholesale and serve only the small faction of people in the country who WANT a Constitutional Republic while ignoring the majority that want Statism?

But we are going to try to convene an Article V convention to bring the federal government back under the control of the people, and that means all the people, not just those we might approve of.  Complain all you want, but even those who disagree with you get a say in this.

Not according to you.  You said my concerns and beliefs regarding what is needed to have measures of success in the endeavor have been dismissed and rejected out of hand.

And if indeed that is the case, you have slammed the door in the face of someone who was not an enemy or in opposition to the effort you seek to accomplish.  I wanted to see and hear concrete ideas about how to address the root causes of how we got here.  But is telling me that such concerns are rejected out of hand - you are marginalizing a potential ally to the sidelines who will have to remain indifferent or even dismissive of your efforts.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The downside is that the quislings who infest the GOP stack the delegations with people who will look out for the interests of the group we have commonly referred to as "the elite", "The GOPe". or "the Oligarchy", who despite party labeling are in favor of a continued bloated Federal Government and reduced State Power. It would be to their benefit to mouth all the platitudes we want to hear and do otherwise, just as they have done in Congress. With the State Legislatures the Farm Teams for the Congress and POTUS and other high offices, that is what could be expected.
Those ignoring their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" in Congress did not drop from the sky, but passed up through the local, state, and national GOP food chain. Support (fiscal, GOP candidate support) comes from the top down, and anyone who doesn't play ball is expendable.
So, the Party controls who gets funding at election time, the local and State GOP control who is moved up.

 If those organs of the Party are against the idea of changing back to a reduced Federal Government and restoring power to the States (and I outlined the reasons they very well might be against that in my last post), there is the distinct possibility that the Party at the State level, or at the behest of the local Districts or even the National GOP (or all three) will ensure that the field of delegates will support the aims of Party and not the People.
With a relatively small group of GOP contingents thus contaminated, and sudden (unexpected) Democrat State support for an Article V Convention, the Convention could be used to entrench the very practices it is hoped it would terminate, much as the GOP has ensured the continued existence of Obamacare by 'fixing' it instead of removing the ACA from the books.

The downside is that the quislings in the GOP could subvert the process (in the spirit of bi-partisanship, to not only retain but legitimize the status quo), and ensure that the objective of Constitutional Restoration and the return of Power to the States could only be reached by yet another series of Constitutional Amendments which would likely not happen, ever.

I guess what I hear you saying is that, even if 2/3 of the States approve an Article V convention, that those same states really don't mean it and will subvert the process.

Sorry, but that does not compute.

[INVAR]

@INVAR, but this sounds like you are looking for one neat tidy package of whatever that will fix everything.  I don't think that exists, and am willing to work in increments to keep things moving in the right direction.  This is only one, small part of a fix.

There is no neat-tidy package to protecting liberty or the rule of law anymore than it was in the 1770's. 

The difference is that in the 1770s, our forebears were a moral and religious people.  The people in this country today, largely are not and that number is exponentially growing.  Morality and religion is the foundation our entire culture was built on, and it has been dug up and discarded.  Everything we are suffering is a direct result of that fact.  Politics sans morality and religion will simply achieve more of what we are already experiencing. 

How do the advocates for more Amendments plan to deal with the majority that do not want what they will propose?

And.... silence, everytime that question is asked. 

That does not persuade me to advocate for the cause, and given what I am reading in this thread - the advocates have no intention to persuade those of us with concerns or questions about how they plan to handle those issues, if at all.

[Doug Loss]

So if this people want a Socialist Mobocracy/Dictatorship/Monarchy - they shall have it.  Thanks for making my point.

You refuse to even address that point and have said the moral and religious solution to that reality is rejected out of hand.  The Founders told you that an immoral and non-religious people are incapable of governing themselves and they would need to be ruled and will want to be ruled rather than to afford liberty, just to keep order.

How do you plan to address that to the majority that do not want a limited Constitutional government?

Why do you continue to reject that fundamental core reality?  Look around man!  Look at this culture!  Look at the abject idiocy that exists wherein a people refuse to even recognize what sex they are, much less see evil for what it is.  Do you honestly expect such a people to comprehend the deep issues of self governance?  How do you plan to deal with that - or are you just planning to ignore it wholesale and serve only the small faction of people in the country who WANT a Constitutional Republic while ignoring the majority that want Statism?

Not according to you.  You said my concerns and beliefs regarding what is needed to have measures of success in the endeavor have been dismissed and rejected out of hand.

And if indeed that is the case, you have slammed the door in the face of someone who was not an enemy or in opposition to the effort you seek to accomplish.  I wanted to see and hear concrete ideas about how to address the root causes of how we got here.  But is telling me that such concerns are rejected out of hand - you are marginalizing a potential ally to the sidelines who will have to remain indifferent or even dismissive of your efforts.

You're engaged in begging the question, assuming that your opinion is a proven fact, when it isn't.  No matter how deeply you believe what you say, that doesn't make it true.  And your inability to see that is why I discount what you say.

[Doug Loss]

There is no neat-tidy package to protecting liberty or the rule of law anymore than it was in the 1770's. 

The difference is that in the 1770s, our forebears were a moral and religious people.  The people in this country today, largely are not and that number is exponentially growing.  Morality and religion is the foundation our entire culture was built on, and it has been dug up and discarded.  Everything we are suffering is a direct result of that fact.  Politics sans morality and religion will simply achieve more of what we are already experiencing. 

How do the advocates for more Amendments plan to deal with the majority that do not want what they will propose?

And.... silence, everytime that question is asked. 

That does not persuade me to advocate for the cause, and given what I am reading in this thread - the advocates have no intention to persuade those of us with concerns or questions about how they plan to handle those issues, if at all.

We don't answer your question because it assumes facts not in evidence, and therefore is invalid.  And no one ever expected you to advocate for the cause. 

[Sanguine]

There is no neat-tidy package to protecting liberty or the rule of law anymore than it was in the 1770's. 

The difference is that in the 1770s, our forebears were a moral and religious people.  The people in this country today, largely are not and that number is exponentially growing.  Morality and religion is the foundation our entire culture was built on, and it has been dug up and discarded.  Everything we are suffering is a direct result of that fact.  Politics sans morality and religion will simply achieve more of what we are already experiencing. 

How do the advocates for more Amendments plan to deal with the majority that do not want what they will propose?

And.... silence, everytime that question is asked. 

That does not persuade me to advocate for the cause, and given what I am reading in this thread - the advocates have no intention to persuade those of us with concerns or questions about how they plan to handle those issues, if at all.

I've actually answered that question several times.  This is but one step in the difficult, uphill effort to reestablish a constitutional republic.  Since this is the process that our Founders put in place in case the federal government became tyrannical, we have to attempt to right the ship of state by this process before we can move on to other means.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, of course there are no guarantees.  There are none in life.  But what alternative would you propose?  We can either try the method the Framers gave us, decide to let things continue as they are (and yes, that includes the ineffective attempts at reversing the administrative juggernaut that have been tried in the past), come up with some other, likely non-constitutional method of getting the feral government back in the control of the people, or go to a civil war of one sort or another.  I don't see any other possibilities.  For me, there's only one worth trying, and that's the Article V convention route.  If it doesn't work, civil war is still an option.

If you can think of any other possibilities, I would really like to hear them.

I can, but it is a long game, not a quick fix. We all like quick fixes, but this is not something that can be done easily. The core of the problem is to be found in the electorate. The government we have responds to that (and personal greed), and is a reflection, a symptom of that problem.
The people who need to be replaced start at the local office level and go up the food chain.
But that will not happen without an engaged and educated electorate, so that is the place to start.

[INVAR]

You're engaged in begging the question, assuming that your opinion is a proven fact, when it isn't.  No matter how deeply you believe what you say, that doesn't make it true.  And your inability to see that is why I discount what you say.

I've posted quotations from the Founders who who wrote our Establishing documents that address and confirm my point and opinion.  If your position is that the Founders were a bunch of liars and/or totally off their rockers to have written such admonitions pertaining to cultural morality, then why bother with following their prescription for any remedy in government to what now ails us?

An ignorant and immoral electorate that you refuse to address guarantees any failure of self government.

We don't answer your question because it assumes facts not in evidence, and therefore is invalid.  And no one ever expected you to advocate for the cause. 

Great job at failing to win me over to your cause.  You are doing a swell job at pushing us into an adversarial position.

[Doug Loss]

I can, but it is a long game, not a quick fix. We all like quick fixes, but this is not something that can be done easily. The core of the problem is to be found in the electorate. The government we have responds to that (and personal greed), and is a reflection, a symptom of that problem.
The people who need to be replaced start at the local office level and go up the food chain.
But that will not happen without an engaged and educated electorate, so that is the place to start.

And it should have been started long ago.  But you fight with the army you have, not the one you want.  If we wait till we have an engaged and educated electorate to try to turn back from the increasingly authoritarian adminstrative state we have now, we'll never do so.  The energy's here now, the conditions are the best we've seen in decades, and we can't afford to wait.  The education effort should occur alongside the push for amendments coming from outside the DC beltway, but the push can't wait for the education to finish.

[Doug Loss]

I've posted quotations from the Founders who who wrote our Establishing documents that address and confirm my point and opinion.  If your position is that the Founders were a bunch of liars and/or totally off their rockers to have written such admonitions pertaining to cultural morality, then why bother with following their prescription for any remedy in government to what now ails us?

An ignorant and immoral electorate that you refuse to address guarantees any failure of self government.

I'm sorry, but you if you really believe that quotations from the Founders confirm your points and opinions, you clearly didn't understand either what you quoted or the nature of confirmation.  Your underlying assumptions are what I question, not the quotes you trot out all the time.

[INVAR]

I've actually answered that question several times.  This is but one step in the difficult, uphill effort to reestablish a constitutional republic.  Since this is the process that our Founders put in place in case the federal government became tyrannical, we have to attempt to right the ship of state by this process before we can move on to other means.

I'm suggesting that the process being advocated is backwards.  If it is insisted that political solutions alone are going to restore what is desired sans the spiritual and moral - the effort is already a guaranteed failure.

If the consensus is what Isaiah 30:10-11 states a debased and wicked people will say to anyone attempting to advise them in true wisdom, then I truly have no dog in this fight, wash my hands of involvement and leave such a people to the consequences they will earn.

[INVAR]

I'm sorry, but you if you really believe that quotations from the Founders confirm your points and opinions, you clearly didn't understand either what you quoted or the nature of confirmation.  Your underlying assumptions are what I question, not the quotes you trot out all the time.

Doug, we're done.

On this issue - (and perhaps a lot more) - we do not stand on the same bridge of commonality. 

This discussion illustrates the point that even on supposedly *our side* of the ideological aisle we cannot agree on the definition of liberty, much less how to preserve it.

[Sanguine]

I'm suggesting that the process being advocated is backwards.  If it is insisted that political solutions alone are going to restore what is desired sans the spiritual and moral - the effort is already a guaranteed failure.

If the consensus is what Isaiah 30:10-11 states a debased and wicked people will say to anyone attempting to advise them in true wisdom, then I truly have no dog in this fight, wash my hands of involvement and leave such a people to the consequences they will earn.

No, you are reading some things that I didn't write. 

How do you educate people for the purpose of elevating them?  Perhaps this is one part of the way to do so.  Why do you seem so adamant that it is not?

[Bigun]

There is nothing wrong with the constitution we have now. (Or at least the one we had prior to the 16th and 17th amendments) The problem is with the people we entrust with the constitution and they are the fault of we the people.

I couldn't agree more!