You may be aware of Mark Levin's book "The Liberty
Amendments" released last year which called for a
"Convention of the States". Article 5 of the Constitution gives the
several states the ability to convene a convention in which the Constitution
may be amended, changed, or even scrapped.
Last week Michigan's legislature voted and passed a
resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are the 34th state to
do so, and this should trigger the Convention of the States.
Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it.
Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it.
The most important political
development in 200 years was triggered last week, when the state legislature of
Michigan became the 34 th state
to demand a "Constitutional Convention" in the United States. Under
Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a
convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. During such a convention,
the ENTIRE Constitution can be changed; nothing is off-limits. This would even
allow the States to dismantle the federal government without its consent, and
repudiate the debt which that government has incurred! When it voted for the
convention last week, Michigan became the 34 th state,
thus meeting the requirement.
A goal has been reached behind what would be an unprecedented
effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that
gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. This is the
most significant political development in the entire world in the last 200
years.
At issue is what's known as
a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of
the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments
to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date –
requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution,
before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though,
devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures
demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in
recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed
it.
Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state
to do so. That makes two-thirds.
In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan
Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on today to determine whether the
states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan
lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget
amendment -- something that could be done at a constitutional convention.
“Based on several reports
and opinions, Michigan is the 34th state to issue such a call and
therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the
process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.
“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important
that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment --
determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate
role of Congress should this be the case."
If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is
presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.
But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear
whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon,
Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.
But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others
have rescinded, and then re-applied.
Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers
again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the
federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.
Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several
times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.
It's unclear whether the
applications still count in these scenarios.
Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in
Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.
“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state
that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson
told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may
not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced
Budget Amendment convention would be the 33 rd and
Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”
Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part
of the 34.
Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions
remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan
wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget
amendment.
It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about
the unintended consequences of such a move.
In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued
against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage
the nation’s political system. What he calls "damage" others call
improvement.
CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE
Change from a federal form of national government, back to a
confederacy, which was what existed prior to adoption of the Constitution in
1789. No, not the one that existed during the Civil War, the one that existed
between the time we won the Revolutionary War and the time we adopted the US
Constitution. What's that you say, you never knew the United States was a
Confederacy before the Constitution? So much for public school education. In
fact, the U.S. was a Confederacy and under that form of government, there is NO
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, just states that agree to do business with each other and
to defend each other if attacked. How's that for simple?
If we make the mistake of
keeping a federal government, we could dramatically curtail its powers. All
elected officials could be term-limited. Judges could be term limited. The
jurisdiction of the federal government could be for commerce only; no longer
allowing it criminal prosecution powers, leaving that to the states alone.
All Treaties currently in force, could be scrapped. We could
cancel our participation in NATO no longer having to assure the safety of Europe
by shedding American blood to settle their squabbles. (World War I, World War II,
Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc.) Make Europe defend itself. We could scrap the
Treaties with South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, making them defend themselves
rather than pledging American blood to keep them safe. After all, for the fifty
years or more that we have guaranteed the security of these countries, what
have they done for us? Hint: Nothing.
We could scrap the Treaties with Russia concerning our nuclear
arsenal, allowing us to re-arm to face the new challenges posed by China
becoming a super-power, India, Pakistan and Israel becoming nuclear powers.
We could do away with the
federal power to make war; delegating that power to a simple majority of the
fifty state legislatures voting in concert.
We could do away with the Federal Reserve which creates money
out of thin air, causing inflation to erode our savings and earnings, and start
printing our own real money, backed by gold, silver, platinum etc. No more
central Bankers to parasite off our hard work the way they do now.
We could do away with the Code of Federal Regulations and the
Federal Register, both of which stifle American ingenuity through reams of
government regulation.
We could put people ahead of animals and do away with rules that
forbid development of land because some little creature lives on it.
We could do away with the Department of Education, which during
its existence, has seen the education level of American children drop from #1
in the world to somewhere toward the bottom. This department is a complete and
total failure and it should be wiped out of existence.
We could do away with the Department of Energy, which was
created during the Carter Administration for the purpose of weening the United
States off imported oil. Ask yourself this simple question: In the forty years
it has been in existence, has the Department of Energy even come close to
achieving what it was created to do? No. It is another total failure and it
should be wiped out of existence.
We could become energy self-sufficient
within a year, by allowing our own natural resources to be developed- then tell
the Arabs to take their oil and shove it.
We could stop the hand-outs to the permanent welfare class,
forcing them to get off their good-for-nothing lazy butts and get a job.
We could do away with the income tax!
We could restore the free market in EVERY industry; getting
government out of the way so that entrepreneurs can create new and better
products and services to improve all our lives.
This would be a new beginning for America; a new chance at vast prosperity, personal
liberty and personal responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment