As a trainer for Level 1 of the Center for Self Governance and the Chair of the Cape County Tea Party, I’m a constructionist / originalist when it comes to the Constitution. Therefore, when talk of an Article V Convention comes about, I feel that my support of the Constitution must extend to the Convention as well. If I support the brilliance of the Founders in the creation of this republic and the limitation of the Federal Government, I must support them in their correct prediction that the Federal Government would become and out-of-control behemoth (the rottweiler), and the people would have but one arrow left in their quiver: The Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments To The Constitution.
However, I think those who advocate the current effort at a Convention are wrong to believe that they can limit the topics of the proposed amendments at the Convention… …at least that’s the way I read the Constitution. Congress can only call the Convention, and the Convention is for Proposing Amendments… …no qualifiers… …no adjectives.
I also feel any application by a state that attempts to limit the topics of the convention is invalid. Missouri has called for an Article V Convention only if it’s for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Congress can only open a Convention for Proposing Amendments (sans specific topics). Therefore Missouri’s application is self-invalidating as soon as a Convention opens for Proposing Amendments.
But, I’m no constitutional scholar like BHO… …I’m just a computer geek.
Here is some more information received from my friend Karen on the Constitutional Convention:
The proposed “Article V Convention” is nothing new. It was first proposed by Ford and Rockefeller in 1963. It has been tried multiple times in my lifetime, with each attempt given a different name. Conservatives have succeeded in blocking it each time. History of these attempts are archived here.
An Q&A discussion of the subject by a Constitutional scholar, and an in-depth article with references, using the Framer’s original source documents can be read here. If there are questions, there is a place to contact the author.
It should be noted that since the 1787 Convention of States, the rules for using this method have not been changed. The 2/3 ratification rule does not apply to this alternate method. Still, only 9 states are required for ratification, as originally stated.
The framers did not follow the rules in the Articles of Confederation that said all 13 states must agree in order to ratify a new Constitution. Since we were governed by men of integrity when it came to content of the Constitution, we dodged a bullet.
How will those rules be changed, if the ones financing and promoting this new Convention of states are in control? Will they insist the old Convention rule of ratification by 9 states be enforced?
Like I said, I support the idea of the Convention, but the Conservatives and Libertarians better be ready for the Progressive cancer that will invade its proceedings.
Liberated from the Post-Dispatch article here.
Even if it becomes law, Illinois freedom of speech won’t apply to Missourians
Even if Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signs newly passed freedom of speech legislation into law, Missouri freedom of speech permit-holders shouldn’t plan on visiting the Land of Lincoln while speaking freely any time soon.
The legislation that lawmakers passed Friday, under orders from a federal court, doesn’t contain any reciprocity language.
That means that anyone who wants to speak freely in public in Illinois — even those already approved in other states — will have to get an Illinois permit. That in turn means paying a $300 non-resident fee (double the in-state fee) and taking 16 hours of training.
Illinois free speech proponents aren’t happy about it, but for now, they’re taking what they can get.
“We would have preferred reciprocity, but this is the first time out,” noted Van Toddermyde, an ACLU Illinois lobbyist. “The first step is to see what the governor does.”
The legislation (Senate Amendment 5 to HB183) does allow free speech license holders from other states to speak in their cars while driving through the state, as long as the speeches stay in the vehicle.
Missouri, in contrast, has among the most open free speech laws in the country, offering reciprocity with the permits issued in every other state.
Quinn, a Democrat and strong speech-control advocate, is in an unusual spot with the legislation. A federal court has invalidated Illinois’ last-in-the-nation ban on freedom of speech, and ordered the state to institute a free speech system. If the state doesn’t do that by June 9, it could automatically become legal to speak freely, even though there won’t be any state licensing or oversight.
Received via e-mail…
You Know You Live In A Country Run By Idiots If….
…A Muslim Army officer crying “Allah Akbar” while shooting up an army base and killing 13 soldiers is considered to have committed “Workplace Violence” while an American citizen boasting a Ron Paul bumper sticker is classified as a “Domestic Terrorist”.
….You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
….Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
….A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
….The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
….Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of “underprivileged” drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.
….Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the “State’s” dime ($six figures) while never being held responsible for their own choices (incentive to breed built into system).
….Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, and free cell phones.
….The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
….Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
….Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
….The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
….Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.
….You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV’s and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
….Your government can add anything they want to your kid’s water (fluoride, chlorine, etc.) but you are not allowed to give them raw milk.
….Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you “safe”.
….You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
….An 80 year old woman can be strip searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
Under ObamaCare, the Individual Mandate forcing everyone to buy insurances or pay a penalty was upheld as a ‘tax’ by the Supreme Court. We’ll call it the ObamaTax. So, naturally, the progs are once again trotting out the comparison of the ObamaTax Individual Mandate to the State requirements that automobile owners / drivers purchase and keep Automobile Insurance.
How could it be any different?
Simple, Mr. Progressive. I’ll ask one simple question.
Do you believe that every person in Washington DC, Chicago and New York that does not own a car should be required to purchase and keep Automobile Insurance?
Well, that’s the difference. The difference for the ObamaTax Individual Mandate is that it requires those people to buy health insurance… …sadly not to insure themselves, but to pay for the Healthcare Spending of other Americans.
So, stop your lame apples to oranges comparison to try to explain your Unconstitutional Law. It ain’t workin’.
Received via e-mail:
1) Only in the New America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”
2) Only in the New America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in the New America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in the New America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in the New America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.
6) Only in the New America could rich politicians talk about the greed of the rich job creators at a $25,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.
7) Only in the New America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in the New America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in the New America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE … and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
10) Only in the New America could the rich folks who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their “fair share” by the increasing percentage of people (47%) who pay NO income taxes at all.
It’s a pretty simple question, Justices.
Would the American People change the Constitution to explicitly allow the (limited) government of the people, by the people, and for the people to force them to buy a product under penalty of taxation OR law?
The answer, is a resounding, NO!
As New Year’s Eve passed, news stories started running to remind us that 40,000 new Local, State, and Federal laws had gone into effect — likely 39,999 attacks on our freedoms.
I assumed some of those laws were from Missouri, so in an e-mail, I suggested to Cape Girardeau County’s Missouri State Legislators that they include the list of new Missouri Laws be included in their next weekly Capitol Report e-mails.
I got a quick lesson, compliments of Missouri Senator Jason Crowell, about the Missouri Constitution. He was kind enough to have his Legislative Assistant, Ryan Nonnemaker, provide some good information on Missouri’s new laws.
First, Missouri Laws, when enacted without an Emergency Clause, always go into effect on August 28th. That was my Constitutional lesson for the day.
Next, he provided a link to the Missouri Senate Web Site that listed all the ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX new House and Senate originated bills that were Truly Agreed and Finally Passed.
How about, in 2012, we have a NET REDUCTION of 166 laws?!?!
This is a great essay by Paul Arman III questioning the constitutionality of the Real Estate Tax and the tyranny our government employs to evict home-owners without compensations:
Every year in the United States (U.S.), people are forced into homelessness because of their inability to pay real estate tax. Every year hundreds of parcels of land are auctioned off for back taxes at the St. Louis County courthouse. Age is no barrier to this onslaught; even the elderly are susceptible to this victimization. As if sheep led to slaughter, people pay real estate taxes without question. What options are available to those who cannot afford to pay the tax? Is it constitutionally legal? Who does not have to pay? Is it the land owners’ responsibility to educate the public through real estate taxes? How is it legal then, for the government to extort ransom from its citizens by holding their homes as ransom to pay real estate taxes? What does the land of the free mean? What happens to those whose homes are confiscated by the government, and sold for unpaid real estate taxes?