RSS

Tag Archives: Constitution

About That Articvle V Convention

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.

a_Constitution-Day[1]

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.

The main source of financial backing and stealth support from the left speaks to a focused effort to manipulate and exploit a convention, should it ever take place.

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.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 2, 2014 in Amendments, Constitution

 

Tags: , ,

Do U.S. Citizens Really Own Their Homes?

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?

Read here

h/t militaryrealestatevoice.com

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 20, 2011 in Constitution, Courts And The Law, Taxes

 

Tags: , ,

I Own A Cannon!

When the Founding Fathers considered weaponry during the creation of the 2nd Amendment, the primary items of combat were the Musket, the Flintlock Pistol, the Sword, the Sabre, and the Cannon.  When you read the 2nd Amendment, you see the Founders carefully chose the following words:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Note that the word Musket, Pistol and Cannon are not listed in the Amendment.  The Founders purposefully chose the word Arms to indicate that the people shall have the right to carry the same Arms as those that would be carried by the Army and Navy.  Why?  The Founders knew that the only way for people to be free was for the people to be able to protect themselves from other people AND the government!  They Founders knew, in every land where there is tyranny under a despot, the citizenry had been stripped of its right to protect itself through the confiscation of Arms.

With the recent Supreme Court decision, the 2nd Amendment has received a bit of new life, but the battle is not over.  However,  as the criminals in Washington DC, Chicago IL, and St. Louis MO continue to be shot dead by law abiding gun toting patriots, we will see the level of crime in this country and innocent death continue to decrease!

Ask the folks in Kennesaw

 
 

Tags: , , ,

Supreme Justice

Someone on the radio mentioned that, without the Declaration of Independence, there would be no U.S. Constitution.  Absent the former document, there would have been no Revolutionary War, Constitution, Louisiana Purchase, Manifest Destiny, Civil War, Bush Doctrine or President Obama.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

In the eloquence of the two sentences above, a new nation was borne – free of the tyranny of cerntralised government; free of the burdensome taxation; free of the oppression of laws benefiting the government at the detriment of the people;  free of swarms of officers sent to harass the people and eat out their substance… …and built on the tenant that men and women are the most well equipped to realize their destiny, perform responsibly within as society, and pursue happiness.

Two Hundred Thirty-Four years later America fifty colonies are once again dwarfed by the behemoth that is the Federal Government.  Again, America sees those that would call themselves representatives of the people enacting legislation that disregards the people’s true will and desire, and with a complicit Supreme Court, such laws allow the officers to continue to eat from the people’s substance.

The final protectorate of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, will find itself again at the center of attention through the summer of 2010 as a current Justice retires , a new Justice is nominated, and a new Justice is confirmed.  This process has been completed 111 times before including the nomination and confirmation of the arguably racist Sonia Sotomayor.  The complicit press will again ignore the left-leaning judicial activism of the nominees, and a circus will appear on C-SPAN that would bore you even if your favorite past-time was to watch grass grow.

At times over the past 30 years, various judges, lawyers, and nominees have decreed the Constitution as highly pliable and moldable for the situation at hand.  Similarly, judges, lawyers, and nominees have looked to the laws of Europe and the rest of the world for guidance in their decisions.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

When the Supreme Court re-convenes in the Fall of 2010, the new Justice along with the rest of the Court will hear cases of constitutionality that affect every human being in America.  They will be asked to reflect on the words of the Constitution, their meaning, and dispense rulings monumental in nature.

Instead of looking to Europe for guidance, instead of looking to the world for direction, and instead of plying and molding the Constitution to the will of the Congress and the President, let us pray that the Justices of the Supreme Court will look back to our most critical founding document, The Declaration of Independence, to determine the veracity and Constitutionality of the law at hand.  And, based on their Oath of Office, let us pray that they will protect the true meaning of the Constitution as written.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 24, 2010 in Supreme Court

 

Tags: , ,