The Liberty Amendments

[OKTexas]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Could you please provide a link for your ASSUMPTIONS? Considering you have no idea as the identities of contributors to this board I won't hold my breath.

 

[The T]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Could you please provide a link for your ASSUMPTIONS? Considering you have no idea as the identities of contributors to this board I won't hold my breath.

Are there 'Experts on the Constitution' here in this thread? How about Best Selling authors? She is correct because NO ONE has identified themselves as such, and BTW? She was referring to Mark Levin.

Clear?

 

[Contumacious]

[

Some history for you. The way that states selected Senators was so riddled with corruption that 33 states had switched to direct primaries, and were actually agitating for a Constitutional Convention. congress was so afraid of what would happen that they went along with the popular demand to change the Constitution. ]

Really, provide a

.

 

[OKTexas]

Clarification on a key issue. I was incorrect in my earlier statements about state-by-state conventions. Here is an excerpt from an interview by Levin with CNSNews, explaining the "role" of Congress in this process:

Jeffrey: So, specifically what you’re calling for is that state legislatures around the country, using their power under Article V of the Constitution, pass resolutions calling for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Levin: And they’re proposing amendments to the Constitution, to all the states. So three-fourths still have to ratify. This will take time. We have a lot of blue states, who are perfectly happy with an all-powerful centralized government, with governors and legislators that kind of enjoy that. We are going to have a lot of Republicans who are not going to want to fight this because they tend to be weak status-quo type Republicans. So, we’re going to have to focus on state representatives and state senators. And a lot of these states that are blue now, they’re going to collapse. They can’t print money. You see what happened in Detroit. This is just the beginning.

So the left, the statists, have been at this for a century, from the income tax to the elimination of the way the senators were picked, the progressive movement. We conservatives are always looking for quick fixes. You know, if we can’t fix something in 15 minutes, then we give up. I’m saying we have to be as resolute, if not more so, than the left, and begin this process now.

Jeffrey: So, these resolutions to call for this national convention for amendments could be approved by a simple majority of state legislatures?

Levin: That’s correct.

Jeffrey: Would the governors be involved?

Levin: Congress isn’t involved either. Under the Constitution, Congress’s job is ministerial, like a part-time Obamacare employee, where they basically collect the resolutions of the states, they turn it into the archivist of the United States, and if there’s two-thirds, then the states can go ahead and meet. If Congress tries to interfere, as was stated in the Federalist papers by none other than Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the advocates for more centralized government, Congress has no role. If Congress tries to obstruct it or prevent it, the states should meet in any event.

- See more at: Mark Levin: States Should Call Convention to Propose Amending Constitution | CNS News

Yep it is up to Congress to fund and set the stage, beyond that they have no roll, it's up to the States to provide the actors and write the script. Then the States determine which proposed admentments are adopted.

 

[Boss]

Yep it is up to Congress to fund and set the stage, beyond that they have no roll, it's up to the States to provide the actors and write the script. Then the States determine which proposed admentments are adopted.

Under the Constitution, Congress’s job is ministerial...they basically collect the resolutions of the states, they turn it into the archivist of the United States, and if there’s two-thirds, then the states can go ahead and meet. If Congress tries to interfere, as was stated in the Federalist papers by none other than Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the advocates for more centralized government, Congress has no role. If Congress tries to obstruct it or prevent it, the states should meet in any event.

 

[OKTexas]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Could you please provide a link for your ASSUMPTIONS? Considering you have no idea as the identities of contributors to this board I won't hold my breath.

Are there 'Experts on the Constitution' here in this thread? How about Best Selling authors? She is correct because NO ONE has identified themselves as such, and BTW? She was referring to Mark Levin.

Clear?

Anyone who can read english can be an expert on the Constitution, there is no technical language or legalese contained in it. It was written so the average farmer of the time could easily understand it. It only gets complicated when lawyers try to twist the meanings and intent.

 

[hazlnut]

FACT 1: Mark Levin is not a Constitutional Scholar. Or any type of scholar.

FACT 2: Although he went to law school, he has never practiced law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congress does not have to call one. Article V states it very clearly, the states can do this on their own, without permission from Congress.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you read Article 5 it only gives congress the power to call a convention, it also says they SHALL call a convention when adequates states apply to do so, it's not optional. The states need to go to court and force congress to do its duty.

No, you are incorrect. The word "OR" is very important in the sentence. Look, Mark Levin was studying the Constitution when you were still shitting yellow in your diapers, I don't think he has misinterpreted Article V.

Mark Levin is an idiot, so are you. The language clearly states that they shall call a convention when 2/3rds of the states call for it. The or is there to differentiate the convention from Congress itself proposing amendments.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[The T]

FACT 1: Mark Levin is not a Constitutional Scholar. Or any type of scholar.

FACT 2: Although he went to law school, he has never practiced law.

Oh really? SEE LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION...

He does it all the time especially in front of the SCOTUS.

WHY do you post shit that YOU have no clue about?

*DUMBASS*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

What does that say?

That's for ratification, not calling a convention, two different subjects. Like I said have your english teacher explaint it to you.

BTW you brought up a good subject in the op, too bad your not compentent to actually sepak to it.

I guess I need an English teacher to explain why it says "conventions" instead of "ratification" because it clearly says "or by conventions in thee fourths thereof" and not ratification.

The States can convene their own constitutional conventions, and then ratify the amendments without any action from Congress whatsoever.

I have listened to Levin explain it, and I am not a constitutional scholar like him, so I can't do it justice, but he says the founders specifically put this alternative way to amend into the Article V, in case the government simply wanted to ignore our requests. In other words, they fully realized this might happen, and put forth a mechanism by which we can bypass Congress and amend the constitution, without ANY input from them.

Try reading really slow, it gives the people a way to ratify an amendment if the state legislature refuses to do so.

(W)hen ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Have any amendments been proposed by the state legislature method become amendments? Not a one, the idea is pie in the sky but probably sells books.
Since the framers never intended there to be political parties and made no provisions for them in the Constitution, has Levin slated political parties to go? And what of the Marbury decision would that go by the wayside?
How many progressive changes to the Constitution been put back to the pre-era?
Pie in the sky, not gonna happen during our lifetime.
The big question is how many books will the idea sell?

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

 

[Contumacious]

[. The language clearly states that they shall call a convention when 2/3rds of the states call for it. The or is there to differentiate the convention from Congress itself proposing amendments.

^ Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist Papers, no. 85 (1788). In the third to last paragraph, Hamilton states:

But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration."


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.

No more property confiscation for delinquent tax payments?

 

[Contumacious]

[

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Constitution of the United States : Article V

no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate


The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:

. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia

.

 

[The T]

[

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Constitution of the United States : Article V

no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate


The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:

. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia

.

And that's another along with the 16th that needs to go.

 

[regent]

How many of you "Constitutional Experts" in this fucking thread have served in the Reagan Administration? Oh none??? Well how many of you are NY Times best selling authors?? Again, not one of you?! Oh yes, I see how I should listen to some of you dumb-asses over reading for myself. (The Liberty Amendments)

Have any amendments been proposed by the state legislature method become amendments? Not a one, the idea is pie in the sky but probably sells books.
Since the framers never intended there to be political parties and made no provisions for them in the Constitution, has Levin slated political parties to go? And what of the Marbury decision would that go by the wayside?
How many progressive changes to the Constitution been put back to the pre-era?
Pie in the sky, not gonna happen during our lifetime.
The big question is how many books will the idea sell?

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Proposed by Congress May 15, 1912, proclaimed adopted May 31, 1913.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.

We already have term limits, they’re called elections.

The people have the right to elect whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and for however long they wish.

2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.

This is motivated only by partisanism, not a desire to ‘restore liberty.’ Conservatives believe that because they’re likely to continue to control a majority of state governments, they’ll enjoy long-term control of the Senate consequently.

3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.

Dreadful ideas.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 and DOMA are evidence of that. The states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.

Moreover, ‘term limits’ for justices and subjecting decisions by the High Court to simple majority rule will destroy the independent judiciary, vital to maintaining our Republic and retaining the rule of law, as originally intended by the Framers.

This is also motivated by partisanism, by conservatives frustrated with the courts invalidating republican laws and measures designed to promote conservative hate and ignorance, at the expense of liberty for all Americans.

5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.

Another dreadful idea.

It’s perfectly appropriate for a First World industrialized nation to fluctuate between surplus and deficit and back to surplus again. Such an amendment would be unworkable with its many ‘exemptions’ and provisions for ‘emergencies,’ and it’s the responsibility of the voters to hold Congress accountable with regard to its fiscal responsibilities, not leave it up to some inane, irresponsible ‘amendment.’

6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.

What constitutes ‘limit’?

And of course Congress isn’t going to ‘do it on its own,’ it’s the responsibility of voters to hold Congress accountable.

7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.

Again, what constitutes ‘limit’? What constitutes ‘bureaucracy’?

8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.

Obviously not.

What constitutes ‘promote’? And ‘promoted’ by whom? This is a meaningless phrase absent context.

9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.

And yet again, what constitutes ‘secure’? By whom?

There already exists comprehensive Takings Clause jurisprudence that protects private property rights and ensures appropriate due process with regard to eminent domain.

10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

The last thing we want to do is ‘streamline’ the amendment process. We do not want the Federal Constitution cluttered with junk ‘amendments’ catering to special interests and rendering the Founding Document useless. There is more than ample Constitutional case law, the wisdom of over 200 years, settled and accepted jurisprudence that can successfully and efficiently address any conflict or controversy that should come before the courts.

In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Constitution of the United States : Article V

no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate


The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:

. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia

.

Does that change the fact that the amendment was proposed by the legislatures of 27 states?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have any amendments been proposed by the state legislature method become amendments? Not a one, the idea is pie in the sky but probably sells books.
Since the framers never intended there to be political parties and made no provisions for them in the Constitution, has Levin slated political parties to go? And what of the Marbury decision would that go by the wayside?
How many progressive changes to the Constitution been put back to the pre-era?
Pie in the sky, not gonna happen during our lifetime.
The big question is how many books will the idea sell?

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Proposed by Congress May 15, 1912, proclaimed adopted May 31, 1913.

What about the fact that 27 states supported a Constitutional Convention solely to address the issue of public election of Senators?

 

[The T]

[

I suggest you look up the history of the 17th amendment, which was proposed by the legislatures of a few states.

Constitution of the United States : Article V

no State, .....without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate


The following seven States have never ratified the Seventeenth Amendment:

. Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
. Florida
. Georgia
. Mississippi
. Rhode Island
. South Carolina
. Virginia

.

Does that change the fact that the amendment was proposed by the legislatures of 27 states?

As a matter of course? NO. The effects/affects have been devastating to this Republic is more to the point regardless of whom proposed it. It was knee-jerk, and wrong and played into the Progressives' hands.