And exactly who, pray tell, selects the delegates to a proposed constitutional convention? The same corrupted officials in the same corrupted system, that's who. And they'll be motivated to select delegates committed to repealing their own power? Or reinforce it?
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing trying to get the consent of the people …
And exactly who, pray tell, selects the delegates to a proposed constitutional convention? The same corrupted officials in the same corrupted system, that's who. And they'll be motivated to select delegates committed to repealing their own power? Or reinforce it?
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing trying to get the consent of the people to eliminate any remaining protections the bastardized current Constitution provides. Those pushing for it must have their true intentions questioned.
The states determine who serves as delegates. (Texas law, for example, empowers the legislature to make the choice.) If we actually had a scenario where a majority of state legislatures called for a convention to rein in federal power, there's little reason to think those same legislatures would turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining their own goal.
Also note that it takes 34 states to call for a convention, but then 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment that emerges from it.
That said, I respect that people would be wary of unintended outcomes. My discussion of a convention wasn't mean to be a ringing endorsement as much as a brief exploration of the avenue. I'd be curious to hear how you think limited federal government can and should otherwise be restored.
Umm...the same legislatures that aren't accountable to the people who elect them - many of them being selected - wouldn't turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining the goals of those who want to rein in federal power? Federal power that the state legislators across the nation have adopted a supine, obedient posture towards? Mind you, I know that many rank and file legislators may be better about the issue than I'm giving them credit for. But I can assure you that the leadership in those legislatures are 95% corrupted, ambitious, suffer delusions of grandeur or are intimidated by those with great federal power, above board and below board, and will NEVER allow true freedom supporters to make the reforms that they (we?) believe need to be made. All one need do is open their eyes and engage memory, especially the recent memory since 2020. Same people in the highest positions of power.
I appreciate your stated intentions are to be a brief exploration of the avenue. And if we had 34/38 states with leadership that defied the broadbrush description I paint it could be a viable avenue. But there is nothing besides hope and faith that those in leadership would both share the stated goals and grow a spine to ensure the goals were met.
The fact is that the Constitution exists, as perfectly as a governing document could ever be. It needs no alterations or changes. It simply needs to be adhered to. Any attempts to alter it by constitutional convention would only weaken it, destabilize the perfect compromise it is. It provided a means of amending it to evolve as our nation evolved. A perfect means. Which was ignored by those in power, who decided that the threshold required to amend it was too high, and they knew better in their infinite wisdom than the obstinate supermajority who didn't want to amend it, evolve it. So they legislated and ruled extra-constitutionally. What new found fealty to a constitution that limits their power and requires the consent of a supermajority do you imagine could be written at a constitutional convention? How would future leaders be restrained by the mere words on the page of a new constitution that they weren't restrained by in the words of the current one? It's just words at the end of the day.
How could limited federal government be restored? If that was an easy answer it would already be being offered by others with similar concerns. I profess no unique wisdom or solution. I just know that we have the best constitution in the world, the best possible words in limiting government that could ever be put on parchment. The solution won't be found in new word structures in new governing documents. The solution is found in ourselves, We The People. In our minds, our mindsets.
Our obedience to unconstitutional laws is our acquiescence to them. Our disobedience is our limitation on government. And until we persuade enough of our fellow citizens to disobey unconstitutional laws we will have unconstitutional, expansive federal, state and local power that dictates to us how we must live and follow their laws, their self-serving, corrupt laws.
America and Americans were intended to be ungovernable. Unfortunately too many are, even supposed freedom leaders. Who comply with unconstitutional laws - because they are the law as politicians acting as high priests in black robes say they are. Not because they are constitutional.
And if one single thing could be done to change, turn around the unconstitutional application of law it would be to appoint justices who adhere to the theory of Natural Law rather than Positive Law. Positive law has allowed for the sabotage of the words of the US Constitution in a stealthy, most insidious way since the legal theory took hold in the middle of the 20th century. The Constitution is meant and designed to be interpreted under Natural law theory, the theory of jurisprudence it was written under and for. It is wholly incompatible with Positive law. Which is why the authoritarians decided to adopt Positive law as dominant legal theory when they did.
The confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas was intended to send a message to all jurists who may have been sympathetic to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. A resurgence of Natural aw jurists would do more to restore limited federal and state and local government than any other solution. My suggestion, FWIW. For the curious, some living history about the power struggle for the two competing theories, as Positive law secured its dominance in 1989:
And exactly who, pray tell, selects the delegates to a proposed constitutional convention? The same corrupted officials in the same corrupted system, that's who. And they'll be motivated to select delegates committed to repealing their own power? Or reinforce it?
Talk about wolves in sheep clothing trying to get the consent of the people to eliminate any remaining protections the bastardized current Constitution provides. Those pushing for it must have their true intentions questioned.
The states determine who serves as delegates. (Texas law, for example, empowers the legislature to make the choice.) If we actually had a scenario where a majority of state legislatures called for a convention to rein in federal power, there's little reason to think those same legislatures would turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining their own goal.
Also note that it takes 34 states to call for a convention, but then 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment that emerges from it.
That said, I respect that people would be wary of unintended outcomes. My discussion of a convention wasn't mean to be a ringing endorsement as much as a brief exploration of the avenue. I'd be curious to hear how you think limited federal government can and should otherwise be restored.
Umm...the same legislatures that aren't accountable to the people who elect them - many of them being selected - wouldn't turn around and pick delegates focused on undermining the goals of those who want to rein in federal power? Federal power that the state legislators across the nation have adopted a supine, obedient posture towards? Mind you, I know that many rank and file legislators may be better about the issue than I'm giving them credit for. But I can assure you that the leadership in those legislatures are 95% corrupted, ambitious, suffer delusions of grandeur or are intimidated by those with great federal power, above board and below board, and will NEVER allow true freedom supporters to make the reforms that they (we?) believe need to be made. All one need do is open their eyes and engage memory, especially the recent memory since 2020. Same people in the highest positions of power.
I appreciate your stated intentions are to be a brief exploration of the avenue. And if we had 34/38 states with leadership that defied the broadbrush description I paint it could be a viable avenue. But there is nothing besides hope and faith that those in leadership would both share the stated goals and grow a spine to ensure the goals were met.
The fact is that the Constitution exists, as perfectly as a governing document could ever be. It needs no alterations or changes. It simply needs to be adhered to. Any attempts to alter it by constitutional convention would only weaken it, destabilize the perfect compromise it is. It provided a means of amending it to evolve as our nation evolved. A perfect means. Which was ignored by those in power, who decided that the threshold required to amend it was too high, and they knew better in their infinite wisdom than the obstinate supermajority who didn't want to amend it, evolve it. So they legislated and ruled extra-constitutionally. What new found fealty to a constitution that limits their power and requires the consent of a supermajority do you imagine could be written at a constitutional convention? How would future leaders be restrained by the mere words on the page of a new constitution that they weren't restrained by in the words of the current one? It's just words at the end of the day.
How could limited federal government be restored? If that was an easy answer it would already be being offered by others with similar concerns. I profess no unique wisdom or solution. I just know that we have the best constitution in the world, the best possible words in limiting government that could ever be put on parchment. The solution won't be found in new word structures in new governing documents. The solution is found in ourselves, We The People. In our minds, our mindsets.
Our obedience to unconstitutional laws is our acquiescence to them. Our disobedience is our limitation on government. And until we persuade enough of our fellow citizens to disobey unconstitutional laws we will have unconstitutional, expansive federal, state and local power that dictates to us how we must live and follow their laws, their self-serving, corrupt laws.
America and Americans were intended to be ungovernable. Unfortunately too many are, even supposed freedom leaders. Who comply with unconstitutional laws - because they are the law as politicians acting as high priests in black robes say they are. Not because they are constitutional.
And if one single thing could be done to change, turn around the unconstitutional application of law it would be to appoint justices who adhere to the theory of Natural Law rather than Positive Law. Positive law has allowed for the sabotage of the words of the US Constitution in a stealthy, most insidious way since the legal theory took hold in the middle of the 20th century. The Constitution is meant and designed to be interpreted under Natural law theory, the theory of jurisprudence it was written under and for. It is wholly incompatible with Positive law. Which is why the authoritarians decided to adopt Positive law as dominant legal theory when they did.
The confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas was intended to send a message to all jurists who may have been sympathetic to the Natural Law theory of jurisprudence. A resurgence of Natural aw jurists would do more to restore limited federal and state and local government than any other solution. My suggestion, FWIW. For the curious, some living history about the power struggle for the two competing theories, as Positive law secured its dominance in 1989:
Short version (00:04:46):
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4887077/user-clip-biden-natural-law
Long version (03:22:58) :
https://www.c-span.org/video/?21107-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-1-part-2
Not so much a description of Natural law vs Positive law, as a power play between the two.