After reading Ryan's post, I found THIS ARTICLE from a link sent by a non-Bund associate. It would seem that Beck is also rapidly admitting his Libertarian tendencies... quite reminiscent of something Mike Church is frequently screaming into the microphone from Slidell, LA on my satellite radio.
Beck (and by association, Ryan) makes two points that I feel are worthy of consideration... and I will restate them here because I feel I can make them better than either of them can. {grin}
- Forcing the Feds to "play nice" and actually fit BACK into the model designed for them by the founding fathers can be achieved by having 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention to abolish (or repeal) the 16th Amendment. If the 16th Amendment is repealed or abolished, the Feds will starve themselves back into a size and scope far more to people like Ryan and other Libertarian's liking.
- "Nullification" action taken by the States can ALSO force the Feds into a less-controlling role in this modern era.
The first point seems far too dramatic for my tastes. If (and this is a HUGE "if") a Convention could be called, it would open the Constitution up to all kinds of nasty things that I am utterly convinced the Liberals in this nation would LOVE to do to it. It would NEVER be limited to only the 16th Amendment... and then we'd have people like Pelosi and Reid re-defining the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments to better suit THEIR agendas. No, no... if you want to do away with the 16th Amendment, then draw up and ratify a NEW Amendment that would supersede the 16th, just as the 21st "repealed" the 18th (ending Prohibition in the US). A HUGE up-hill battle, but very doable when compared to the efforts needed to hold a Constitutional Convention. Especially when what is REALLY being argued is the fact that we AREN'T following the Constitution NOW.
Nullification, however, is VERY REAL. Take for example the 60 years that Southern States used nullification to protect the institution of slavery from Federal limitation or regulation. Indiana and Arizona have refused to ratify the Daylight Savings Time Act as part of their State Constitutions, and thus, neither State recognizes or enforces DST within its borders or agencies. California (and very soon New York and New Jersey) has "nullified" the Federal bans on medical marijuana use, prescription and sales. And, just today, Montana has had an Act signed into LAW by their Governor superseding ALL Federal firearms regulations on ANY FIREARM MANUFACTURED IN MONTANA FOR SALE AND USE ONLY IN MONTANA!!!!!!!!!!!! Doubt me? Full story HERE!
Now, Texas and Utah are also looking at Montana's "lead" and contemplating how best to follow suit. These acts and laws, coupled with the country's new "State sovereignty" focus brought about by States drafting and enacting referendums explicitly defining and supporting each and every State's expressed power and authority according to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, are very REAL and very TANGIBLE aspects of opposition to a growing Federal Government that is no longer capable of self-regulation or self-limitation.
I think these are GOOD THINGS... but not everyone does. However, I'm sure no one here will bitch much, will they?
3 comments:
Your argument against a convention and people such as the liberals you mention falls to the ground by the fact that they already have such power granted them. If Pelosi et al. wanted to amend the Constitution as you say they don't need a convention to do it; they simply offer the amendments themselves through Congress.
As to the number of applications, for the record, all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for an Article V Convention. You can read the texts of these applications at www.foavc.org. Many of the issues discussed in this article have already been proposed by the states.
As you say, the need for a convention isn't really there. This is the point I was trying to make. It would be far easier to amend the Constitution through the Congressional process than to find a 2/3 majority of State legislatures that could agree on the premise of a convention.
I will follow your link and follow up in another post.
Thanks for the input!
I did visit the foavc.org site, and it is very interesting. Indeed, many of the issues discussed in this thread and many others here at the Bund are covered in these convention requests.
I'm thinking, though, that my original point still stands... is the problem the need to amend (or change) the Constitution, or is the problem our inability to adhere to the Constitution as it stands now?
Post a Comment