Should We Ratify The Liberty Amendments To The Constitution (polls, regime, Reid)

[RoguePolitics]

Originally Posted by lvoc

So you claim the sovereign states were created by the English King?

Would that not mean the English King can return them to colonial status?

You really think the US exists on the patronage of the British King?

Actually I find it somewhat incomprehensible that any American would consider the Treaty of Paris relevant.

It recognized the reality of the Declaration of Independence. Which I believe declares "these United Colonies are, and ought to be Free and Independent States"


Notice the plural "States" not a free and independent state but "states."

Note also other treaties at the time entered into by individual states with foreign nations also agreeing they were free and independent states.
That was a primary driver for the Federal Convention. To organize a free trade zone inside the US and a common foreign/trade policy for dealing with other countries. BUT no question that the states had this right before the constitution was ratified or that any state that refused to ratify would continue in this right.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by earthlyfather

Oh, contraire mon frere. As Sovereign states, they were and are equal. It has nothing to do particularly with economic clout, population or any of that, other than as the reason each state regardless of 'size', was given an equal and fair seat at the federal table. it is all too easy to become a bully as the federal government, if all of the checks and balances to power are not in place.

To argue anything else is to argue without constitutional basis. To want to fundamentally change these United States is counter to how we were founded and grew to preeminence in the world. The standard. To fundamentally change The United States of America will not happen without blood being shed.

It is all to easy to chase the shiny thing, the latest thing, the cool thing, the new or different idea; leaving all things of substance behind.

The equality of states is evidenced by each state sending two senators to represent them. Two senators per state, no matter how wealthy, how populated, or how much landmass it encompassed. The 17th amendment stripped a lot away from the power of the states, there never would have been a ratification of the Constitution if the17th amendment were one of the original amendments.

[earthlyfather]

Agreed and good point. Looks like all of OA posters are off work now.

Originally Posted by Wapasha

The equality of states is evidenced by each state sending two senators to represent them. Two senators per state, no matter how wealthy, how populated, or how much landmass it encompassed. The 17th amendment stripped a lot away from the power of the states, there never would have been a ratification of the Constitution if the17th amendment were one of the original amendments.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by gunlover

Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?


~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)

Yes or no, What is you take on this?

My only take on this is that it is a pity that there are people of a certain political bent - and we all know who they are - who cannot put forth any sort of proposed legislation without attaching 'liberty', 'patriot' or 'freedom' to the proposal.

Just make your point without insisting that every thought that crosses your mind is Redder, Whiter and Bluer than that of anyone who might happen to disagree with you.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

I have not noticed any but then again I am not a Democrat

There is no need to smack your head - if you are not a Democrat, then that is a good thing.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Glitch is right, term limits are anti-democratic and it doesn't matter if you have a pure democracy or a representative democracy.

That makes me right too!

Originally Posted by Mircea

Sorry, but that is critical to achieving the 3-way system of Checks & Balances.

For the record, each State handled it differently: in some States, the governors appointed the Senators directly; in other States the governors nominated candidates which where then approved or confirmed by either of the State Houses or both of the State Houses (except for those States which had/have unicameral legislatures); while in other States, the majority ruling party nominated or appointed the Senators, and so on and so on.

No matter what....the People still have a voice.

And each presented problems with corruption, the buying of offices. We disagree on this one, but historically speaking, we DO have the 17th amendment, which would not have passed if LOTS of people saw problems with leaving the selections in the hands of those who could extort and those willing to pay rextortion in order to gain the office and the power? Do we get the best ambassaor to england possible under the current system? Or do we get the one who made the biggest campaign donations?

We will have to disagree on this one.

Originally Posted by Mircea

As Chief Enforcer, I would like to see each president have the opportunity to appoint at least one judge to the Supreme Court.

Good. We have a starting point for negotiation.

Originally Posted by Mircea

All you have to do is restore the US Constitution as it currently is....meaning enforce the Constitution.

As I have said many times, you will know when the US Constitution is restored, because at most you'd pay only 2%-3% in taxes to the federal government, and most of that would come via user fees, sales taxes or other fees, and not via direct taxation on income.

~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause) how would such an amendment be worded? how would "promoting" free enterprise be accomplished? Dont the words in the Preamble cover this? As is Promote the general welfare?[/quote]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Two issues here.

First, the Preamble grants no powers.....

The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument.

Let me run this by you and see if you have any comment.

I look at the Preamble as the Mission Statement, if you will, of the new federal government. In an ideal world, the President, the Supreme Court justices, the legislators, would begin each process with a look at the preamble and ask themselves "does this (whatever they are doing) meet one of these goals in the mission statement) ??

Unfortunately, there have been some (probably many) legislators who have used the "promote the general welfare" clause to justify spending on what we know as the welfare programs. True! I exchanged e-mails with one of them.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Second, the Interstate Commerce Clause is abused, and it is up to the States to stop the abuse.

When you read the committee meeting notes by the various committees during the writing of the Constitution, there is no mistake about the intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Congress has a right to invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause if, and only if, and when, and only when, there is a dispute arising between two or more States that cannot be resolved through the federal court system.

That's it.

It doesn't get any freaking simpler than that.

How does that play out in real life?

Indiana has a fantastic year for corn and tries to dump it on the Markets, so the State of Ohio enacts a special tax or tariff on Indiana corn sold in Ohio or to consumers in Ohio.

Indiana sues Ohio in federal district court, but Ohio refuses to comply with the judges orders or make restitution, and so only then does the Congress invoke the right to come in and smack down Ohio.

Another situation:

Waste water run-off or effluent discharges originating in Missouri get into the Mississippi River and cause damage to land, livestock and fishing industries in the States of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. Those States can sue Missouri for damage, and Congress can intervene to force Missouri to comply.

Now, in both cases, Congress could pass legislation to prevent future occurrences involving other State, however the legislation is supposed to be limited to the resolution and not an all encompassing law that creates a separate behemoth blood-sucking tax-payer money-eating bureaucracy that causes job losses and higher costs for consumers.

But that hasn't been happening since FDR.

What Congress has been saying since then that if commerce crosses State lines, we have the right to do whatever we want, which is an abuse.

OK we half agree and I appreciate your explanations.

But I am pretty sure that Florida and Alabama are not effected by problems on the Mississippi River

Originally Posted by Mircea

Uh, that was the purpose of the States appointing Senators in the first place --- the States check the People and the federal government.

Aside from that, the States can check Congress anytime the States so desire....the States merely have to want to enforce the Constitution.

Residing in the People's Republic of California, I can attest first hand that at least one state doesnt give a rat's whatever about the Constitution.


[quote=Mircea;31746917]That is anti-federalist and pro-central government.

Forcing States to require Voter ID is dumb.

If the People of a State want Voter ID laws, then they will contact their legislators and such laws will be passed......that is representative democracy in action.[quote]

I thought the Federalists WERE the pro-central government party ...

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

Actually didn't work is not true. The Articles of Confederation were used by a collection of independent states as a framework government to beat the most powerful nation on earth at the time. Pretty decent track record really.

BUT they thought they could do better, so they tried.

But not decent enough, specifically because the government was too weak. Spin all you wish, but that's not the sort of history that can be rewritten without resorting to complete fiction. We decided as a nation, after having already spent eleven years trying a loose confederation of the sort that you prefer, that we needed something (to use your words) "better." And that's why the answer to your question was 1787.

You asked the question, you got the answer. At this point you're just hand waving.

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

We can look at the leftwing mess we have now and easily and accurately guess we can fix it.

It was always a "left wing mess." The Founders were radical leftists compared to the Loyalists. Remember... today's liberalism is always tomorrow's conservatism. Everything you believe politically was originally invented and created by us. We invented capitalism. We invented democracy. We invented the concept of individual rights. We know (because history teaches the lesson over, and over, and over again) that you will eventually catch up. Or if you don't... your grandchildren will.

You cannot stop the inexorable progression of history, you can only periodically move the goal posts. But we will always be seven steps ahead of you because we are not motivated primarily by fear. "Progressive" is not a dirty word. It is the defining characteristic of our species. It is why we rule the world.

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

First thing is to remove the progressive amendments. 16th and 17th. By themselves that might be enough. Although the progressive 14th clearly creates serious problems as it turns the entire constitution from a restraint on federal tyranny into a weapon of federal tyrants.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

Doesn't matter if you see "independent states." At the time the word state included that in the definition. You also don't see mention of the word vassal or vassalage which would have been used to describe the current relationship.

I can see nothing in that paragraph that is obviously true. Certainly, Jefferson did not believe that it was "included in the definition" else he was being pointlessly redundant in the Declaration of Independence... something for which he was not particular well known. And as to the 10th Amendment, it rather explicitly prohibits certain powers... something that cannot be done to an actual sovereign state. But worse for your theory, blow right past the Amendments and look to the Supremacy Clause of the original unamended Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Seems the Framers did not share your opinion.

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

And btw,
From the treaty of Paris 1783:
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

How wonderful for the King of England. We now know how he saw us. Four years later we ratified a Constitution that let's us also know how we saw ourselves.

The latter would by most accounts matter more than the former.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

It recognized the reality of the Declaration of Independence. Which I believe declares "these United Colonies are, and ought to be Free and Independent States"

Too bad that Declaration of Independence (as inspiring and remarkable a declaration of war as has ever been issued by any people) is not law.

Too bad the the US Constitution is.

[Ankhharu]

Why bother? Our government already ignores our current constitutional rights, what good would adding more do? Give them more rules for them to try and repeal or flat out ignore?

[Ankhharu]

Originally Posted by RoguePolitics

Leftwing utopias always sound good. Never works out that way. Do we grow enough food? sure. Do we maintain an infrastructure to get it were people are?
Well, there's your problem. Trucks won't roll without permits and payments and maybe not if a region hasn't shown the proper deference.
All those generous, loving leftwing dictators in other countries immediate move to control food. And then use it as a weapon. Want your child to eat, make sure you are on the right side of the political powers that be. Was there a real food shortage in Soviet Russia when Stalin butchered the kuluks? NO. Did the people still get behind him in order to eat. You betcha. You either don't know who you are dealing with, remember the left already murders over 1 million in this country every year (they don't have a conscience), or you are hopelessly naive.

I assume from your writings it is the hopelessly naive. Anarchist where everybody will live in peace and love if only we could all stand on one foot at the same time. History is filled with butchers waiting to come in and take control.

Let's not forget about the right wing that does no wrong. Let's go over the right again.
-Claimed America would collapse if slavery was abolished.
-Claimed society would collapse if woman were given the right to vote.
-Claimed if we restricted child labor, industry will collapse.
-Allow Communism and America will collapse.
-End segregation and society will collapse.
-regulate pollution and industry will collapse.
-legalize gay marriage, society will collapse.

lol, good ole right wing. If only the right wing conservatives were in control, we could have that white male dominated utopia where we ruled woman and minorities and trashed the planet into oblivion. Damn liberals.