Quantcast

Categorized | Opinion, Tea Party

Article V is our Best Hope

Over the last month, the grassroots have embraced a strange form of hysteria. They have wrapped their arms around the President, around John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, in opposition to the ground-up pursuit of sanity by the American People, requesting their State Governments to do what their Federal Government will not.

Article V and the Convention of the States is not a liberal-backed agenda intended to strip away our second amendment rights. It is not an establishment agenda financed by rich corporatists aimed at, aimed at… at what?

There is only one option presented, under our sacred United States Constitution, which opens the door to the average citizen, to combat an out of control federal government. Violence and nullification are unconstitutional, illegal, and horrible, and to all those grassroots conservatives supporting these options, I ask why? Why, when there is a legal and constitutional option before us? The only option before us, is for our State Legislatures to call for a convention of the States, to offer and to ratify amendments to our Constitution which our federal government must obey.

article-v-vidSome worry that, “well if our Federal Government doesn’t respect the Constitution we have today, what makes you think that they’ll respect the Constitution we’ll have tomorrow”? The answer: Two-Thirds of the States will be behind the Constitution we have tomorrow, and while we may have only one federal government, we have fifty States. I do not understand how conservatives and constitutionalists could get behind the imperial authority of one federal establishment against the will of two-thirds of our States. This is, or was, a Republic after all.

Some worry that, “Socialists will take over the process and take away our guns and our bibles and our, and who knows what else!”. Really? And you think that two-thirds of our State Legislatures would ratify that? If so, why? Because there is no such movement. There has been no such movement. And if there was such a movement, then why are 99% of Democrat State Legislators opposed to such a convention? And why are so many Republicans siding with the 99% of Democrats opposed to such a convention? How confused must an issue be for the best of the best, the most active of the activists, to side with the Democrat Party and the Republican Establishment against a quickly growing Constitutionalist movement to save our country from the inevitable decline promised by decades of Republican and Democrat debt?

Some attack Middle Resolution, the nefarious movement behind every well-organized attack against establishment Republican Candidates in Richmond and Washington D.C.. Some attack moderate, not-quite-establishment delegates that buy into the cause, accusing them of representing some nameless, faceless, voiceless conspiracy. Why?

Frankly, I don’t understand why more Democrats and establishment Republicans in Richmond wouldn’t jump at the chance to curtail Washington corruption, to gain a greater hold over Virginia’s budget, spending, and future prosperity. I don’t understand why anyone would prefer the leadership of John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi over their own State Delegates and Senators. I don’t understand the source of this hysteria and paranoia.

To those I am confronting here, you know how much I appreciate and respect you, how much I admire your fight and vigor. Why, when we Constitutionalists take the last legal measure set before us to address our grievances, do you balk and join the choir of Statists whom you swore to defeat? Where is this all coming from?

Article V is a threat to Wall Street, to K Street, to the Capital Building and to the White House, but it is not a threat to you. You balk at this chance because of rumors and bizarre whispers of conspiracy? Do you have a better, legal and constitutional platform from which to address the threats of debt and an unbridled Welfare State, open borders, and endless Executive overreach and bureaucratic regulation? If so, please present it, because we’ve seen nothing. We’ve seen nothing else, but what the Constitution, which we hold dear, offers us: Article V and the Constitutional Authority of our State Governments to prevent our Federal Government from destroying our Republic, our Liberty, and our future Prosperity.

We’ve elected more Republicans. What has that gained? We had Republican government for six years under President Bush, and what did that grant us besides more debt, failed democracy project in the Middle East, centralized schooling, Prescription Drug handouts, and multiple attempts at amnesty? Please, begin to make your arguments and, please, make them make sense, because we do not have much time left. If you won’t join us, tell us your plan, and why it is more likely to succeed. Time is running out.

 

 

About Steven Brodie Tucker

Graduated with a degree in Philosophy from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Also studied economics and political science at George Mason.

36 Responses to “Article V is our Best Hope”

  1. Sandy Sanders
    Twitter:
    says:

    I like this post and it was well-written and argued even though I disagree. Thanks for writing for this blog, Steven.

    Sandy

  2. Bradley S. Rees
    Twitter:
    says:

    Interesting take on this issue. I would ask a very important question, though, based on the following quote from your article: “Some worry that, ‘well if our Federal Government doesn’t respect the Constitution we have today, what makes you think that they’ll respect the Constitution we’ll have tomorrow’? The answer: Two-Thirds of the States will be behind the Constitution we have tomorrow, and while we may have only one federal government, we have fifty States.”
    My question: What is the recourse for all of those states, if the Feds do refuse to honor the new amendments? What is the enforcement mechanism? Another convention and more amendments?

    • Steven Tucker
      Twitter:
      says:

      If the federal government tried to fight the States, it’d go to the supreme court. If the Supreme Court sides against the States, then there is no Republic and we consider other options. But, all other options, all other non- or unconstitutional options should be considered last. The national parties have already made it clear, they are going down with their ship. I just want to exhaust all legal options first. Does anyone really believe congress is going to be the path forward?

      • Bradley S. Rees
        Twitter:
        says:

        I see, and somewhat agree. My observation, however, is that the federal government has already fought the states, in myriad ways and for a number of years (Arizon’s SB 1070, just as a “top of my head” example).
        So, I suppose my follow-up question would be this: Did the Framers honestly think a parchment barrier would be able to defend or enforce itself? And, if not, is Article V the only method of enforcement they devised or advocated (as Mark Levin and Mike Farris have explicitly stated)?

        • Steven Tucker
          Twitter:
          says:

          Essentially yes. Look, it’s a completely bizarre situation, but if 2/3rds of the States can’t get some sanity, how will any collection of citizens fair better?

          • Bradley S. Rees
            Twitter:
            says:

            “Essentially yes.” to what? That a piece of paper would defend itself?

          • Steven Tucker
            Twitter:
            says:

            Not so much that a physical parchment could defend itself, but that it would carry the force of law, by the continued consent of the governed. The consent of the governed has disappeared from politics and we’ve got to take the power back.

  3. Steven Tucker
    Twitter:
    says:

    If we had more time, maybe, I just don’t see what time we have.

    • David says:

      22 states have the legislation pending right now. We could be conceivably add 20 to the 3 that passed this legislation last year. With that kind of wave, we could be at 2/3 next year. Some are optimistic yet for this year, but that wouldn’t happen unless individuals like your self were to join in and push instead of saying it will take too long.

  4. Ken Kotoski
    Twitter:
    says:

    Steven,

    You hit the nail on the head. I found it interesting in the committee hearing in Montana one of the JBS members got up in opposition and told the committee to think about all the money they would stop getting from the federal government if they passed the resolution. That proved they are against any Article V convention because they want this ship to sink. They are anti-America just like George Soros.

    They know this country is going over the cliff and they stand firmly against any attempts to save the ship.

    What amazes me even more is that the Tea Parties have become members of the JBS! The JBS is responsible for stopping the Right to Life Amendment for the last 30 years. The JBS is responsible for a minimum of 16 Trillion in national debt because they have stopped the Liberty Amendment for the last 40 years.

    How can people that joined the Tea Party claiming to fix the problems in the government so quickly turn their backs on what they once believed in and join those they used to call their opposition?

    There is no Tea Party left in Montana. They have turned against the foundations of this country and against their once firmly held beliefs.

    Those in opposition to Article V Convention of States Project do not deserve Liberty. By opposing this peaceful, legal, safe, Constitutional movement they are telling the world they believe tyranny is better than their own personal freedom.

    JBS = John Birch Society

    • Bradley S. Rees
      Twitter:
      says:

      This comment further reaffirms what I have heard from many people, as a main reason they oppose the CoS – the constant character assassination and aspersion-casting of its advocates. As if reasonable people cannot disagree on the method to save our Republic unless their motive is actually to destroy it. Such shrill and hyperbolic Chicken Little handwringing, coupled with the nauseating hubris and personal attacks, have no place in reasoned debate and will attract no one to your cause.

      I cannot speak for everyone opposing this, and I’ll not pretend to. But, in my observation, the CoS folks seem to have an almost visceral aversion to answering honest questions, especially regarding the actual text of Article V and their sources of funding. If these basic inquiries are dodged and avoided, and continue to be, skeptics will continue to pop up.

      So, Ken, please respond to my questions above when you reply to this comment. Thank you.

      • Ken Kotoski
        Twitter:
        says:

        Bradley, I am unaware of “an almost visceral aversion to answering honest questions, especially regarding the actual text of Article V and their sources of funding”.

        First, COSP is a grass roots organization made up volunteers. We are NOT paid. I cannot speak for other Article V groups. I do know that There are Article V groups that are funded such as Wolf Pac and Young Turks which are both funded by George Soros.

        But COSP itself is not. The ‘funding’ has been from the supporters of our organization. In other words from the petition signers and the volunteers which are everyday people like you and me. We don’t have big money supporters.

        Can you give me a link to where you find Michael Farris and Mark Levin claim that Article V is the only method of enforcement? I have never seen it and I would really like to. I do NOT believe it is the only means to enforce.

        So please give me a link and I will answer your question above.

        Thanks for discussing this.

  5. Scott says:

    I have agonized over this issue for some time. Both sides have compelling arguments, however, I don’t believe that there are too many questions about the process that have not been settled. First, I don’t believe that politicians will respect a new constitution any more than they respect the oath they took on the present one. Second, as regards disputes about the new one going to the Supreme Court, well, that’s the process we have now. And, the outcome is subject to the whims of the justices. Just look at the ruling on Obamacare; it defied all logic. Third, who will choose the delegates to this convention and how will they be chosen? A critical question. While the COS is a grassroots effort, I can’t believe that both major parties aren’t going to hijack this process for their purposes and divide the pie between them. No one with a lick of common sense (like you and me) will be allowed enough of his process to make a difference. Sure, they’ll have a few, for the “optics”, but it won’t be enough. Every state, and every state legislature, is controlled by one party or the other. It would be different if I knew what the Republicans stood for but, outside of their own re-election, I don’t think they stand for anything. They run on lower taxes, smaller government, etc. but, when they control the key positions (governor, legislature) they don’t do anything, except raise more taxes.

    Sorry, I just don’t think it will work.

  6. Mr. Green Jeans says:

    There is a CON in the room – his name is Michael Farris.

    • Ken Kotoski
      Twitter:
      says:

      That is totally uncalled for.

      Michael Farris is the only lawyer that has argued an Article V case in front of the Supreme court. He defended Article V and the Constitution and succeeded in his case where the court ruled that Congress has no authority to change the rules of Article V.

      Michael also won the court case that made it legal in every state for parents to home school their children.

      May I ask what your credentials are?

      • Bradley S. Rees
        Twitter:
        says:

        Ken,
        First of all, Farris’ Article V SCOTUS case only stated that Congress cannot change the amendment process *after it has been initiated*. So your claim is, at best, a half truth. (To be fair, most of the time when Mike talks about this case, he gives that little detail I just mentioned.)
        Second, parents always had the right to home school their children, since education is not a power granted to the Federal government by the states via the Constitution. I should know. I was homeschooled in Virginia from 1989 through graduation in 1995.
        Finally, this “argument from authority” tactic is a staple of ypur organization and it is, quite frankly, insulting. The Framers wrote the Constitution to be read and understood by everyone from lawyers to farmers and, as such, the only “credential” one needs is reading comprehension, in order to debate this topic like reasonable adults.

        • David says:

          No one is above criticism, but you have stated that Michael is a “con”. I’m sure he could care less about the insult, but it ifs my opinion that the reason conservatives are so ineffective is because they are so quick to try and discredit each other. Farris is an honorable man, doing his part. To Ken’s point, why would you try to discredit this honorable man. What is your motivation?

          • Bradley S. Rees
            Twitter:
            says:

            I stated no such thing. If you reread this thread, you will see that I have simply stated facts and backed them up, or asked honest questions. I have not called names, but I have attacked the tactics and methodology of the CoS crowd’s arguments.

    • David says:

      No one is above criticism, but you have stated that Michael is a “con”. I’m sure he could care less about the insult, but it ifs my opinion that the reason conservatives are so ineffective is because they are so quick to try and discredit each other. Farris is an honorable man, doing his part. To Ken’s point, why would you try to discredit this honorable man. What is your motivation?

  7. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    I relation to the question as to why can we expect Washington to follow new amendments when they already ignore the constitution…they began ignoring the constitution in 1803 with Marbury v Madison and has not stopped…however name the amendment they ignore. They attack and try but to date I know of not one. The women’s sufferage, term limits for presidents….I see an Article V convention as adding strength and teeth to the 9th and 10th.

  8. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    Bradley, historically we, the founders, spent 30 years trying to negotiate with the king. It was over a year after Lexington and Concord the Declaration was drafted and signed. What is the aversion to following the constitution? If we do not, are we not just doing as the judges and politicians?

    • Bradley S. Rees
      Twitter:
      says:

      Where have I stated an aversion to following the Constitution? If anything, the CoS crowd could be accused of that malady, since they only want to use about a dozen words of it (in order to monkey around with the rest).

  9. Lynette says:

    The author gives up on the Constitution pleading the case that there are no other solutions. Such a shame. If the COS movement spent as much time, money and organizing on exposing the issues, educating on what is constitutional and demanding that it’s followed we would all be united and a lot further along. That would be 100% transparent, completely save and immediate.

  10. Cindy L.
    Twitter:
    says:

    Are you seriously discounting the “We The People” redress of grievances? It this a flawed idea that has passed it’s prime according to you? If they won’t listen to us or obey their oaths to DEFEND and not amend the Constitution then how can amendments on paper that are going to be turned to the Supreme Court for further bad case law a win? “

  11. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    I get the idea from the fact you are against using an article of the constitution because is does not suit you for whatever reason. What We the People do is of little consequence because we have allowed case law to become the de facto constitution. Challenges are viewed by SCOTUS against their past decisions, not the constitution. To press on as we have is the definition of insanity.

    • Bradley S. Rees
      Twitter:
      says:

      So, are you saying that, by proposing and ratifying Constitutional amendments through an Article V convention, we are somehow also going to be amending case law? How does that happen, exactly?

  12. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    No, refer to my previous post and question. What constitutional amendment is being ignored? Womens sufferage, income tax, senators election, term limits, etc?

  13. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    I won’t answer questions for people who won’t answer mine.

  14. LIBERTY!
    Twitter:
    says:

    I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have an easy answer to the massive problems our corrupt government has created but I am VERY concerned about trying to “fix” to much government with MORE government…..AND you should be too!

  15. Michael Murphy
    Twitter:
    says:

    The progressives gave us the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments. We were able to repeal the 18th…why not the 16th and 17th? To say an Article V convention is fixing the problem with MORE government…how does restricting the government with amendments make more government?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: