Explain to me how this works

There are more and more people calling for constitutional amendments, or a convention of states.

Let me see if have this right– Those in office aren’t obeying the constitution, so we’re going to change the constitution that they aren’t obeying.

Isn’t that a bit like a “gun free zone” sign, in that those who would obey it aren’t the problem we’re addressing? “We must pass new laws because criminals aren’t obeying the laws” is what we scoff at when it comes from Progressive communists. Now we’re doing it too?

The best I can see coming from a new or revised constitution is that it would represent an official mandate– It might serve as a psychological incentive for the three percent, somewhat like the Emancipation Proclamation which on its surface had no teeth being that there was already a state of active rebellion.

Just don’t think for a second that the dirtbags in power are going to see your shiny new, libertarian constitution and say to themselves; “Golly! Now THERE’S a constitution I can obey to the letter, the spirit, the whole deal! Heck yeah! No problem! No more redistributionist/interventionist/kleptocratic thinking for me! No, Sir! This is GREAT now…all of a sudden…like!”

Really?

19 thoughts on “Explain to me how this works

  1. Glad that I’m not the only one that questions the whole premise of a constitutional convention and it’s supposed benefits.

    • There may be something I’m not seeing, but on its face it makes no sense. You have use force to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice either way you look at it, and we already have the law for that. Passing more laws is what you do instead of something.

      • How about an amendment that requires the sale and distribution within 30 days of the body parts to the highest bidder of every politician that voted for a law that is later declared unconstitutional? Enforceable by $1 million rewards for anyone that bags the criminal after the 30 day limit has expired.

        • Considering how the last constitutional convention had originally been convened to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation, but instead the delegates decided to produce a whole new document creating a whole new government, and considering how the Left has so successfully suborned EVERY organization it hears about, I have zero confidence in any constitutional convention doing anything except enshrining leftist principles in the new government. Just what we need. Instead of fighting a Roland-esque rearguard action against laws passed by a rubber stamp Congress for an administrative state, we can fight a rearguard action against a constitutional convention that rids the government of the last pesky vestiges of separation of powers and limited/enumerated powers. We won’t have to point to the incredible flexible ever-expandable Commerce Clause, we’ll have a constitution in which every fictional limit on the national government power is prefaced with “except when the interests of justice require”* which, miracle of miracles, happens every @#@#$%^&* time.
          Imagine how things would have gone for Heller, if instead of the Second Amendment we have had instead read, “Except insofar as the interests of public safety require, the right of the people to keep and bear firearms in their own defense shall not be infringed.”
          * I’ve never looked it up to verify, but I understand that the Weimar Constitution and the Soviet Constitution both prefaced limits on national government power with those words, and we all know how things turned out in those places.

        • Good.

          But how about an amendment clarifying that “interstate commerce” only consists of real money, goods, and services originating in one state and actually sold or distributed in another state.

          Please expand that into legalese if you can. Basically I’m looking to gut the Wickard v. Filburn decision (and thereby prevent the Congress from using Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 3 [the “regulate interstate commerce” clause] for anything and everything).

          • I’m sorry, but my confidence in others to not get zoomed is at an all-time low.
            Isn’t that one of Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments”?

  2. As you theorize, it’d be largely ceremonial and psychological.

    But such things can definitely have a real effect. Like removing the thin veil from the eyes of the military’s leadership that they were supposed to DO something when the civilians stopped obeying their oaths.

  3. Levin swears up and down that with his formula, there’s zero possibility of a “runaway convention”. Problem is, ~2005, I read about a group at one of the Ivies that had for years been preparing for a ConCon. For the express purpose of waiting til one is called, and being prepared to swoop in and take it over, as with 1787 as mentioned above. Mark’s a helluva lit smarter than I, but these cats have been working their Gramscian mojo for quite some time. No way in hell they don’t take advantage of a ConCon, no matter how much we try to limit the thing.

  4. I think the answer to most problems of politics is to find incentives to put opposing interesting to each others throats.

    For example: the position of the vice president of the United States. A position, noted from the earliest days, as not being worth a warm bucket of spit. Originally, this position was filled by the runner-up in the electoral college, and by amendment, now a running mate of the winner. Winner takes all. Not worth a damn. Incidentally, the biggest achievement of the Obama presidency was to remove Joe Biden from the Senate and put him in the rubber room of the Vice Presidency.

    I think the Republic would be very well served be returning this position to the runner-up. Furthermore, expanding on the powers of the vice president, all inspector generals should appointed and report to him, confirmed by the Senate, and in addition to being the President of the Senate, should also be charged with identifying wherever, by law, regulation or execution, the rights of citizens are violated. The President of the Senate should be empowered to identify any failures to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and to compel the Executive to faithfully do so, or by suit with the Judicial branch extinguish the unfaithfully executed powers.

    I don’t propose this because I have faith in the two major parties to keep the Constitution, and its limitations on federal power, in mind. I expect that the major parties would use this to savage each other, but the mechanism I would provide to the runner-up is only the power to reduce government powers.

    I’d further provide an incentive for an IG, noting that a vice president is conveniently not objecting to an executive overreach, to file suit independently claiming that the vice president is not fulfilling his duty to faithfully protect the rights and privileges of the citizens from executive power.

    • I like that idea. Not one I’ve heard of before, but it sounds promising. We have the house to balance the senate, use opposition parties to balance prez and VP.
      Having Romney as VP for a Obama whitehouse sounds interesting. An Obama VP undercutting President Romney would either be incredibly bloody, or utterly disinterested and spending a lot of time on the links. Either way, likely better than what we have now.

  5. I think if you took appropriate steps to make sure the politicians followed the constitution, like say giving any citizen standing to challenge any law and then making violation of the constitution punishable by death, I think you might could whip them into line. If every one who voted for unconstitutional garbage stood to lose their head when it was overturned, they might think twice about it…

    • We have a version of that right now and it’s not being recognized. The Oath of Office requires every elected official and many others including police to be staunch constitutionalists, and the impeachment process is there to enforce it. There isn’t a death penalty as such – only the death of their political careers. We also have laws such as 18 USC 242 which include a for-real death penalty for rights deprivation.

      THEY’RE NOT BEING OBEYED, OR THEY’RE NOT BEING ENFORCED, OR THEY’RE BEING REINTERPRETED TO FIT THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA, AND SO WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT A NEW SET OF LAWS TO WORK ANY BETTER?

      • Well, if that’s the argument you’re going to make, then basically what you’re arguing for is rebellion and revolution. If you start with the premise that “rule of law” no longer exists then you have no recourse except for the mobs judicious application of rope.

        In reality we do still have some semblance of “rule of law” and properly crafted laws with appropriate enforcement mechanisms could potentially right the ship.

        I’ve often thought that the biggest problem in our system is it’s entire basis in English common law, that allows politicians to interpret themselves out of trouble. Perhaps a shift to a civil law system where there is no interpretation would be a fair start….

        • A ‘semblance of “rule of law”‘ is no rule of law at all.

          I have a ‘semblance’ of John Holmes’ junk, but no one’s lining up to cast me in a porno anytime soon. Either it’s the law or it isn’t. Either our government is bound by the law, or it’s no more legitimate than the Mafia. Which is it?

        • We still have civil disobedience available to us. We don’t have to go right to the cartridge box yet. Things aren’t even close to being bad enough yet.
          Simple fact of the matter is, if We the People camped out on the Mall by the hundreds of thousands, and didn’t leave for weeks, we would get the results we all want.
          But we don’t do that. It’s apparently too hard. And until/unless we do, a long, slow descent into a shooting war is inevitable.

  6. I would posit that an effective and reasonable constitutional amendment would be that All those congressmen who vote yes for final passage of bills that are later found to be unconstitutional, are personally and directly responsible for the financial cost of the Federal Defense as well as all of the plaintiff’s legal and other related costs. Not the Tax-Payers, but the congressmen themselves.

    There is no time limit to this, so retiring doesn’t get them out of it. Those who are fined as such 3 times, are then ejected from office and cannot hold public office again.

    • Again; we ALREADY HAVE the Oath of Office, the impeachment process, AND the freaking death penalty (in 18 USC 242) and several other provisions and protections, and they’re not being applied. They’re all just as valuable and carry as much force as the paper they’re printed on, or the thumb drive they can be digitally stored on. You can put all the locks and barriers on the hen house you want, and so long as the foxes have the keys you’re wasting all your efforts.

      How many times do I need to say this? You can tweak the laws that aren’t being enforced all you want, and they’re still not being enforced. See? You have to get your mind in the right place here, or all of this is a waste of time.

      • Exactly right. The current state of affairs is that, at most, about 1% of the members of the three branches have any respect at all for the Constitution. Only about 2% of the members of the three branches have any significant clue about what the Constitution means. Until a couple of presidents and most of the Supreme Court are impeached and removed for perjury (of their oath of office), we will continue to have a nice Constitution that doesn’t mean much of anything.

Comments are closed.