Guest Post by David Erickson
I recently discovered a website Declaring Liberty which is operated by a conservative writer/activist named Mark Pantano. His website consists mainly of podcasts which he produces at a rate of about one or two each week on average. The podcasts are also available in other places including Apple Podcasts, which is where I usually listen to them. He is also on Twitter at @TheMarkPantano.
The reason I like him is because he doesn’t just whine about and insult the Left like most writers, commenters and talk show hosts on the Right. He also doesn’t engage in the cult groupthink that many on the Right, especially the remaining Trump supporters, engage in. But most importantly, and almost uniquely, he has actually proposed a realistic solution for solving the problem of Left vs Right in this country. His solution isn’t as extreme as mine (secession), but after I heard his solution I realized that it was a logical stepping stone to achieving my solution. His solution is to convene an Article V Convention of States, because he realizes that our problems are never going to be fixed by Washington DC.
His latest podcast (at link below) is Episode 61 dated January 31. (For some reason the number got left off on the website.) In the podcast he suggests some new constitutional amendments that can be proposed, and also suggests that we should repeal some of the existing amendments like the 16th (income tax) and the 17th (direct election of Senators). Both of these need to be repealed, and there are a few others that should be repealed or at least modified also.
But an additional amendment that should be proposed is an amendment that specifically allows any state or states to secede from the Union. This is already technically constitutional because it isn’t specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and it was commonly understood (via Federalist Papers, etc) at the time the Constitution was ratified that secession was permitted. In fact several of the states were admitted to the Union with the stipulation that they could subsequently leave if they changed their minds. However as a result of the War of Northern Aggression and some subsequent horrendous Supreme Court rulings it is now generally considered that secession is not allowed.
It will also be necessary to have an amendment that allows new states to be formed by combining all or parts of two or more existing states, without requiring approval by Congress. The Constitution currently allows this as long as it is approved by the state legislatures of all states involved and Congress (Article IV Section 3), but since Congress is dysfunctional an amendment is necessary to remove it from the process. The reason for the need to combine all or parts of states is because in order to eventually end up with the optimum country borders, several existing state borders need to be significantly realigned, and this can be accomplished by moving portions of one state to an adjacent state. Virginia and West Virginia are currently conducting talks to have many of the VA counties move to WV (referred to as Vexit), primarily as a result of the ongoing controversy in VA over the 2nd Amendment. There have been several articles on this posted recently at the Facebook group “Political Divorce”.
So in order to get the optimal country borders, first realign the necessary state borders, then have the (new) states secede in groups to form the new countries. The beauty of this solution is that even if none of the states secede from the Union, simply realigning the state borders will solve some problems. This (partial) solution will be more palatable to many people than secession, so it will have a higher likelihood of being implemented than the complete solution.
So if you are interested in listening to actual solutions instead of simply listening to Republican talking points then check out his podcast at the link below. And there is other good information in the podcast besides just the Article V Convention of States, so even if you are not interested in that or think it won’t work there is other good stuff.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Tinkering with the Constitution is fraught with peril. If amended to your wishes that may be OK. However, once Pandora’s box is opened the rule of unintended consequences comes onto play. Once convened, can you guarantee there wouldn’t be others just as desirous of changes you would vehemently disagree with to occur? Like say, remove 2A?
I see bad juju in altering the document and would encourage long deliberative thought before proceeding with such attempts.
Bottom line- I trust no one anymore.
A very common misunderstanding. He refutes it well in the podcast. Have you listened to the podcast?
Last time such a convention was called, it was with the purpose to bolster the Articles of Confederation. What happened instead was a coup. They threw out the AOC and replaced it with the crap that is in place today. I would not trust any modern group of people to hold such a convention today. The blatant socialist brainwashing that passes for education these days would almost guarantee a very bad for the people outcome.
You are exactly right that the Constitution was a coup by the big-government guys, and they should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation. No argument here. But unfortunately we are stuck with the Constitution now, so the only legal way to try to escape from the Constitution is an Article V Convention. For the rest of my reply to your comment, see my reply to MrLiberty’s comment below.
A very dangerous proposition, especially since Washington decides who attends. And that means the “people” would not be represented at this convention. It could also be hijacked as the convention to amend the Articles of Confederation where when we ended up with the Constitution. The Articles were actually better for self-government.
A very common misunderstanding. He refutes it well in the podcast. Have you listened to the podcast?
The state legislatures choose their representatives to the Convention. The state legislatures vote to ratify or not ratify amendments. Governors and courts have no involvement. Washington has zero involvement other than proposing (suggesting) a method of ratification of amendments. Washington would be outsiders awaiting their fate.
Exactly. And your point is …?
That is supposed to be how Constitutional Amendments work also, but the States politicians can be easily corrupted as can plainly be seen by things like the 16th, 17th, 18th, amendments. Do you really think the States voted to eliminate their seat at the Federal Government’s table? How do you explain why the States would vote for the 17th Amendment? The income tax act was plainly unconstitutional at the time it was passed as the Supreme Court ruled in 1912 and yet it was pushed through anyway. The people never wanted prohibition and yet the corporations who were sponsoring it were able to bribe enough politicians to ram it through. Today corporations have almost complete control over politicians both State and Federal. Can you imagine what they would be paying to be put into law at a Constitutional Convention?
Stupid idea to attempt to remove the onerous amendments because once the process starts, the likely amendments to be removed are the 1st and 2nd. They may be replaces with a watered down version to placate the morons that vote.
Does anyone seriously think killing the income tax is feasible? Of course it and the creation of the Central Bank marked the end of the ‘Republic’ when that ass hat Wilson went along even though they were never properly ratified by the required number of states. It was a con even back then over 100 years ago.
Forget about monkeying with that ‘piece of paper’ as Dubya so eloquently put it. It’s a dead document and let it rest in peace.
The absolutely only thing to knock off the Fed Gov is the economy going south and millions of morons in the street agitating for their ‘free stuff’. That will usher in the full blown military police state (no voting) and totalitarianism that the entire country won’t like. Thereafter, who knows what happens.
So you are going to attack the proposed solution without even listening to it? You are definitely not a solutions guy. Have you considered that maybe you are part of the problem?
When was the last time the Fed Gov actually followed the rules? If they followed the rules we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Why don’t you wake up and realize there are no rules for the sociopaths in the Fed Gov.
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Karl Rove
Have you listened to the podcast yet? Read Article V, listen to the podcast, then get back with me.
58:18 lost from my life forever.
The speaker readily admits the Constitution is non functional in the first 5 minutes. Then he goes on to say let’s use that dead document to hose over the Fed Gov because they aren’t worth shit.
This is delusional. The alphabet agencies along with the DOD and the defense contractors ARE the deep state. They are the functioning gov’t. The President, members of Congress the Supreme Court are window dressing. Why do you think $23Trillion is unaccounted for via the military and no one gives a shit?
Via the spook agencies, they have dirt on all the politicians from President on down to dog catcher and only the people completely controlled in the city, state and federal level get elected via the party system. ALL the pols at ALL levels are compromised. The deep state has dirt on all of them. They are going to do what they are told and the first thing is to dump the 2nd.
The IRS is a useless organization as far as the Fed Gov is concerned. If they need money, they just ring up the ass hats at the Fed and get the equivalent of a few pallet loads at the push of a button. The IRS is used to tamp down inflation by taking money back out of the economy – read, my and your pocket, but the gov’t doesn’t need a penny of it. That’s what deficit spending is all about.
A convention will hose over the remainder of the constitution and give us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc as Constitutional articles enshrined forever.
The idea is STUPID.
Two choices: 1) Use the Constitution to change or abolish the Federal government or, 2) Make ready your weapons and prepare for a long struggle.
You can have all the conventions you want. You can get the states to cancel the Fed Gov’s contract in any way you want and it won’t matter. The deep state will simply refuse to relinquish control and a military dictatorship will come out from behind the curtain as that’s already the effective form of gov’t.
The US has been a police state at least since 911. The deep state has been pilfering trillions for their own purposes and I’d bet they have a plan already worked out as to what to do in various circumstances.
Bottom line, they aren’t leaving, Constitution or no constitution.
Solutions Are (Not) Obvious, some of your comment above is accurate information and some of it is rambling nonsense, but exactly none of it is relevant to my post. Do you have any basic logic or debating skills?
I provided a rather long explanation of my position. All you do is bullshit. Why not try countering what I said? It’s your turn.
I’m still waiting for a display of your logic and debating skills. Come on, you can surely take apart my ‘rambling nonsense’ with ease, can’t you?
Let me give you a hint – copy and paste as a reply to several people does not qualify as debating. Just so we get that out of the way.
Okay, after trying to make sense of your previous comments it looks like you haven’t figured out yet that ultimately I am advocating for secession. Go back and read my post again, then read my comment in reply to MrLiberty below. The only thing that will fix (at least some of) our problems is SECESSION. An Article V Convention of States is simply a possible stepping stone to SECESSION. And no, an Article V Convention of States will not end civilization as we know it. And as for your concerns about the Deep State, I specifically addressed how SECESSION would help to alleviate problems with the Deep State in my previous post on secession. After you read my post here again, and read my comment in reply to MrLiberty below, then read my previous post linked below, then get back with me.
I’m not chasing around reading your posting history in another article or in this one. You and I are having a conversation in this thread.
I’m concerned with this post where you still, after several attempts on my part to debate me, fail to counter my ‘rambling nonsense’. You even tried to bait me with ‘Do you have any basic logic or debating skills?’.
To answer your question, as a professional software developer, logic is my business and I have sufficient debating skills to be confident enough that I’m asking you to stop hiding and get on with it.
I’d really like to see you take my ‘rambling nonsense’ apart. You and I aren’t proceeding till after you’ve taken your best shot at that.
I also am a fan of secession but it won’t happen because all the pols are looking out for themselves and aren’t interested in upsetting their cushy environment. The states are beholden to the Fed Gov for all manner of finance and none of them is in a position to bite the hand that feeds them.
As far as your assertion that several states have a get out of jail card regarding leaving the union, I’m aware of only one – Texas.
Still waiting for your rationale that produced your ‘rambling nonsense’ comment.
The reason I’m persistent is because I think you’re the one with no logic capabilities after you intimated I don’t have any.
Come on and show your stuff if you dare.
I agree its a trap, it is easy to imagine how on the other side of his convention we would all be disarmed and strip searched daily.
It would be better if the government actually followed the Constitution instead of trying to make it a living document that can be interpreted however they want. If the feds realized the Constitution is a negative document for them, but not for the states and the people, we would be much better off.
For example, federalism, which is promised in the Constitution, is disappearing every time Congress enacts laws or the president signs executive orders to do what the states are responsible for, as outlined in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. We would be better off if Congress declared wars rather than giving the president the unlimited ability to bomb whoever and whenever. And when was the last time an amendment was used to change an amendment, i.e., alcohol prohibition versus drug prohibition? The list could go on and on.
It’s basically the government not following its own laws. Unfortunately, the Constitution has no teeth for the people when the government acts unlawfully, except by using the 2nd Amendment.
Edit: I wrote that before listening to the podcast, which I’m doing now, so I repeated some of what he says.
You are mostly right, except that the Constitution does allow the states to circumvent the federal government if necessary, via Article V. That is precisely the whole point of this post. You should listen to the podcast. He explains it better than I can.
I’m listening to the podcast now but already object to some of what he says, which I will outline for you after I finish listening to it.
“His solution is to convene an Article V Convention of States”
and what makes him think the left’s owners will ever tolerate that?
look, the left’s (((owners))) will never tolerate anything other than us 1) dead or 2) enslaved. the only way past them is to curb stomp our way through them. that’s it.
So you are saying we should just give up without even trying?
Do you think the Article V idea has not been discussed here ad nauseam over the years? It has. Great idea fraught with peril and unintended consequences. Are you related to that shithead Erickson from “Red State.com?”
Did you listen to the podcast?
No, fortunately I am not related to that Erickson , because I would be embarrassed if I was. RedState is a typical Trumptard cult groupthink site that is painful for me to even read.
“So you are saying we should just give up without even trying?”
no, I’m pointing out that a constitutional convention does not address the actual issue at all.
Did you listen to the podcast?
A major objection to a Constitutional Convention is the fact that the convention can write its own rules, adopt whatever it wants, and effectively replace the existing constitution. In the 1980s Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:
“There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda… [it] would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.”
https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or
Did you listen to the podcast?
I read the article that you linked to in your comment above because I (unlike apparently almost everyone who has commented on this post so far) actually read or listen to things before I comment on them. The article is a bunch of nonsense. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a far left organization. Of course they are going to get hysterical about a convention that circumvents the federal government, especially when it is for the purpose of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Are you a closet Democrat?
First of all, it is not a Constitutional Convention, but a Convention of the States for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the Constitution, which still have to be approved by 3/4 (38 currently) states.
Thank you. Finally an intelligent comment.
Cut the crap. Both Left and Right want a divorce. Only, the left wants alimony in perpetuity.
“Both Left and Right want a divorce”
no, the left wants absolute power and will settle for nothing less.
The biggest problem with an Article V Convention of the States is who will be representing the states. As it currently stands, politicians will fill a majority of the slots and will only propose amendments that will strengthen government. Since any proposed amendment will require approval of 3/4 of the states, it stands to reason, nothing will get done.
The author’s responses to comments indicate he’s a shill.
The constitution is as dead as the country that passed it. No podcast changes that fact.
It would be like opening the proverbial Pandora’s Box:
?fit=1170%2C780
The idea is premised on the belief that the states actually want freedom restored. First, virtually every state income tax is founded on the federal income tax. Eliminating the 16th Amendment would be a non-starter, as it would open up every state income tax to scrutiny. Second, the 17th Amendment passed so easily because nearly a majority of the states (having had their legislatures already taken over by the Progressives that infested BOTH major political parties at the end of the 1800s), were already rubber stamping the votes of the people when it came to their US Senators (yes, they held elections and then the legislature “appointed” whomever won). As for rolling back government power – again, you are counting on power hungry pieces of garbage from the legislatures of the 50 states, to freely vote for that? What kind of precedent would that set? And dissolution of existing state lines? That would quickly jeopardize the parasitic careers of hundreds if not thousands of well-protected legislators from every state in the nation. Article 5 may provide a mechanism, but it still relies on the principles of the people who engage the process, and those who would have to vote in favor of the results. One need only look around this country to realize that elected republicans and democrats are NOT going to be working to reduce any of their own power, ability to steal money, ability to steal property, or ability to rule over all they currently do. Nor are they going to undermine the power of either the federal government or the state governments as it is the source of power for their big business friends who line their pockets every election season.
NO, I haven’t listened to the podcast. I don’t need to, to know that the Constitution was written with the completely misguided notion that honest men who honored their oath, would uphold its values, defend its principles, and only act within its very clearly defined limits, and any expectation that Article 5 could be “exercised” by these same pathological parasites and bottom feeders to achieve a result that would give more power to the people, keep more money in our pockets, and allow the citizens the ability to decide how THEY were going to live their lives or spend their money, is just as misguided.
“I don’t need to, to know that the Constitution was written with the completely misguided notion that honest men who honored their oath, would uphold its values, defend its principles, and only act within its very clearly defined limits….”
Excellent !
annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum <—== There is no secular solution to a spiritual problem.
Was it Madison or Jefferson that said men are no angels and must be chained by the Constitution? They knew men weren’t honest.
Paper chains unfortunately do not work very well.
Exactly, which is why I wish they put some teeth in the Constitution for the people to address it. Of course, I also wish we had kept the Articles of Confederation instead. They’re wishes and nothing more.
Mr. Liberty…excellent response.
Thank you MrLiberty for commenting. I was hoping that you would comment because I knew you would provide an intelligent well-reasoned comment. However I don’t entirely agree with your comment. Most of what you say is indeed true, but it doesn’t negate the need to at least try to solve some problems with an Article V Convention. An Article V Convention is essentially the last ditch effort to try to solve any problems peacefully and legally, because the federal government obviously isn’t going to do it. So an Article V Convention should at least be attempted. There is nothing to lose, in spite of the naysayers who say “the convention will run away and we will lose all of our rights”. (Here is a something for those people to think about. The Founding Fathers obviously didn’t think that an Article V Convention would be the end of civilization as we know it, otherwise they wouldn’t have written Article V. Am I to understand that you are all smarter than the Founding Fathers? That is one of the reasons that you should have listened to the podcast, because he explains why the convention will not “run away”.)
So we give it a shot, and if nothing improves then we are no worse off than we are now. But we don’t necessarily have to add any new amendments, or repeal any existing amendments (such as the 16th and 17th), other than simply a new amendment that specifically allows any state to secede. That’s it. Once states have a mechanism for legally escaping from the behemoth on the Potomac, some of them may try it, eventually if not right away. There are already liberty-minded states, such as the Dakotas, which actually have secession movements now. And that is ultimately the only way to solve any problems is to break up the U.S. into three or more separate countries, as I have said many times before. I am not naïve enough to think that any amount of constitutional amendments or federal laws are going to fix the problems with this country. But as I said in the post, an Article V Convention could provide a stepping stone to the actual solution, which is secession. But because most people immediately put up a mental block when they hear the word “secession”, I use “Article V Convention” to make it more palatable to them. And if any states secede, then people will have a choice where they want to live. Some of the countries will be liberty-minded, and others will be statist, but people can choose what they want. Essentially a free market of living choices instead of the one-size-fits-all monopoly that we currently have.
And if we don’t get that amendment, oh well. Then we will eventually end up where we are going to end up anyway, which will be very ugly, but at least we gave it a shot. Unlike all the whiners here, I am not going to give up without at least trying.
You seem to think that you can defeat Agent Smith by still fighting within the confines of the Matrix. That makes you delusional and not worth listening to.
You think that freedom and prosperity can be achieved by playing paper games, with a referee who’ll just ignore you even if you “win”?
And your solution is …?
Are you really that obtuse? Your sad attempt at Socratic method isn’t fooling anyone.
It’s going to involve people engaged in violence.
Just like in 1776, 1860, and 1941.
I think if the founders saw how how out of whack our government has become since they wrote the Constitution, they would have left out the use of amending the constitution and would have put some teeth in it so people could take out those who don’t follow it and abuse it, and not just in elections.
Ideally they should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation, or something similar, and then we wouldn’t even have this problem in the first place, at least at the federal level. Obviously some of the states would have their own abusive governments, but some of the states would undoubtedly be liberty-minded, so we would have a free market of choices available. And the competition between states would tend to temper the most abusive practices, because most people would leave a state that got too bad if they could move to an adjacent state a few miles away that had freedom. But we don’t have that choice now, because the federal government has a monopoly, so the only way to escape is to go to another country, which isn’t practical for most people, especially considering that there are very few countries (such as Switzerland) that are any better.
You just outlined federalism in the Constitution, which is almost obsolete. Voting with your feet is getting harder to do between states.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Wanted to actually listen to the podcast.
Let’s start with the actual text of Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Lots of words that appear pretty straightforward….but so do ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights…and you see what they’ve done to them.
But let’s get to some specific point from the podcast and combine them with the details of Article V. He says, correctly, that anything passed during the Convention would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures and that there is no way that 3/4 of the states would approve increased totalitarianism (my word, not his). True, but they would also not approve increased FREEDOM (see my points above). And let us not forget that alcohol prohibition was passed by 3/4 of the states. I do not believe that the 16th Amendment was actually, properly, or legally ratified (See “The Law That Never Was” for all the details), but nobody spoke up when Wilson and Knox pulled their heist, and nobody has spoken up since. They also passed the 17th (see my notes above). Indeed, the state legislatures would absolutely pass more tyranny if they thought they could get away with it. And then let’s specifically talk about secession. In 1860, the Confederate States wished to separate most specifically to get away from the tyranny of the tariffs that were being imposed to fund northern manufacturing expansion (classic Whig/GOP crony capitalism). Lincoln happily oversaw the slaughter of as many as 750,000 American citizens, all to keep this revenue source from drying up. You speak of N. and S. Dakota leaving. Are you aware of their oil resources? Pick any state and you will find lots of resources that the feds (and by default, the states who all feed from the federal trough) want to get and KEEP their hands on. And the only states that will really want to leave (like Texas), are the ones who have the MOST to gain by leaving (and by default, will cause the most pain to the other states if they do). Do you honestly think that 3/4 of the states will actually vote in support of that move? Especially when they know that secession is currently legal and Constitutional, but fear of mass killing is preventing it today?
I know where you are coming from. You would like to settle these problems honorably and peacefully, by holding the criminals to the document they all took an oath to protect and uphold. Good luck with that. I would too. I used to think that such a thing was possible. That is why I spent decades working very hard for the Libertarian Party, being part of party leadership, and even running for a State Senate post under their banner. But the government has nothing to do with what the people want, and every minute of every day, the government monopoly schools, the government-controlled media, and their shills in bigTech, are doing everything they can to propagandize the public into thinking the way they need them too. You and I want freedom and liberty restored, as do most (but not all) of the folks who read and comment here. But when push comes to shove, most do not really wants freedom and liberty if it will cost them their precious “stolen goods” (welfare, corporate welfare, subsidies, protectionist tariffs, protectionist regulations, etc.).
But the folks who WILL be interpreting Article V, setting the rules of the convention, allowing the presentations of evidence and arguments, are the same pieces of shit that set all the rules for the recent kangaroo court in DC (or carbon copies if not the actual same folks). THAT is who is in control. They are the same pieces of shit that fill your state house and your county commission, or your city hall. THAT is who the political class is. No, they are not 100% as bad as all that, but the MAJORITY ARE…or there would be places in this country that were actually free from tyranny…but there aren’t.
A political, peaceful solution is what all of us desire. Slavery in Europe was ended without a single shot being fired. The Berlin Wall came down as did the Iron Curtain and the entire Soviet Union, without a shot being fired (ok, that is probably not completely true, but it was basically bloodless). That will likely NOT be the case in the US. It is likely going to be very bloody and very violent, and it will be that way because 50% of the population (at least), doesn’t really want anything to change for what we consider “the better,” and they have been shown by administration after administration, that the ends ALWAYS justify the means, no matter how many people have to die. So hang on…and do keep promoting peaceful solutions. Revolutions always have a bad way of concentrating even more power in the hands of even fewer people – even the American Revolution of 1776.
And to the contrary of my comments, should 3/4 of the states actually wish to call a convention, and should those 3/4 actually be in support of freedom and liberty and scaling back federal tyranny, the process for correcting the problems would already be in place at the state level and would already be happening….but it is not. I remember someone commenting on the prospects of a Libertarian Party (or even small “l” libertarian) getting elected president and all the problems he/she would face. But truth be told, the only way such a person would get elected would be if the tide of this nation had already turned in favor of freedom and liberty, and the results would be seen in every state house, in the Congress, etc. Freedom will come…as it always does….when the people actually want it.
Another brilliant response.
Thank you (again) MrLiberty for taking the time to listen to the podcast and provide another excellent comment. I again agree with most of you comment except the following:
“Do you honestly think that 3/4 of the states will actually vote in support of that move? Especially when they know that secession is currently legal and Constitutional, but fear of mass killing is preventing it today?”
I don’t think that most people know that secession is currently legal and constitutional. As I said in the post, “as a result of the War of Northern Aggression and some subsequent horrendous Supreme Court rulings it is now generally considered that secession is not allowed.” But the states won’t be voting on any specific state(s) leaving, they will just be voting on an amendment that (explicitly) allows any state to leave sometime in the future. However, you are right that even something that benign will probably have resistance, especially from the totalitarian blue states, but fortunately there are still enough red states that it is a least possible that we could get that amendment passed if we do it before it is too late.
And, as I said in my reply to your previous comment, that amendment is the only one that needs to get ratified in order for the Article V Convention to be a success. Once states have a mechanism for legally escaping from the behemoth on the Potomac, some of them may try it, eventually if not right away. And that is the path to making progress on solving problems. How many problems get solved, and how effectively they get solved, will depend on how many states eventually secede. But at least they will have a legal and peaceful path to that objective.
And if the amendment doesn’t get ratified we won’t be any worse off than if we hadn’t tried, but at least we will have tried.
You seem to want to equate the “strength” of secession “movements” in many if not most of the states with the belief that a majority in the legislature support such a thing. Humans seem to have an almost pathological “need” to maintain a sense of family, regardless of how much it is killing everyone. The government is the parent for many, sadly. And the possible breakup of the “family” of the US, is a massively repulsive idea to most. To acknowledge that millions wish to “be done with you” is something people take very personally. They are completely oblivious to the fact that their own policies, theft, destruction of freedom and liberty, etc. might really piss someone off – enough to want to leave – but still take the desire to go as a personal affront to them. Just look at the anger engendered by folks who do not wish to “pledge allegiance” to a piece of fabric that is the symbol of a nation that no longer stands for the values it once embraced, or is not even a republic as much as it is an empire. And a lot of the anger is also based in serious FEAR. What would happen if a state left and actually implemented freedom, and prospered in the way we all know it would? What kind of message would that send to the rest of the slaves still remaining? The wall in East Berlin was as much about denying people the option of freedom as it was about people escaping and getting word back to those left behind about how great it was on the other side.
And my point regarding currently “legal” secession is more that the states who don’t want anyone else to leave. The “fear” (truly all that government has going for it) is what keeps states from exercising their right to leave. The entire political class is premised on the fear of government guns and legal violence. Which of these parasites is going to vote to eliminate that kind of fear?
Sadly you are right about everything, especially the obsession with pledging allegiance to a rectangular piece of cloth, but we can still try, and hope for the best. In fact that is what I do routinely. I “try” by advocating on various sites such as this, which is all I can do. I don’t have any power to actually call for an Article V Convention. But as long as I am advocating, then I am doing the best I can, which is what matters. And I will keep doing it until it either happens, or we reach TEOTWAWKI, whichever happens first.
One should always work towards the peaceful solution first….but be prepared for the alternative if it becomes necessary. I would say that the relationship between blacks and whites throughout Europe (especially before the recent mass African immigrant problem began), was the result of ending slavery in a peaceful manner, rather than through violence. Britain is leaving the EU without violence. As a result, trade, traveler visitations between the nations, etc. will happen for the most part without incident. The animosity in the US between blacks and whites, between north and south, etc. continue to be horrible to this day, in no small part because of what the north did to the south before, during, AND most especially AFTER the war of southern secession, combined with the forced enslavement of northern citizens to fight his war of aggression on behalf of blacks. Peaceful dissolution can certainly happen here too. No sense not working for such an outcome while buying ammunition and keeping your gun clean and in good working order.
And another critical Amendment would be to allow the states to choose Supreme Court justices with term limits and the power to recall if they felt that the justices were not making decisions in the best interest of the states.
Supreme Court justices are allowed to sit for life to keep them from being influenced to vote a certain way. And that’s why life tenure was put in the Constitution. The justices are supposed to follow the Constitution and nothing else (though we have and have had those who want to legislate from the bench, which is unconstitutional.)
Elections, withholding raises, and other outside influences if the justices don’t vote a certain way is why they were given that life tenure. And that’s why there is a process to go through, questioning them on their views, opinions, etc., when appointing them to the bench to begin with.
How do we remove a justice that is violating his oath of office? Is there a provision for doing so?
I think justices can be removed by impeachment, just like the president.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached for bad behavior (meaning illegal, not decisions they make) but it has to be done by Congress.
Vixen Vic
How is a violation interpreted as illegal in cases such as this? It always seems as though there is a double standard around the corner so to speak. Roberts technically legislated from the bench, yet was not even questioned. My concern for invoking an article V would be if the final decision went to the supremes they could act politically and not Constitutionally. Am I wrong in my opinion?
Illegal as in crimes, such as taking bribes. Legislating from the bench is not illegal, but it is unconstitutional. If they could be impeached for legislating from the bench, Republicans probably would have tried to do that after Roberts made the decision to support Obamacare (which was the wrong the decision based on the constitution because it included a fine, not a tax.)
There’s no reason an Article V convention amendment or a congressional amendment should go to the Supreme Court. Either it passes by 2/3 of the states or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s over. If it passes that threshold, it becomes part of the Constitution.
Vixen Vic
Thanks for the answer. This makes me think that having an article V is NOT a good way to go. This would most likely leave us with bad juju. It would be my opinion that to have an article V at this time would leave us wide open for a real butt kicking from the far left. First we have to stop this infection of the left and then look at a solution to prevent it in the future I feel. At that time perhaps an article V would be a good idea so we could stop any future attacks of this nature.
Yes, Impeachment. Federal Judges have been successfully removed from the bench via the impeachment process. Although, none recently.
Well, Scalia was “removed” with a pillow over his head….but it had nothing to do with violating any oath.
John Marshall destroyed your “supposed to follow the Constitution” with Marbury vs. Madison, in which he invented the concept of judicial review.
Even James Madison, father of the Constitution, said as much, but he was powerless to prevent the precedent; and every single case before the Supreme Court since then has operated by this ersatz principle.
You are exactly correct, Dick Jones. The Constitution actually outlines the type of cases that were supposed to be brought before the Supreme Court, but in a broad sense, therefore, other cases were taken that increased their jurisdiction, such as Marbury vs. Madison.
It truly was a “downfall” decision….and we have been sinking ever since.
Do I understand this correctly, we let SCOUS over reach their Constitutional authority with Marbury vs. Madison? If this is true then whose job was it to put SCOUS back on their reservation?
The founders, such as a Madison, should have attempted an amendment then to fix it.
Yes, at that point (after the ratification of the Constitution) the only constitutional remedy would have been for Congress to reign in the courts via statute or, preferably, an amendment to the Constitution. In fact at any time since then, including up to the present day, Congress could have done it. But Congress doesn’t want to isn’t capable of doing it, which is precisely why the Constitution should never have been written. It was a failure from the get-go. They should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation (or something very similar), and then we wouldn’t even have most of the problems that we currently have.
One point I would like to outline is federal crimes are illegal, such as accepting bribes or campaign donation violations, but not considered illegal is not following the Constitution. That has to go to the Supreme Court to be decided today. That is one of the fundamental problems in this country. Anyone, any agents of federal or state governments violating the Constitution should be imprisoned just like with other federal crimes but that doesn’t happen. So how did federal law become the law of the land rather than the Constitution itself?
OK, here’s my rebuttal for the video. I tried not to make this really long, but it’s long, nonetheless.
The video host says amendments can be presented and ratified in a state convention without Washington. That is not true. Supreme Court cases over the years have refined Article V. The state legislatures must submit their application for a convention to Congress. Congress chooses whether a proposed amendment sent to states will use the state legislatures or ratifying conventions to get to the 2/3 for approval, whether the amendment originated from Congress or the states. Of course, Congress will use the method that best suits them. For example, if there are a lot of red states with capitals filled with Democrats and large rural areas with Republicans, where Democrats end up in control of the state government, like Virginia, a Democratic-controlled Congress would want to use the legislatures rather than ratifying conventions in that case. This is one way Congress can control results.
And because politicians are wed to their parties and not the Constitution or the people, they stick together at every level – local, state and federal. Congress working with state legislators would have huge sway as to who was selected to go to the convention. If you’re not in government, you’re not going anyway, so it will all be politicians.
Supreme Court cases have determined that Congress has the power to prescribe time limits for state ratification. If Congress sets a very short time limit, they can again sway the results.
You also don’t know the state of mind of state legislators. They may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. And we already know the majority are power/money hungry. Give them the power, and all of your rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights could be taken away. (I’m sure big donors and lobbyists would threaten Democrats and Republicans with withholding donations and running well-funded candidates against legislators if they didn’t vote the way they were directed to.)
As to the other things mentioned in the video:
On immigration, there are already laws on the books against illegal immigration that are not being followed. New amendments won’t change that. And immigrants are not the only ones turning red states blue. You have Democrats fleeing high-tax Democratic strongholds like California and turning red states blue by dominating the capitals and outvoting the rural areas. (In my opinion, breaking a state up and creating two or three states out of the one is the answer to that.)
As far as Supreme Court cases changing the Constitution rather than upholding it, there are plenty of complaints about this. I have complained many times, as have others, on this website about it. In one book I read, it said courts cannot legally change the law or the Constitution. For a court case decision to take effect, Congress must pass a law that reflects the decision, making it legally binding. Otherwise, it’s mute. And Congress or state conventions must pass an amendment to reflect a court decision to make it a constitutional amendment, not the court decision alone. But as usual, nobody is following the Constitution, which says only Congress can make laws, and only Congress or state conventions passing amendments can change the Constitution.
As far as term limits, the founding fathers didn’t add that to the Constitution. I believe that is the right decision. The presidential term limit of only two terms in office began as a tradition, set by George Washington because he stepped down after two terms. That tradition wasn’t broken until FDR and his New Deal. Following FDR, those in Congress, who hated him and his policies, passed an amendment for presidential terms limits. And of course, Congress doesn’t have term limits in the Constitution. Why are term limits bad? With term limits, you are prohibiting the rights of voters to determine who their representatives and president will be. If people have a good person in office, they want that person to stay there. If they have a bad person in office, they can vote them out.* Also, under term limits, during the person’s final term in office, they are no longer beholden to the people, whose only deterrence is the possibility of not being re-elected. Remember, Obama caught on the open mic to Medvedev, “give me space until after the election. Every person in Congress would be saying the same thing to their donors and enacting horrible legislation because they are no longer beholden to the voters, but they’ll get a good cushy job after they leave. There are no term limits for a reason.
*Parties (factions), which the founders hated, are the reason we can’t get bad people out of office with voting. The Democrats and Republicans the only two parties now allowed. The Democratic and Republican “machines” are the problem. In my own opinion, parties should be done away with and that would solve the problem. Or you can stop the dominance and allow other parties the same rules.
I agree with the video host on electing Senators rather than the states selecting them. But that was a casualty of the War Between the States and the end of states’ rights.
As far as a balanced-budget amendment, that’s not the way to go either. There is an un-balanced budget because of the Federal Reserve. Instead of following the sound money principles in the Constitution, the Congress brought in the unsound Federal Reserve and fiat money, leaving the gold/silver standard. If you have limited money, you have to have a budget or you won’t be able to pay your bills. It was a way of controlling excess spending.
Anyway, that’s my quick 2 cents worth.
Supreme Court cases can’t (legally) modify the constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can modify the Constitution.
For the rest of my response to your comment, see my reply to MrLiberty’s comment above.
Their decisions modify the constitution all the time. THAT is part of the problem.
As I said above, our government doesn’t follow the Constitution, the law of the land. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court can’t legally modify law or the Constitution, nor does it allow justices to legislate from the beach. The Constitution doesn’t give the president the right to start wars but the Congress gave the president that power without a constitutional amendment. We have drug prohibition even though an amendment was never passed (as it was done “legally” during alcohol prohibition.) Federalism, guaranteed under the Constitution, is disappearing.
What it boils down to is our government is lawless. Amendments don’t matter, whether initiated by Congress or an Article V convention, because the government won’t follow the law.
But you better follow the law or you’ll end up in the hoosegow.
I believe the only way things will change is through economic collapse and/or another civil war. Economic collapse is baked in the cake; only the timing is in question. Civil war is is not certain and unpredictable. But God help us when either occur.
Hmmmm. that’s what George Soros wants to do to change the Constitution into the Communist Manifesto. No thanks.
From the laissez-fairerepublic.com website (the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto and what is already in place – hint….we’re already there, thanks to BOTH major political parties):
1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enteprrise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industiral complex.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” .
We have a constitution and don’t follow it. A constitutional convention would be like voting. Just a process to make us think we have a say in what goes on in the country.
Secession by county, not by state. Why, for example should Susanville, CA be forced to be part of a state run by tecnostatists. Let the left have the 4 per cent of the land mass that they occupy.
Absolutely. Many of the existing state borders are completely useless in today’s political environment, which is why they need to be changed to get like-minded people grouped together. For my complete proposal for secession see
let me see if i understand this–many people want to secede b/c the current govt is oppressive & will not allow it’s citizens to live their lives in a way in which the govt disaapproves?
well beam me up scotty,if we secede will they really leave us alone?
No. The War Between the States proved that. The South seceded, became an independent country, and the North brought on a war. The North won, unfortunately, and now the whole country suffers because of it. You think you can seceded today without war? Perhaps. But regime change has now been mastered by the feds. So if you’re not part of the U.S., you end up a puppet to the U.S. (At least until the U.S. economic collapse and then all bets are off.)
Nothing wonderful about my state government that I would want to see continue….and I live in GA, a relatively “benign” state. I guarantee that the folks living outside of the urban cesspools in CA would not want to keep their state government either. Frankly, 320,000,000+ sovereign “states” is what this country truly needs.
I live in S.C., very near. I didn’t realize that.
Its only near if you stay off the non-stop-construction-filled 85.
this is off topic but since this is the most active thread right now i’ll put it here–
they can’t count the votes in the democratic caucuses in iowa b/c of computer problems–who wants to bet that means sanders lapped the field & the party bosses are changing the votes?
It’s a trap. You’re a compromised CIA asset. My sister’s brother’s cousin says his grandfather’s friend has a burro that knows a better way and speaks in tongues. All we need is a translator.
Seems to me, after all this back and forth, that the people whom believe in the Constitution and are willing to spill their blood for it will affect change. The other individuals wanting a different form of governance are the other bullies on the play ground. I for a long time felt that there might be a civil and sane way out of this mess. Now, I think that there will only be one way out. Let the sucker collapse and get on with fighting the bullies. We shall see blood in the streets I feel. The infection is to wide spread for it to just go away through voting. A thief is never satisfied with just a little bit of bootie, he or she wants it all. I never liked or wanted a boot on my neck. There can be NO compromise with this.
I want to thank everyone who commented. I enjoyed reading and replying to your comments, even the ones I disagreed with. But I’m curious as to what traumatic event must have occurred here in the past to cause so many commenters (and upvoters) to hysterically declare that an Article V Convention will cause the end of life on Earth. I am reminded of an acronym that a co-worker of mine many years ago used to use: RICSAS – Run In Circles, Scream And Shout. Have you been successfully propagandized by the Left? The only “evidence” so far to support this claim is the link by John to a screed on the far left site Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a quote from Justice Warren Burger. I think John is a closet Democrat. He should stop listening to NPR and reading the New York Times. If anyone can provide a link to a credible site (not a neocon or Trumptard site) I would be interested in reading it.
The person who mentioned the history of the Continental Congress that was supposed to “tweak” the Articles of Convention, nailed in right on the head. It began as a “we’re just trying to address some minor failings of the Articles” and became the creation of a powerful central government meant to extend British Mercantilism into the new nation. And we all continue to suffer under its boot to this day. And then, going backward in time….the recent kangaroo court of impeachment, the bank bailout despite 90+% of the calls being against and the other 10% being a huge FUCK NO, the immoral wars in the middle east, 9-11, Vietnam, the Deep State assassination of JFK, RFK, and countless others…..I think you get the picture. The same puppetmasters behind all of it, will also be in charge at the Convention.
You are exactly right about the Constitution resulting from a runaway Continental Congress, but they didn’t have an Article V process to follow. If fact they were inventing that Article, along with the rest of the Constitution, without any official (legal) guidelines. So they were just making stuff up on the fly, and let it get out of control. But there is no way that an Article V Convention can get out of control as long as they follow Article V. Of course there is always the danger that they ignore the Article, just as the federal government routinely ignores any part of the Constitution that it wants to ignore, but I think there is less danger of that with at least 38 individual states being involved. With that many states involved there will be plenty of checks and balances.
I would be extremely worried about having a Constitutional Convention today. The reason being is that the American public, and its politicians are simply too ignorant of Constitutional and government theory. The original Constitution was amazingly well designed and thought out. Today popular sentiment can be easily swayed to do stupid things like eliminate the electoral college. We are simply not ready to have a Constitutional Convention now. We do however need to seriously begin to re-educate our population on Constitutional history and the political spectrum. Most people do not even understand that the political spectrum is based on the relationship between government and the individual. The difference between the conservative end of the political spectrum and the liberal end is based on the issue of individual sovereignty. A true conservative believes first and foremost that the individual has self ownership and is therefore a sovereign individual, and that government is the servant of the people. They also believe that power placed in government trust is very dangerous and will without doubt be misused and result in infringements of the individuals rights. Liberals on the other hand believe the individual is subservient to the State, and the State is sovereign, having nearly absolute authority over the individual. They believe the State gives rights to the citizens at its pleasure. In short they believe in a modern day feudal system with the King being replaced by the State.
Not 1 in ten thousand people understand this simple basis of the political spectrum.
Brilliant comment.
And parents being replaced by the state as well….sadly.
Just one last point about secession.
From what I have seen from the parasites that infest even the lowliest of elected positions at the city level (I live in a relatively new city of around 35,000 residents), they all seem to aspire to higher political office. For those that love the state, maybe the state legislature is as far as they want to go. For those in the legislature, DC is the place they want to be. Supporting secession would be the quickest way to end that kind of higher aspiration. These people do not do ANYTHING for anyone other than themselves.
And frankly, I don’t even truly want to be governed by the idiots that run our little city (my wife and I voted AGAINST cityhood and continue to oppose it verbally every chance we get). I sure as hell am not a fan of the current state government or the liberal POS that claims to be my “state representative.”