Convention of States Would Empower the People • Thomas Sowell

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

Who's to blame? The corporations for playing the game in order to survive or the politicians for allowing the game to be played in the first place?

Who knows who first set it all up ... that question likely goes back as far as Rome or Athens or further ... Mesopotamia? Wherever there have been officials who have the power to make decisions binding as law and those who could benefit from those decision to the detriment of their competitors, that game has been played.

What needs to happen is a stripping of the body of law back to its base to put everyone back on even footing among other things. Remove the complexities that temp people to try to make loopholes.

Yes, the existence of preference and political graft is probably not an extinguishable feature of human society.

The best defense must be to minimize complexity and authority.

I have focused on eliminating the federal income tax on the premise that the current level of taxation could be shifted back to the states. The idea being that citizens could then vote with their feet choosing to live in the states with the best tax codes which will tend to gradually decrease the total taxes collected in an organic and decentralized process. Not that there won't be a lot of resistance, such power and influence isn't easy to deprecate.

The result would be the returning of the actual purse strings of the federal government back to the states and restoring state representation in the senate by repealing the 17th amendment.

The body of federal law then becomes the remaining issue. I had the idea that the first step would be a moratorium on new legislation. Next, a complete reading aloud by congress of all legislation voted up or down. This would cut reams of garbage law from the books and would keep them busy well into the next decade.

Anyway, that's as far as I have gone with a tangible strategic plan that is both possible and effective.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp
Remove the complexities that tempt people to try to make loopholes, and tar and feather any who would dare try.

Fixed it for ya. How's that?

Neither Governor Abbott or a President Rubio have any article V authority to intervene in a convention process. How can either of them say they support the Constitution when the are attempting to circumvent the convention process by putting undue pressure on State legislatures to do something multiple State houses have opposed because of the inherent danger that a convention threatens. That threat is giving us a constitution that does not recognize our unalienable rights. One such replacement constitution is, The Constitution for The NewStates of America. www.sweetliberty.org...

A concern is that a convention can not be limited in its scope as it is Sovereign over and above all State legislatures and Congress. It has the exclusive right to create any proposed amendments. This means that any alleged petitions with alleged amendments whether subject specific, general subject matter, or convention restrictive are invalid.

Mr. Sowell would do America a great service should he do a lot more research of the history and opposing views on this all important subject and offer a widely advertised retraction of his support for a constitutional convention.

Some of that research can be found below.

In considering amendments to the new constitution there was debate on what mode of amending it was more desirable, through Congress’ proposals, or through a convention. In a letter to George Lee Turberville dated November 2, 1788, James Madison affirmed the general mood as he said, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second.” They wisely chose the through Congress mode.

At Farrand’s Records Volume 2, p. 632 - RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENVENTION, South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney summed up perfectly the mood of the convention on a properly applied for Article V Convention when he said, “Nothing but confusion & contrariety could spring from the experiment. The States will never agree in their plans--- And the Deputies to a second Convention coming together under the discordant impressions of their Constituents, will never agree.” Pinckney then said, “Conventions are serious things and ought not to be repeated.”

Convention delegates once convened are a Sovereign body superior to the legislatures from the States, and Congress, or any other gathering of the same. Try as they will, State legislatures and Congress no matter how assembled, do not have any authority to impose rules on a body superior to themselves by legislation or by a pseudo-superior pseudo-official organization such as the Assembly of State Legislatures (See article link below.). By Constitutional Article V dictates or the lack there of, that purview is exclusively restricted to the convention itself.

Assembly of State Legislatures Changes Article V Text in Call for "Convention of States"
www.thenewamerican.com...

Article V Convention Used in Attempt to Change Our Constitution (1 of 2)
hubpages.com...

Article V Convention Used in Attempt to Change Our Constitution (2 of 2)
hubpages.com...

Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
www.thenewamerican.com...

The Other Side of the Article V Convention Issue

Throughout the Country, those of us who are warning of the dangers of an Article V convention are marginalized, ridiculed, smeared, shut out of meetings, and barred from speaking in public forums. THIS short essay from the Principled Policy Blog describes what we face every day.
publiushuldah.wordpress.com...

a reply to: AlexanderReagan

First of all, I am delighted and honored to have your first post, thank you for participating.

I have similar concerns about open ended conventions. My idea has been to limit any alterations to the constitution to repeals somehow. The problem is that I don't know how to do that, yet. I thought a plebiscite for a wholesale repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments to be the only way to establish the strictly limited changes I think will be constructive.

Mind you, Mr. Sowell is an economist, not a constitutional scholar so I can forgive his limited understanding.

I would ordinarily not give much credence to convention advocates for this reason but for Sowell's surprisingly convincing argument.