WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH Part-2

[M]

NUMBER FIVE:

Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last [Constitutionally] passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.

Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 

Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.

Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     

Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  

Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.

EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  

The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17^th Amendment.   Hence, my “NUMBERS ONE AND FOUR”.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  

This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, and “emergency”.

>

NUMBER SIX:  

Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.

Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  

Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 

 

EXPLANATION:

Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense.  

>

NUMBER SEVEN:

Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.

Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.

Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.

Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

 

EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.

This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it,   almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  

In the past when immigrants arrived they were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept. Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal ‘niceties’.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine

>

NUMBER EIGHT:     

Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; and on their persons; regardless of Federal, State or Local Laws to the contrary.

Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation or Order.

Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.

 

EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If a State or city can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can a State or city not also neuter?

>

NUMBER NINE:

Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  

Section Two:   Neither Section One of this amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.     

 

EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious 

practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.

 

I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.  "My proposed amendments are NOT designed to 'change' the Constitution.   Rather, they are designed to RESTORE, ARMOR, AND REINFORCE the Original Intent of the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders.   Knowing that you will understand."

 

Oren Long

 

See Part 1 at; http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2482704%3ABlog...

[M]

Carry over from part 1 by Oren Long;

M,

I used to respond to posts from people like Tom, but don't anymore.   When I was on the Tea Party Site and advocated for an Article V COS I frequently encountered people who were dead set against a COS, but had only a passing knowledge of how it would work and/or the built in safety mechanisms.   No matter how many times I patiently tried to explain the facts, they were unmoved.   Their minds were made up; don't confuse them with the facts.   Tom will never change his mind and I have better things to do.

That said, I want to delve deeper into one of the main anti-COS arguments and why it is false (you pointed out why the AOC were "unfixable").   One of the favorite arguments of the anti-COS crowd is that the Founders "threw away" the AOC and replaced them with the Constitution, so why couldn't an Article V COS do the same thing (throw away the Constitution) and unilaterally impose a radically new form of government?   

First, an Article V COS gains its underlying authority from the Constitution.   If a COS tried to supplant the Constitution with something radically different, it would be neutering its own underlying authority, without which, the Convention, itself, would go "poof" and cease to exist.

Second, the State COS Resolutions specifically state the reason for a Convention, to wit, "To draft amendments to limit the size, scope, power, reach, authority, and jurisdiction of the Federal Government".   Ergo, any amendments drafted that fall outside of this mandate would be ruled "out of order" and would not be considered.

Third, we must remember exactly what the AOC really were.   After the Revolution, there was no "America" as we think of her.   There were no "States" as we think of them.   The Colonies had just thrown off a strong, central government (England) and were not about to impose upon themselves another strong, central government.   What we really had was 13 separate, independent, sovereign, NATION-STATES.   In other words, there were 13 separate COUNTRIES, not States.   They had their own customs, laws, money, etc.   They were very jealous of their independence and sovereignty.   Many imposed tariffs on goods coming from their own neighbors.   Many refused to financially support Congress.   Congress could not pass laws that applied "nationally" (there was no "nation").   Some even threatened war with other "States".   Bottom line, the AOC were essentially a "Treaty" between 13 independent countries and, like all Treaties, could not be modified without the consent of ALL the sig

natories.

Fourth, all the Founders did -- ALL THEY DID -- was to set aside a Treaty (which wasn't working) and supplant it with a form of government that, FOR THE FIRST TIME, united the 13 separate countries into one.   This is evidenced by three things.   1) The Constitution is "The Constitution of the UNITED States", indicating that it, for the first time, UNITED the aforementioned separate countries into one nation.   2)  The AOC are the "Articles of CONFEDERATION", indicating a loose confederation of Nation-States, primarily for mutual defense.   3)  The above is further indicated in the National Motto itself, "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One).   

I hope this helps when you debate the anti-COS crowd.

Oren