ARTICLE V CONVENTION? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!

[Bob Russell]

There are many people, some who erroneously call themselves conservatives, panting at the idea of and calling for a Constitutional Convention as a resolution to the dilemma of politicians ignoring and violating the current document.  What those poor, demented fools don't understand, despite my numerous attempts to enlighten them, is that the ruling class political elitists will either abolish the current document altogether, which is the most likely outcome, or continue to ignore any restraints on their power.  Power hungry despots, if the Article V idea were to succeed, will only continue the treasonous actions they currently engage in because they hold We the People and the idea of God-given rights to be absurd at the best and dangerous to their absolute power at worst.  Tyrants like barak obama, harry reid, nancy pelosi, mitch mcconnell, and their henchmen see themselves as better, smarter, and more deserving of power than the "unwashed masses" of peasants called We the People and will simply ignore any addendums an Article V would put on them.  The only solutions to our current situation are a return to the Judeo/Christian precepts the nation was founded on or a full blown rebellion as our founders went through, and that rebellion on the doorstep. 

read more:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2016/01/article-v-convention-i...

[jack ludwig]

I frankly do not see the argument that repealing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments changes the country for the better. Frankly, I can't even see a convincing argument for the purpose of repealing any of these amendments. With those two points raised, I don't see the possibility of Article V ever being used.

[M]

Ok Jack,

I'll try again to explain why. First, the 14th was designed specifically to insure the Freed Slaves got citizenship and voting rights. all else has been tacked on by twisting the meaning of the amendment and using the three words ( "No State Shall") to make the Federal Government superior to the states and abrogating the sections of the Constitution like the 9th and 10th amendments taking away their power by dint of those three words. For a more complete explanation see; http://www.14thamendment.us/ Read through it and visit all the links within it for a complete and comprehensive and detailed timeline of the abuses it has caused. Inj fact it is the Constitutional authority the progressive faction uses to do the things they are doing. Removing it would only take away that legalism and return the power intended for the people and the States back to them along with re-instituting the original checks and balances the Founders incorporated in the Constitution.

The 16th was put in play because the Supreme Court declared the Congress law for an income tax unconstitutional because it had no authority until the 16th was ratified since it went against the Apportioned requirement in the Constitution.

The 17th broke out the Senators from under the direct control of their State Legislatures as the founders intended with the "Great Compromise" and allowed them to become in essence Free Agents responsible only to their party's agendas. Remember it's the House that is the Peoples Representative in Congress, and the Senators now elected by the people still only represent only the interests of their party and their party's Crony Capitalists not the people who elected them.

[Bob Russell]

M, 

I was just about to explain these things and then read your very well-stated response.  WELL DONE, you explained it very well.

[jack ludwig]

M, without the 14th amendment, no one would be a citizen of the United States and all parts of the constitution would be a worthless document. Without the defining how citizenship is achieved and protected, how is anyone able to obtain such status? You do agree the government needs a way to fund its obligations. If the income tax is not the appropriate way the people to fund the government, why not just offer a better way. The income tax would just die on its own if it is not being used why bother at this time to get a repeal of the 16th amendment? Corruption can be done at any level. If you move the appointment of the senators back to the state responsibility all efforts to corrupt that process would begin immediately. 

[Gene Duncan]

Hello Jack

I do more reading than posting, but I could not let this post side without giving someone a second chance to clarify.  

M, without the 14th amendment, no one would be a citizen of the United States and all parts of the constitution would be a worthless document.

That..... Is a scary quote! Have you ever consider the preamble to the USC a part of the document? Example: “We The People” it stipulates that the People of the States are United in forming a more perfect Union! There by creating.... the United States.

[jack ludwig]

There no argument from me on that statement M, we the people joined together to form the perfect Union the United States of America. However, that alone does not change my point about citizenship without the 14th amendment. Prior to the 14th amendment, every man living in America was we the people.

[Rhodes]

Why would anyone wish to be a citizen of the US?

People considered themselves and were indeed citizens of their state, the state was a member of the federalist union established in the Constitution. 

That was as I should point out the entire reason for the 14th, to end the tie to states and form the tie to the US. It was not a thing that should have been done but such was the mindset of reconstruction.

[M]

Absolutely correct Rhodes. Citizenship was a State based notion. every State technically is a Sovereign Nation unto itself. At least that is what the Founders believed in the Articles of the Confederation of the Perpetual Union of the United States and later in the Constitution. The term state was then used interchangeably with the same meaning as the Nation States of Europe.  The American States are just banded together for mutual protection and open commerce between them. Originally it was intended that the States decide what their laws were to be and if a person objected to the laws they were free to move to a State where they agreed with the laws. Even the Bill of Rights were not binding to the States originally. Every State has it's own Constitution that used to decide how their individual laws were supposed to be. The Constitution was what constrained the Federal Government, and what it was allowed to do by the permission of the States. Furthermore the 10th amendment was based on the individual sovereignty of the States and allowed them to nullify objectionable laws passed by the Federal Government. That can no longer be said as true because of the 14th.

[M]

Jack,

Corruption flourishes when the people disregard their responsibility to oversee their representatives at any level and just take for granted the representatives will continue to work for them. However to address your statement that returning the Senators to the control of their State Legislatures falls into the imposed belief that the Senators directly are supposed to represent the people. In fact the Senators are supposed to represent their State Legislatures regards in Congress. It's up to the people to ride roughshod over their state Legislators and compel them to properly represent them. Remind yourself about the fact that the people have much more direct control over their State legislators than their Congressional ones just as they have immensly more over their local representatives than their state ones.

[Gene Duncan]

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying about the Art V.  Permit me to add……There must be enforceable consequences to the action, whether they are the perceived consequences of the Christians or the election cycle of our Republican form. No matter what you are trying to enforce or protect, the violators must feel the wrath of the consequences to their actions.

I hope and I pray, that we can avoid the other consequence…rebellion!

[M]

Gene, Jack, and Rhodes;

Because the young United States followed British common law, it accepted the rule of jus soli, or place of birth. As early as 1790, Congress recognized the rule of jus sanguinis, or blood relationship, by passing laws giving citizenship to a child born in a foreign country if the father was a citizen of the United States.

Rhodes has the explanation that matches the founders by remarking about the citizens of the various States At that time and prior to the 14th Amendment the United States was the Federal Government which was subservient to the various state Governments. It was done this way so the various states could choose their own direction and laws and social principles of everyday life. 

The Constitution was primarily the leash that prevented the Feds from making laws that would overrule the will of the people and the states. Don't forget the States themselves are Sovereign nations unto themselves, and the union between them is for mutual protection as the Founders considered the issue. The 14th usurped that Sovereignty.

One side note;

The 14th Amendment was passed to guarantee citizenship to blacks who were freed from slavery after the Civil War (13th Amendment, 1865). The amendment made the rule of jus soli(place of birth) a law for all U.S. citizens. This means that any child born in the United States becomes a citizen at birth, even if its parents are aliens. (However, the rule does not apply to children born to foreign diplomats or United Nations officials.) 

(Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]¹³. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401 For Chinese it was In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case.

The 14th Amendment does not include jus sanguinis. American citizenship acquired at birth in a foreign nation is usually determined by the law that is in effect at the time the child is born. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, amended in 1965, 1976, and 1978, gives the requirements.

The 14th Amendment does not include jus sanguinis. American citizenship acquired at birth in a foreign nation is usually determined by the law that is in effect at the time the child is born. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, amended in 1965, 1976, and 1978, gives the requirements.For a child born on or after December 24, 1952, both parents must have been American citizens. In addition, one parent must have lived in the United States for ten years (and for at least five years after the age of 14) before the birth of the child.

One final thought on the subject;

The United States Constitution, drafted in 1787, did not explain citizenship, but it did mention "citizens of the States" and a "citizen of the United States." Citizens of the United States became entitled to the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and its later amendments. Among these rights were the right to vote, own property, seek elective office, and to be protected by the laws of the land.

[jack ludwig]

without clearly defining how a citizen becomes a citizen of the United States no one can truly be a citizen with respect to the constitution and the constitution is the supreme law which we all agreed to bound our union and per the constitution holds supreme authority over every law including state laws. With respect to corruption at the state level, local election and politics are ruled by a very small segment of the population of each state. There is significantly less political activism at the state level then at the federal level, although both are very low participation. Corruption at the state level is much easier to accomplish and to control and the state legislation represents only those that work the system to their advantage. The money will influence anyone at any level. Money equals power and power equal more money.