I think we should first of all recognize Dr. Malone for the brave and calm warrior he is. He wades fearlessly and calmly into debate, not away from it. As a COS supporter, I am very grateful for his level and open approach the COS debate.
Life isn't without risk. As a doctor myself I'm trained to weigh risk, benefit and other options. When I look at ways to save my country, I would ask any citizen: what is your alternative? How are elections working for you? Do you see the Fed allowing more reliable, lobbyist-free elections that will result in adherence to the constitution? If you are terrified by the power concentrated in the POTUS, SCOTUS, Senate President Pro-tem and House Speaker (total of 12 individuals who can wield power limited only by elections that just 3 of them are subject to), do you think they'll relinquish the power they have granted themselves to run roughshod over the constitution? When you see the highly concentrated power they hold, wouldn't you be less terrified of a convention where the power is more thinly spread, subjects limited, and the product requiring approval of 38 state legislatures? Don't you think lobbyists would have more trouble buying off 26 state delegations and 38 legislatures? There seems no alternative, and the possible benefits clearly outweigh the minimal risks. Doing what we done so far will spiral into oblivion. And the founding fathers agreed.
We need SERIOUS, voter-approved campaign finance reform. As it is now, our vote and the salaries and perks we pay for with our labor, are just the stepping stone to the Big Time, the "Donor Class". From then on, it's just lies, propaganda, betrayal and the next election, when it happens all over again.
We also need to define treason and sedition more narrowly, and prosecute vigorously.
And after, look into reducing congressional districts to 50,000, reps working from their home district, telecommuting, Senators from their respective capitols.
I could not agree more. I'm a ranked-choice voting advocate, and love the idea of political spending accounts financed by the state, given equally to everyone, with use-it-or-lose-it rules, and restriction to candidates that you can vote for, and candidates only can get cash from those accounts. Combine that with a law limiting media purchases mentioning candidates to the candidates themselves. That would isolate government form the market that it must regulate.
I’m strongly against ranked choice voting for the simple reason one person’s vote should only be for one candidate, not two or more. Ranked choice voting provides an additional means for political party shenanigans to undermine the integrity of elections.
I think we may have different definitions of RCV. What I mean by RCV is that voters rank the candidates, and if their 1st choice candidate gets the fewest 1st place votes, their vote gets redistributed to their 2nd choice, and so on until the compromise candidate is identified. Every voter only gets 1 vote. IT's that ability of RCV to find a compromise candidate that is its strength. RCV actually reduces the power of party bosses as primaries become unnecessary (reducing the cost of elections and lobbyists power), and prevents vote splitting leading to minority-supported candidates.
Have you ever seen a leftist who wanted to dilute government power as I have advocated? RCV is supported by many freedom groups, opposed by most "leftist" or communist organizations. I think from your writing you may have a different understanding of how RCV works.
Lenin called those that did their work for the communists "useful idiots" because these kind of people put gimmicks ahead of common sense "republican" principles. The Liberals/Marxists at NBC cheers Rank Choice Voting as a way to stop Make America First candidates in the party Primaries.
Perhaps you will judge a concept not by who proposes it, but by its own merits. Otherwise you are susceptible to NBC talking you out of RCV when it will do exactly the opposite of what NBC says. In fact, RCV allows non-RINO candidates (read, not purchased by lobbyists) to succeed over RINOs and leftist democrats, who are equally purchased. Right now RINOs win primaries because true representative patriots split the freedom vote and the RINOs win with plurality voting. In the general election, Democrats win because libertarians split the freedom vote with RINO's. RCV allows the compromise candidate who most closely represents the composite majority position, and freedom candidates' votes aren't split in the primaries or general elections. That's why NBC tries to scare a MAGA supporter off of it, because it actually works for freedom candidates, like MAGA supporters. Besides, MAGA is hardly a "fringe" but rather the strength and majority of those who call themselves or will voter for Republicans. When you are in the majority, you don't fear RCV; you fear losing votes to vote splitting. I'm actually surprised you took the word of an organization you distrust. I'll have to let you decide whether labelling people, insinuating that people who disagree with you are "useful idiots" and assuming the truth of what your opponent tells you are likely to get you a happy outcome or not. But if you are to make decisions based on something other than a strong understanding of the process and results it has brought so far, recognize that most groups who are trying to reduce the power of lobbyists and the Fed support RCV because they have seen what it does in the places it has been used. It leads to common sense, as the common sense gets served better than plurality voting.
Did you follow the link I included? It would explain all.
It was the intention of our Framers that congressional districts be kept at about 50,000 per district . ...Currently, districts average 750,000 constituents, which makes real communications impossible.
Go to the website, and read it, and delve into the details involved. It's quite fascinating, and would afford US citizens to have a real representative, officing In the district, open to meet with constituents readily,, GET OUT OF THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS!
Funny how some folks can look into a swirling vortex that will churn away all power from the people as some form of an gentle waterfall where no ill awaits them! Tell us Tedious Geek where will the UN and the communists be at this idyllic convention? Will they be hanging around outside waiting with baited breath to ask a COS delegate exiting the convention: "sir, what have you given us, another UN Charter or a Putsch?" https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3417/
Not sure how this link applies to the topic of a convention of states, as a COS is not a constitutional convention and cannot write a new constitution. The UN and communists will only be attending the convention as spectators unless they are appointed to the state delegation by the legislature, which seems less likely than that the Fed will continue selling its power to them directly. To put it simply, which is easier for the UN/WHO/WEF to buy the 12 people in DC who exert absolute power over the US, or the majority of legislatures of 50 states? I fear crony capitalists and communists as much as the next guy. When deciding courses of action, one must look to which process has the most concentrated power, as that is what those tyrants use. The COS process was designed by the founding fathers simply because they realized that concentrated power is a problem that needs a check. Whoever is going to try to buy America out, they will have more trouble doing so at a COS than they do now with the Fed.
Well, I volunteer for COS, isn nearly everyone working for COS does. COS is a true grass-roots organization, and none of those I work with, even our leadership, wants a COS for anything other than to dilute power. COS actually has no power at the convention. We may want it called, but we won't be selected simply because we wanted it called. Legislatures will select the delegates, with no guarantee or even advantage to those of us who wanted it called or volunteered for COS. You seem to know little about our organization, but assume much.
Sep 29, 2022·edited Sep 29, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS
It's hard to read this without it leaving a bad taste in your mouth that you've just been schooled and told to sit in the cheap seats and let your more 'highly educated betters' handle this. The air must be awfully sweet up there. But, to the issue at hand, we think we are a nation of laws, we are, more accurately, a nation of political will. The 'will to power' is stronger on one side than the other, currently.
I have a rule for myself that when reading a "journalistic piece"... If the author can't refrain from using pejoratives in the text, he or she diminishes the credibility of the argument considerably.
Because of my keen interest in this topic, I'll read it and the background articles, but with a bit of a jaded eye.
Please consider the argument itself, not the presentation of that argument. I agree it wasn't worded optimally and spent too much time denigrating JBS (whose positions I agree with on nearly everything else) instead of refuting the argument with facts. Hopefully everyone here will think past the wording to the concepts.
I trust none of it. I have a past history in working both in the political and legal arenas, once you’ve seen the sausage being made, to a certain degree, it can give you a distaste for it. The last several years have been an awakening to the window dressing of ‘We the People’ public participation. The letters I get back from my US representatives are a firm confirmation that neither my opinions nor participation in the process of policy making is appreciated or desired.
For me one of the goals is to change the rules setting the process and procedures within a set of Amendments as a part of our Constitution that will take "trust" out of the equation when it comes time for those working in government or elected to oversee our nation's future success.
When the representative of the Congress of the States is this insulting and demeaning what confidence would there be in any outcome in which this woman was a part?
Oh, wait...I can't have an opinion here because I am not a legal scholar in this area of the Constitution and the law. She has nothing but contempt for my opinion.
But the rest of us in COS don't have contempt for your opinion. I in fact have great respect for the courage you have shown under fire. And I personally don't want anyone form government voting at that COS. Seems there is no such thing as an "expert in government". That would preclude the people from covering themselves. Rita may be a great lawyer; it wouldn't entitle her to have a larger voice than you, and most in COS believe this too. I'm really good at biochemistry, anatomy and physics. That shouldn't ever obligate you to follow my medical advice. So don't let any "expert" threaten you out of a course of action that is reasonable to you after debate.
You'll have to pardon me in that after two years of "experts" that have lost their lustre to me. In fact I am increasingly resistant to anyone claiming to be an "expert."
I am currently taking a deep dive into nutrition, obesity, Diabetes Type 2, and a variety of Western health maladies. Most of this was caused by dietary advice from "experts" starting with Ancel Keys in the mid 1950's, the American Heart Association, The American Diabetes Association and the government's food pyramid.
Well I'm a functional family medicine physician so you can bet I don't kneel to any self-proclaimed expert, and I'm glad to hear you won't either. I've seen the tragedy that deferring your thought to "experts" leads to. In fact, when one of my colleagues declares himself an "expert" all I hear is "I'm self-absorbed, don't trust my judgement". I completely agree that what the FDA DOA call a food pyramid is sales and nothing more. What I teach my pts is nothing like what the government espouses, and I encourage that they debate me to see if what I advise makes sense. By my estimate about 1/4 of chronic disease has nutritional excess as a cause, and 1/4 has nutritional deficiency, none of which is addressed by these "experts". When I get asked at my lectures if I consider myself an expert, I ask them if they consider me so, as my opinion on the matter doesn't matter. I just tell folks "I read about this topic a lot". Always be the judge of the sources you choose to trust and distrust, including me!
not sure which side you mean, but with the recent experience of effective propaganda and paid provocateurs used against the populace, we would have to pray for more egalitarian elected officials working on it.
Oh yeah? Where exactly do we find these "egalitarian elected officials?" How would they be any different from the ones we currently have who we can't respect or trust?
This movement, more than anything, is a movement to put power back in the states. The wise and deliberative senators, as the branch was suppose to be, has been compromised and captured. Having the states do it in this way is why article 5 is in the constitution, it's for break the glass and get out the fire extinguisher moment we find ourselves currently in.
Sorry, I have no faith in the majority of those who would attend this Convention and make the decisions. None.
For every decent Ron DeSantis, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul that attended there would be 10 times that many who were nothing more than political opportunists. Then there is the question of compliance. There isn't compliance now, or a mindset to leave the country in good shape for posterity. The current crop of political operatives want to feather their nests and maintain power, the future be damned.
I think AJ's point was like mine... That the quality of the law is not at fault, but the poor character of most of those in office!
I too wonder if those who violate the letter and the spirit of our current Constitution with such umpunity, would obey any new amendments we drafted. They mean to rule us by force.
We need to revert back to the original. That’s really all we need to do. The whole system has been perverted and changed over the years. The courts need to adhere to an Originalist interpretation, rather than this “living and breathing” nonsense.
Yes. We don't need to change the words in the Constitution nearly as much as we need representatives--and citizens--that demand the words that already on paper actually be adhered to. Once that heavy lifting is done, then it might be time to change some words.
With the advent of COVID exacerbating the situation to the point of in-your-face blatantcy, it is flamingly obvious that nearly every one of the BILL of Rights Articles is being systematically and egregiously violated. We are a nation of IGNORED Laws!
Well, 19 states don't think it's wishful thinking already. They realize that a COS can bring about that change. Namely, only a COS will change SCOTUS rulings that legalized campaign cash purchase of political office. Congress will never propose a change that prevents them from selling their own power.
But because the power would be diluted, I believe the outcome would be better. Remember, this is a congress of 550 people already perverted by power compared to 50 state legislatures-worth of people, who are less attractive to lobbyists. And most at the convention won't be lobbyist influenced. And if you start with the premise that everyone is corrupt, then no solution works. I believe the most likely solution is one that diffuses power, and a COS does that better than all other solutions. Elections are gross tools. Necessary tools I agree, but as a stand-alone tool they are too inaccurate and slow to respond. And they aren't working now. I understand your fear though. Here in IN we are working so that no one in government may go to the COS as a delegate.
Actually much could be accomplished by SCOTUS simply by reversing maybe 1/2 dozen or so bad decisions by SCOTUS. A plethora of really stinko decisions based on these 1/2 dozen decisions would be instantly nullified. This was the opinion I heard voiced some time ago and it makes sense to me
The United States Constitutional was written in plain unambiguous English, simple enough for any person with a good grammar school education and common intelligence to understand. The United States Constitution enumerated very limited grants of power to the federal government. Most of the federal alphabet agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, are blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution grants no power to the federal government over health or education. Eliminating just those two branches of the federal bureaucracy would have a dramatic impact upon reducing the federal budget, not to mention the undue influence over peoples’ lives that all these federal alphabet agencies enjoin. Volumes of books could be written on the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government.
Not sure but think one example was the commerce clause decision coerced from SCOTUS by fdr. Knock down that one and I think the thugs of the civil rights div. of the doj would be looking for work.
Yes, many of the worst decisions were actually not based on the Originalist interpretation of the Constitution but rather, an activist judge’s idea of how it should be interpreted. This shouldn’t even be an option. Originalism vs. NonOriginalism is a fight we need to win. Most people have no idea these two camps even exist.
One of the problems with today's Left is that that the are basically lawless. They know what the constitution says. They know what it means. They will go to elaborate lengths to willfully misinterpret what is written. Adding new amendments will not change the behavior of the leftists in the legislature or the court rooms.
I don't think that a convention of states will have an impact until after the leftists and their RINO lackeys have lost power. It is probably a good idea to formalize a conservative victory with some constitutional changes at that time. I don't think that it will be successful until the root problem - which is leftists and their autocratic, globalist philosophy - is fully addressed.
I don't have a roadmap for how the left is defeated - but giving them more laws to ignore is not sufficient.
Trump is blowing out expectations. It’s clear he’s going to roll to victory. Do we think that these people would just sit back and respect the votes of the people? What are you morally justified to do to stop LITERALLY HITLER from winning? Would you take advantage of the (illegally) recently created dropbox rules that prevent a real investigation to the ballot in the bottom of the box — even if it meant suspiciously stopping the vote counting just before Trump claims enough states to win? After all, lots of good money was spent to ensure dropboxes were there if they were needed.
Allowing Trump to win would ruin everything you’ve been working toward — so you ‘find’ exactly enough ballots in exactly the right places to swing exactly the right states, right when you need to find them.
While the media pretends the election was a blowout, (Or as some people say, “We had an election, it wasn’t particularly close, and now Joe Biden is president.”) the state-by-state numbers show just how close it was. About 20,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, with Pennsylvania about 80,000 votes in a much larger state. Those 57 Electoral College votes were more than enough to swing the election.
Do we honestly think that these votes couldn’t and/or wouldn’t be manufactured after the polls closed and the numbers started rolling in? (This is exactly what the data suggests, with Biden getting swing-state after-polling-close votes in ratios not seen anywhere else in the country. Anywhere. In. The. Country.) Especially with new rules that blanket the countryside with ‘legal’ ballots that haven’t been (and obviously won’t be) counted? If this were happening in another country and led to somebody like Saddam Hussein winning an election, there’s no doubt that we would decry the election as fraudulent.
All of it PROVES how stupid are the Leftists since many of them actually believe that an Alzheimer’s-out basement-dweller pedophile candidate who couldn't get more than 200 people to come to his rare rallies (and most of those were media) could have garnered even MORE votes than Obama had! One would have to have an I.Q. of less than 70 (about like AOC or Omar!) to buy that one!!!! Moron level!
When the left forgot what women and men were. When they started pushing sex change on minors, I thought the non-crazy folks would figure out what was going on. Alas, most people are still lost.
oh, I see. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying. I believe we’d be taking a risk with each state voting on each proposed amendment, but I would trust the process if very thoughtful new amendments can be formulated.
Thanks, Rita, for providing evidence and useful citations for people to go back to as they consider both sides of this. What I didn't realize until I studied the Constitution and took some classes, is that we don't have to "guess" what our Founders intended. There are reams of notes and writings as they debated and constructed our Constitution. This isn't a mystery as some would have us think. But above all, I think we need to remember that the clock is ticking and as we continue to be divided on this topic, we are losing what we have left of the Constitution. At some point, we need to quit being fearful and take some action. If you keep trying the same thing over and over, you'll get the same outcome. I am not comfortable living in a socialist or worse country and we aren't far away.
A "Convention of States" is what is proposed, not a "Constitutional Convention". They are very different. The first can only propose Amendments, the latter can rewrite the whole Constitution.
Amendments coming out of a COS have to be ratified by 38 states.
My personal favorite "bad Amendment" is number 17, popular election of Senators. If you are unfamiliar with this (most people are!) go read it. Senators were intended to represent the interests of their individual States, for States to look out for themselves, so to say. Senators were appointed by State legislatures and served at their pleasure. If a Senator got out of line, they could be immediately recalled by their State's legislature. There were no guaranteed terms and no term limits on Senators. Let this sink in and let sink in how things work, today, in contrast.
You're right — a perfect example of how easy it is to really screw up our country with just a small change from the plan the Founding Fathers so carefully crafted!
I have seen organizations advocating both, but you're correct that this group is the former. Although I don't believe we even need that to propose Amendments, do we?
Well, Congress can propose anything it wants. But if what is needed is a reduction in power concentration, and power corrupts, then what reason is there to believe that Congress will ever propose amendments to reduce their power? As soon as we elect someone the power will corrupt them too, and they won't propose the amendments. Given that it's now "legal" in SCOTUS's eyes to buy politicians with campaign cash, the only way to get elections cleaned up is with a COS which can propose amendments that reverse Citizens United and other rulings that allow lobbying. My viewpoint that makes COS necessary.
I agree with half of what you say -- they will never decrease their own power. However, in my view CU was ruled correctly, because otherwise you'd have the government being allowed to determine what is allowable speech.
Of course, money is not "speech." Money is money, a car is a car, and a ribbon is a ribbon. These are objects, not speech. But all of these objects, and many more besides, can be used to facilitate free speech. Consider a car. The government can lawfully impose all sorts of restrictions on how, when and where we can drive a car, and no one would argue that those restrictions implicate the First Amendment.
But suppose a city enacts a law prohibiting any person to drive a car in order to get to a political demonstration. Such a law would clearly implicate the First Amendment, not because a car is speech, but because the law restricts the use of a car for speech purposes.
Similarly, a ribbon is a ribbon. A ribbon is not speech. But a law that prohibits anyone to wear a pink ribbon for expressive purposes would clearly implicate the First Amendment, because it restricts the use of a ribbon for speech purposes.
Like a car or a ribbon, money is not speech. But when government regulates the use of money for speech purposes, it implicates the First Amendment. Suppose, for example, an individual at an Occupy protest burns a dollar bill to convey her disdain for corporate America. A dollar bill is not speech, fire is not speech, but a government law prohbiting any person to burn money as a symbolic expression of opposition to corporate America would surely implicate the First Amendment.
The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Of course, this shows the fragility and variability of the tool we call language. At issue is not whether money can be used for speech, but whether it can be used for things other than speech too. it clearly can, such as bribery. And since SCOTUS made no distinction that b/c of those other uses it can be regulated, we have a problem. And we can solve that problem with COS, revolution, or praying that Congress will propose that amendment. I like COS.
While it is tempting to say SCOTUS use the tool correctly, I think that the tool is only useful when it serves the majority interpretation at the time of the writing. As political campaigns didn't exist in 1787, and no one could equate speech and campaign cash, the ruling was not proper. Isn't this tool so interesting that we have this different opinion of its use, despite wanting the same outcome?
Luckily, the founders knew language was fragile and variable, and that they hadn't foreseen all its uses, and left us an out clause!
I'm no scholar in any shape or form. I believe it would be opening a can of worms.
Why can't we follow the Constitution? Isn't that the issue? Congress overspends. An amendment forcing a balanced budget would lead to massive tax increases.
One must always look at what the unintended consequences would be. Always, because there always are unintended consequences.
I agree that the personal attacks did not do her any favors. Jill is a bit angry at me for even publishing this rather than sending it back to have those taken out. But my thinking was that this is what she chose to say and how to say it. So I should let her make her case.
I did not feel that the author made any personal attacks. I think she could have been even more polite and balanced, but it seemed very fair and appropriate to me that she covers the credentials of those who are offering their opinions on the topic. Having been previously on the “left” and opposed to the COS without really knowing much about it, I can understand if she’s been feeling frustrated by those of us who have been closed-minded rather than curious about the issue. I’m impressed and deeply grateful that you’ve chosen to give us the opportunity to learn about the issue. This is just my two cents worth, but I’m glad that you let her address the issue in the way that she chose to address it.
It's hardly upon you to work for a cause you have't accepted. And you and Jill have already accepted a great cause. While I wish it had been written differently, I agree with you. The debate moderator isn't supposed to help one side or the other. I only hope that others will be as insightful as you are, and judge the concept, not the person defending it.
"An amendment forcing a balanced budget would lead to massive tax increases"
You are right, and those massive tax increases just might get those Congressfolks voted out of office. That is entirely the point. If the borrowing were not possible, that would facilitate push back on those borrowing and blowing all the money.
Anybody remember the 2011 "Sequester" that was to automatically reduce spending even-handedly? It lasted about 2 years before the Lefties were screaming bloody murder. Spend, spend, spend.
The argument in favor of the COS that rings true to me is that there are phrases in the constitution like “promoting the general welfare” that those who are overreaching use to believe they are acting within the intent of the constitution. Also, letting out debt reach a truly crippling $30 trillion while sweeping billions in taxpayer funds into the pockets of private industry (e.g., for overpriced drugs and vaccines, bailouts for mismanagement, etc) isn’t just a little overspending. Perhaps we should consider whether some very thoughtful amendments could be used to address these issues. I also deeply appreciate the opportunity to debate this issue. I was not previously a COS supporter, but wonder now whether it could have a useful role to play. For one thing, Congress would then be on notice that if they can’t live up to their responsibility to lead responsibly, the states can step in. I’d like to see some proposed very thoughtful amendments. As they say, “the devil is in the details”. I too, greatly appreciate the opportunity to consider and debate these issues!
Before we open this can of worms and start writing "some very thoughtful amendments" how about we adhere to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments?
And how do you propose to make the lawless do that. Elections? I think a change in government structure will respond in a more timely fashion. Elections are gross tools. Specifically allowing a majority of state legislatures to over-rule congress on a specific issue is a more precise tool, but that would require an amendment.
I agree she didn't make our case as convincingly, as she decided denigrating the opposition was better than presenting and discussing facts. But as to why we can't follow the constitution, the answer is that power corrupts; and the same number of hands that used to have the power of 13 sparsely populated colonies now has the power of 320 M people. Federal power needs to be more easily revoked than before, but corrupted by that power those with it will never admit reduced and more easily checked power is needed, or propose such solutions. And elections won't work either, as you'll elect new people to be corrupted by a system that has power so concentrated it can corrupt anyone who will accept it. That's the reason no one reasonable runs for federal office; reasonable people realize the threat that so much power is to them. So the structure of our government guarantees we will just progress toward either a tyranny and revolution or a COS. I'll take COS.
Sep 29, 2022·edited Sep 29, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS
What do we really know?
1. The Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it. It does not enforce itself. The citizenry voluntarily submits to what it says and agrees to abide by the edicts of those in authority. That's what a civil society is all about.
2. In today's political environment, where certain people feel totally comfortable playing fast and loose with the rules, opening up a process that could potentially provide for and legitimize significant changes needs to be thought through very carefully. The fact that 'smart people' (see the author's list of luminaires) think that the situation can be controlled does NOT mean that they are correct.
3. If push came to shove, my strong feeling is that the Supreme Court would NOT allow the courts to get involved in monitoring the process citing that it was an inherently political process, which means there would be every incentive to make this Convention of States a complete free-for-all.
I understand the frustration everyone has, but the answer is the ballot box -- make convincing arguments as to why policies need to be changed.
The courts have had a MAJOR hand in getting us to this place by deciding significant social issues vs. allowing the people to decide.
Before we start fiddling with the Constitution, let us first demand that the judiciary stop putting their finger on the scales of justice.
=====================
Thanks to Dr. Malone for facilitating this discussion. He will now, no doubt, be blamed for some future Constitutional crisis. Soldier on, Doc! This is your cross to bear, sadly...
Agree. But if 'the answer is the ballot box' we had better make sure it isn't getting stuffed with fake ballots in the middle of the night. Stolen elections have consequences. How do we fix that?
I've come to the conclusion that the pendulum needs to swing back to the Jeffersonian Federalist position as to the power of the states vis-a-vis the Federal government. While I admit that, if I were alive in 1787 I would have sided with Hamilton , Jay and Mason ....the concerns Jefferson argued we consider have now "come home to roost" ... The Federal government can now be likened to England during colonial times .... (and, furthermore, Those in its thrall can be likened to Tories)
But while it is true that there is a constitutional way to address this via Article 5 ....and if we went that rout, I would support it .....there is also a way for the States to push back.....JUST PUSH BACK!!
Every state has its own constitution....it is its own entity with its own powers .....if each one pushes back....the Feds haven't a leg to stand on ....
Desantis is doing this now ....and Kari Lake of AZ and Doug Mastriano of PA promise to do so if they win their elections .....that sort of constitutionally justified defiance can be infectious ...
So I understand the yearning for an A5 convention and will support it if I'm asked ....I think we still have plenty of ways to push back on the Feds at our disposal without having to endure the drama ...
Everyone of us who are citizens live in a state that has its OWN constitution that is said to conform to the Federal constitution .....But if you study our history ....The Federal government was, at its inception, a 10 x 10 mile creation of the Constitution ...only because the Founders realized that if it resided in an existing state, said state would accumulate asymmetrical power vis a vis the others ..
10 x 10 square miles .....look how far we've come since then ....
Just look at how much land the Federal government is now in possession of above ground (land) assets...i.e property
TIME :The Federal Government’s $128 Trillion Stockpile: The Answer to Our Debt Problems?
Why have we allowed this, essentially, foreign entity to control so much of the nations wealth when it has shown itself wholly unworthy of such privilege ?
And guess what??? The Federal governments above ground assets are dwarfed buy the 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive economic zone) that extends to the continental shelf ...
Again, what has our our federal government as it presently is constituted done to deserve such trust??
Those assets need to be returned to the states where they will be closer to "We the people"...so that we can deal with whatever eventual corruption evolves from such a windfall , locally ....closer to the people we can get our hands on ...
10th Amendment .....enforce it ...and return the mundane day to day activities of government to the 'citizens' of the states ...
Unfortunately, the far left is always coming up with corruption that confounds the right.
I've noticed you are our Gandollf, looking to solve the mysteries. Have you investigated the solar geoengineering, direct atmosphere capture, and/or government protocals, regulations, and research?
As I open my comments, I’d like to boast (modestly, of course 😊) that the first cited authority in the rebuttal, Prof Rob Natelson, was my professor at UM School of Law back in the late 80s. Much like how Rush gave voice to the thoughts that had been forming at the time, before Rush there was Prof Natelson - having grown up in a socialist-Marxist environment it was eye opening that my nascent conservative leanings had, indeed, firm groundings.
OK, that said, I posted my support for a Article V Convention of States in response to the previous article and previous to that signed my name in support of that action a couple years ago. My biggest gripe at this time is repeal of the 17th - if the two senators had to answer to the state legislatures that appointed them to the senate vs pimpimg their votes out to the general electorate as the framers designed the House, it is my opinion much of the acrimony and division we’ve come to accept since the 60s would not have happened. The framers set up two separate legislative bodies with, not opposing but perhaps competing, interests that needed to be reconciled in order for legislative action could take effect. With the 17th, both houses now have the same pressures to enact, or not enact, legislation - pimping to the public, while ignoring the impact such action would have on the states themselves.
Oh, sure, there are lots of other actions I’d like to see taken, chief amongst them being term limits (if the elected won’t sit and git after 2 terms, then the law needs to make it so).
The framers gave us a way to take back our government, the states to take back government, let’s not be afraid to trust in the framers wisdom.
". . . term limits (if the elected won’t sit and git after 2 terms, then the law needs to make it so)."
Ah, the "LAW" is VERY specific about how to terminate every two years 435 members of the House of Reps in Article I, section two and one 1/3 of the Senate in section 3.
My goodness, the Framers of the Articles of Confederation had "term limits." The framers thinking on the matter has to be taken into consideration. They did away term limits by law, As you say "we must not be afraid to trust in the Framers wisdom!"
Christian Gomez's article focused in on the label "Convention of States" that Natelson introduced at speaking event in 2010, September 16th a day before Constitution Day.
'I’m going to put our concepts on “reset.”… The Constitution gives the convention a specific name — a convention for proposing amendments — and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention, or a convention of the states.'"
When it comes to the Article V convention method why be afraid to trust in the wisdom of James Madison who feared a second convention by whatever name it is given? Madison knew that any future convention would be the center of big trouble. Madison was wise to "fear" a new convention and used the word "fear."
You have to ask yourself why he said that and also look hard at the ignorance from college professors and their disdain for the Constitution. One such disdainer is Robert P. George who is a COS legal advisor. Gomez nailed him on George's gosh awful rewrite of the Second Amendment. You have to read Robert George's puky, albeit Fascist rewrite of the Framers' manly amendment to congress "shall make NO Law" regarding these 9 areas with the 10th declaring if we forgot anything you can't do that either!
George's wimpy Second Amendment hand must have been shaking when he pulled the trigger on hunters with red flags!
Wow!
here is the tail end of Robert George's amendment: "provided that States and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others. "
You, SR Miller, state that "the framers gave us a way to take back our government, the states to take back government, let’s not be afraid to trust in the framers wisdom."
Article VI has wisdom written all over it! How do we force congress to use Article VI right away?
Given that the process is that an Article 5 Convention can only propose an amendment, that the proposed amendment must be listed on the State petition subject to SCOTUS review, and that like any other proposed amendment, 38 States must ratify, I see no problem with an Article 5 Convention. I appreciate the article being posted here because I had never paid much attention to Article 5 and had been led to believe in junk articles that it was a process to abolish and replace the Constitution, something I would adamantly oppose. But the reality of it is its just a way to do what Congress failed to do in terms of making a proposal for ratification. I'm totally good with this process. JMO of course.
Sep 29, 2022·edited Sep 29, 2022Liked by Robert W Malone MD, MS
Great article! It is good to see both sides. The Constitution was created so that we would have minimal government. There are so many regulations put into place by our Federal government that we are loosing our freedoms.
In my husbands work as a criminal defense attorney.He sees the search and seizure laws broken all the time. They have to have a warrant to search a place or car for drugs yet the police dogs who sniff out drugs to detect if there are drugs and smell drugs, then the police say they have probable cause. No search warrant. Things like this are happening all the time because they want to get the criminal.
The judges are fudging on search and seizure laws as well because they have to get the bad guy.
My husbands complaint is that if they continue down this path, then the rights of citizens don’t matter. Laws are made to keep everyone safe . That means search warrants should be needed. It is so easy now they make a phone call and the warrant is sent via internet. Some choose not to use the warrant and are getting away with this breach of our constitutional rights.
I think term limits on our legislatures would be a good thing. You get senators and representatives in there for over 40 years. Pelosi has been there for way to many years and she thinks that she is untouchable. They have so much power that we loose a compromise. It goes for both parties. They are not there for the greater good.
It's always useful to hear from both sides, or indeed all sides, of an issue. I'm still unconvinced we could control a COS. No, I'm not a lawyer and don't have letters after my name. I'm an 80-year-old political junkie who is MENSA certified and pride myself on being practical. I have every confidence I can make a wise decision given all the facts. At this juncture, with Democrats, their gestapo, and the general judicial system running roughshod over the law and the Constitution as RINOs care less, I would fear for our country should we convene an Article V Convention. As someone else said, we need to take our country back by changing hearts and minds and elect an honest Congress who can effect needed changes including impeaching judges. Our abrupt left turn cannot be corrected by a COS. Thank you, Dr. Malone, for going where angels fear to tread!
I think we should first of all recognize Dr. Malone for the brave and calm warrior he is. He wades fearlessly and calmly into debate, not away from it. As a COS supporter, I am very grateful for his level and open approach the COS debate.
Life isn't without risk. As a doctor myself I'm trained to weigh risk, benefit and other options. When I look at ways to save my country, I would ask any citizen: what is your alternative? How are elections working for you? Do you see the Fed allowing more reliable, lobbyist-free elections that will result in adherence to the constitution? If you are terrified by the power concentrated in the POTUS, SCOTUS, Senate President Pro-tem and House Speaker (total of 12 individuals who can wield power limited only by elections that just 3 of them are subject to), do you think they'll relinquish the power they have granted themselves to run roughshod over the constitution? When you see the highly concentrated power they hold, wouldn't you be less terrified of a convention where the power is more thinly spread, subjects limited, and the product requiring approval of 38 state legislatures? Don't you think lobbyists would have more trouble buying off 26 state delegations and 38 legislatures? There seems no alternative, and the possible benefits clearly outweigh the minimal risks. Doing what we done so far will spiral into oblivion. And the founding fathers agreed.
We need SERIOUS, voter-approved campaign finance reform. As it is now, our vote and the salaries and perks we pay for with our labor, are just the stepping stone to the Big Time, the "Donor Class". From then on, it's just lies, propaganda, betrayal and the next election, when it happens all over again.
We also need to define treason and sedition more narrowly, and prosecute vigorously.
And after, look into reducing congressional districts to 50,000, reps working from their home district, telecommuting, Senators from their respective capitols.
Www.thirty-thousand.org.
I could not agree more. I'm a ranked-choice voting advocate, and love the idea of political spending accounts financed by the state, given equally to everyone, with use-it-or-lose-it rules, and restriction to candidates that you can vote for, and candidates only can get cash from those accounts. Combine that with a law limiting media purchases mentioning candidates to the candidates themselves. That would isolate government form the market that it must regulate.
I’m strongly against ranked choice voting for the simple reason one person’s vote should only be for one candidate, not two or more. Ranked choice voting provides an additional means for political party shenanigans to undermine the integrity of elections.
I think we may have different definitions of RCV. What I mean by RCV is that voters rank the candidates, and if their 1st choice candidate gets the fewest 1st place votes, their vote gets redistributed to their 2nd choice, and so on until the compromise candidate is identified. Every voter only gets 1 vote. IT's that ability of RCV to find a compromise candidate that is its strength. RCV actually reduces the power of party bosses as primaries become unnecessary (reducing the cost of elections and lobbyists power), and prevents vote splitting leading to minority-supported candidates.
I label you Troll.
And you think labelling is a helpful or meaningful part of debate?
Ranked Choice Voting? You have got to be a leftist.
Have you ever seen a leftist who wanted to dilute government power as I have advocated? RCV is supported by many freedom groups, opposed by most "leftist" or communist organizations. I think from your writing you may have a different understanding of how RCV works.
Lenin called those that did their work for the communists "useful idiots" because these kind of people put gimmicks ahead of common sense "republican" principles. The Liberals/Marxists at NBC cheers Rank Choice Voting as a way to stop Make America First candidates in the party Primaries.
NBC wrote: "More open primaries and ranked choice voting formats might be the tools the GOP needs to regain control of the party from the MAGA-fueled fringe element that seems to be driving it off the cliff’s edge." ---- } https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/gop-should-embrace-ranked-choice-voting-palin-alaska-loss-rcna46528
Perhaps you will judge a concept not by who proposes it, but by its own merits. Otherwise you are susceptible to NBC talking you out of RCV when it will do exactly the opposite of what NBC says. In fact, RCV allows non-RINO candidates (read, not purchased by lobbyists) to succeed over RINOs and leftist democrats, who are equally purchased. Right now RINOs win primaries because true representative patriots split the freedom vote and the RINOs win with plurality voting. In the general election, Democrats win because libertarians split the freedom vote with RINO's. RCV allows the compromise candidate who most closely represents the composite majority position, and freedom candidates' votes aren't split in the primaries or general elections. That's why NBC tries to scare a MAGA supporter off of it, because it actually works for freedom candidates, like MAGA supporters. Besides, MAGA is hardly a "fringe" but rather the strength and majority of those who call themselves or will voter for Republicans. When you are in the majority, you don't fear RCV; you fear losing votes to vote splitting. I'm actually surprised you took the word of an organization you distrust. I'll have to let you decide whether labelling people, insinuating that people who disagree with you are "useful idiots" and assuming the truth of what your opponent tells you are likely to get you a happy outcome or not. But if you are to make decisions based on something other than a strong understanding of the process and results it has brought so far, recognize that most groups who are trying to reduce the power of lobbyists and the Fed support RCV because they have seen what it does in the places it has been used. It leads to common sense, as the common sense gets served better than plurality voting.
There are only 435 United States congressionaL districts. Where did you come up with fifty thousand?
Did you follow the link I included? It would explain all.
It was the intention of our Framers that congressional districts be kept at about 50,000 per district . ...Currently, districts average 750,000 constituents, which makes real communications impossible.
Go to the website, and read it, and delve into the details involved. It's quite fascinating, and would afford US citizens to have a real representative, officing In the district, open to meet with constituents readily,, GET OUT OF THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS!
ENJOY, it's pretty cool.
Awesome and spot on!
Funny how some folks can look into a swirling vortex that will churn away all power from the people as some form of an gentle waterfall where no ill awaits them! Tell us Tedious Geek where will the UN and the communists be at this idyllic convention? Will they be hanging around outside waiting with baited breath to ask a COS delegate exiting the convention: "sir, what have you given us, another UN Charter or a Putsch?" https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3417/
Not sure how this link applies to the topic of a convention of states, as a COS is not a constitutional convention and cannot write a new constitution. The UN and communists will only be attending the convention as spectators unless they are appointed to the state delegation by the legislature, which seems less likely than that the Fed will continue selling its power to them directly. To put it simply, which is easier for the UN/WHO/WEF to buy the 12 people in DC who exert absolute power over the US, or the majority of legislatures of 50 states? I fear crony capitalists and communists as much as the next guy. When deciding courses of action, one must look to which process has the most concentrated power, as that is what those tyrants use. The COS process was designed by the founding fathers simply because they realized that concentrated power is a problem that needs a check. Whoever is going to try to buy America out, they will have more trouble doing so at a COS than they do now with the Fed.
"<COS is not a constitutional convention and cannot write a new constitution >" --Tedious Geek
Who told you the COS doesn't want that kind of power?
Well, I volunteer for COS, isn nearly everyone working for COS does. COS is a true grass-roots organization, and none of those I work with, even our leadership, wants a COS for anything other than to dilute power. COS actually has no power at the convention. We may want it called, but we won't be selected simply because we wanted it called. Legislatures will select the delegates, with no guarantee or even advantage to those of us who wanted it called or volunteered for COS. You seem to know little about our organization, but assume much.
It's hard to read this without it leaving a bad taste in your mouth that you've just been schooled and told to sit in the cheap seats and let your more 'highly educated betters' handle this. The air must be awfully sweet up there. But, to the issue at hand, we think we are a nation of laws, we are, more accurately, a nation of political will. The 'will to power' is stronger on one side than the other, currently.
That was the same impression I got. She was insulting, demeaning, and snide.
I have a rule for myself that when reading a "journalistic piece"... If the author can't refrain from using pejoratives in the text, he or she diminishes the credibility of the argument considerably.
Because of my keen interest in this topic, I'll read it and the background articles, but with a bit of a jaded eye.
What more could an intelligent man ask for than that?
Please consider the argument itself, not the presentation of that argument. I agree it wasn't worded optimally and spent too much time denigrating JBS (whose positions I agree with on nearly everything else) instead of refuting the argument with facts. Hopefully everyone here will think past the wording to the concepts.
I trust none of it. I have a past history in working both in the political and legal arenas, once you’ve seen the sausage being made, to a certain degree, it can give you a distaste for it. The last several years have been an awakening to the window dressing of ‘We the People’ public participation. The letters I get back from my US representatives are a firm confirmation that neither my opinions nor participation in the process of policy making is appreciated or desired.
And that's why we need a system change. Right now those in the system don't fear those they represent at all.
For me one of the goals is to change the rules setting the process and procedures within a set of Amendments as a part of our Constitution that will take "trust" out of the equation when it comes time for those working in government or elected to oversee our nation's future success.
When the representative of the Congress of the States is this insulting and demeaning what confidence would there be in any outcome in which this woman was a part?
Oh, wait...I can't have an opinion here because I am not a legal scholar in this area of the Constitution and the law. She has nothing but contempt for my opinion.
But the rest of us in COS don't have contempt for your opinion. I in fact have great respect for the courage you have shown under fire. And I personally don't want anyone form government voting at that COS. Seems there is no such thing as an "expert in government". That would preclude the people from covering themselves. Rita may be a great lawyer; it wouldn't entitle her to have a larger voice than you, and most in COS believe this too. I'm really good at biochemistry, anatomy and physics. That shouldn't ever obligate you to follow my medical advice. So don't let any "expert" threaten you out of a course of action that is reasonable to you after debate.
You'll have to pardon me in that after two years of "experts" that have lost their lustre to me. In fact I am increasingly resistant to anyone claiming to be an "expert."
I am currently taking a deep dive into nutrition, obesity, Diabetes Type 2, and a variety of Western health maladies. Most of this was caused by dietary advice from "experts" starting with Ancel Keys in the mid 1950's, the American Heart Association, The American Diabetes Association and the government's food pyramid.
Experts!!!
Well I'm a functional family medicine physician so you can bet I don't kneel to any self-proclaimed expert, and I'm glad to hear you won't either. I've seen the tragedy that deferring your thought to "experts" leads to. In fact, when one of my colleagues declares himself an "expert" all I hear is "I'm self-absorbed, don't trust my judgement". I completely agree that what the FDA DOA call a food pyramid is sales and nothing more. What I teach my pts is nothing like what the government espouses, and I encourage that they debate me to see if what I advise makes sense. By my estimate about 1/4 of chronic disease has nutritional excess as a cause, and 1/4 has nutritional deficiency, none of which is addressed by these "experts". When I get asked at my lectures if I consider myself an expert, I ask them if they consider me so, as my opinion on the matter doesn't matter. I just tell folks "I read about this topic a lot". Always be the judge of the sources you choose to trust and distrust, including me!
You would find Dr. Ben Bikman's book, "Why We Get Sick" particularly interesting.
not sure which side you mean, but with the recent experience of effective propaganda and paid provocateurs used against the populace, we would have to pray for more egalitarian elected officials working on it.
Oh yeah? Where exactly do we find these "egalitarian elected officials?" How would they be any different from the ones we currently have who we can't respect or trust?
This movement, more than anything, is a movement to put power back in the states. The wise and deliberative senators, as the branch was suppose to be, has been compromised and captured. Having the states do it in this way is why article 5 is in the constitution, it's for break the glass and get out the fire extinguisher moment we find ourselves currently in.
Sorry, I have no faith in the majority of those who would attend this Convention and make the decisions. None.
For every decent Ron DeSantis, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul that attended there would be 10 times that many who were nothing more than political opportunists. Then there is the question of compliance. There isn't compliance now, or a mindset to leave the country in good shape for posterity. The current crop of political operatives want to feather their nests and maintain power, the future be damned.
I think AJ's point was like mine... That the quality of the law is not at fault, but the poor character of most of those in office!
I too wonder if those who violate the letter and the spirit of our current Constitution with such umpunity, would obey any new amendments we drafted. They mean to rule us by force.
that was the implication
We need to revert back to the original. That’s really all we need to do. The whole system has been perverted and changed over the years. The courts need to adhere to an Originalist interpretation, rather than this “living and breathing” nonsense.
Yes. We don't need to change the words in the Constitution nearly as much as we need representatives--and citizens--that demand the words that already on paper actually be adhered to. Once that heavy lifting is done, then it might be time to change some words.
With the advent of COVID exacerbating the situation to the point of in-your-face blatantcy, it is flamingly obvious that nearly every one of the BILL of Rights Articles is being systematically and egregiously violated. We are a nation of IGNORED Laws!
But, that hasn't worked when you throw them right back into a broken system. We need a fix to the system AND good people.
Wishful thinking.
Well, 19 states don't think it's wishful thinking already. They realize that a COS can bring about that change. Namely, only a COS will change SCOTUS rulings that legalized campaign cash purchase of political office. Congress will never propose a change that prevents them from selling their own power.
You really believe this? Oh, there would be change but it won't be for the better.
As long as the same corrupt people are in office and in the bureaucracy there won't be an improved outcome.
But because the power would be diluted, I believe the outcome would be better. Remember, this is a congress of 550 people already perverted by power compared to 50 state legislatures-worth of people, who are less attractive to lobbyists. And most at the convention won't be lobbyist influenced. And if you start with the premise that everyone is corrupt, then no solution works. I believe the most likely solution is one that diffuses power, and a COS does that better than all other solutions. Elections are gross tools. Necessary tools I agree, but as a stand-alone tool they are too inaccurate and slow to respond. And they aren't working now. I understand your fear though. Here in IN we are working so that no one in government may go to the COS as a delegate.
I can think of some additional language pertaining to DOJ and the intelligence community that would be very beneficial.
Actually much could be accomplished by SCOTUS simply by reversing maybe 1/2 dozen or so bad decisions by SCOTUS. A plethora of really stinko decisions based on these 1/2 dozen decisions would be instantly nullified. This was the opinion I heard voiced some time ago and it makes sense to me
This seems to be the most sensible path to me.
It's available, it's not drastic and it seems to be a remedy instead of another experiment to be tried.
Did they specify which decisions they were referring to?
The United States Constitutional was written in plain unambiguous English, simple enough for any person with a good grammar school education and common intelligence to understand. The United States Constitution enumerated very limited grants of power to the federal government. Most of the federal alphabet agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, are blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution grants no power to the federal government over health or education. Eliminating just those two branches of the federal bureaucracy would have a dramatic impact upon reducing the federal budget, not to mention the undue influence over peoples’ lives that all these federal alphabet agencies enjoin. Volumes of books could be written on the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government.
Not sure but think one example was the commerce clause decision coerced from SCOTUS by fdr. Knock down that one and I think the thugs of the civil rights div. of the doj would be looking for work.
Yes, many of the worst decisions were actually not based on the Originalist interpretation of the Constitution but rather, an activist judge’s idea of how it should be interpreted. This shouldn’t even be an option. Originalism vs. NonOriginalism is a fight we need to win. Most people have no idea these two camps even exist.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/originalism_v_textualism_the_fight_of_the_century.html
hopefully a Convention could nullify those for them
Or not and then what?
One of the problems with today's Left is that that the are basically lawless. They know what the constitution says. They know what it means. They will go to elaborate lengths to willfully misinterpret what is written. Adding new amendments will not change the behavior of the leftists in the legislature or the court rooms.
I don't think that a convention of states will have an impact until after the leftists and their RINO lackeys have lost power. It is probably a good idea to formalize a conservative victory with some constitutional changes at that time. I don't think that it will be successful until the root problem - which is leftists and their autocratic, globalist philosophy - is fully addressed.
I don't have a roadmap for how the left is defeated - but giving them more laws to ignore is not sufficient.
I agree. They do not care about the law. It is quite profound. They seem to think that the ends justify the means.
Yet we're supposed to think that they sat back quietly on election night while Trump was cruising to victory. Yeah right.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/bidens-extremist-maga-claims-lie
Trump is blowing out expectations. It’s clear he’s going to roll to victory. Do we think that these people would just sit back and respect the votes of the people? What are you morally justified to do to stop LITERALLY HITLER from winning? Would you take advantage of the (illegally) recently created dropbox rules that prevent a real investigation to the ballot in the bottom of the box — even if it meant suspiciously stopping the vote counting just before Trump claims enough states to win? After all, lots of good money was spent to ensure dropboxes were there if they were needed.
Allowing Trump to win would ruin everything you’ve been working toward — so you ‘find’ exactly enough ballots in exactly the right places to swing exactly the right states, right when you need to find them.
While the media pretends the election was a blowout, (Or as some people say, “We had an election, it wasn’t particularly close, and now Joe Biden is president.”) the state-by-state numbers show just how close it was. About 20,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, with Pennsylvania about 80,000 votes in a much larger state. Those 57 Electoral College votes were more than enough to swing the election.
Do we honestly think that these votes couldn’t and/or wouldn’t be manufactured after the polls closed and the numbers started rolling in? (This is exactly what the data suggests, with Biden getting swing-state after-polling-close votes in ratios not seen anywhere else in the country. Anywhere. In. The. Country.) Especially with new rules that blanket the countryside with ‘legal’ ballots that haven’t been (and obviously won’t be) counted? If this were happening in another country and led to somebody like Saddam Hussein winning an election, there’s no doubt that we would decry the election as fraudulent.
All of it PROVES how stupid are the Leftists since many of them actually believe that an Alzheimer’s-out basement-dweller pedophile candidate who couldn't get more than 200 people to come to his rare rallies (and most of those were media) could have garnered even MORE votes than Obama had! One would have to have an I.Q. of less than 70 (about like AOC or Omar!) to buy that one!!!! Moron level!
Why would they have to care about the law when the DOJ is their lap dog, but times are a changing.
I keep thinking that the profound hubris of the left will eventually be their downfall.
My confidence in this theory is waning like the efficacy of the covid jab.
When the left forgot what women and men were. When they started pushing sex change on minors, I thought the non-crazy folks would figure out what was going on. Alas, most people are still lost.
It's simply astonishing. Just when I think it can't possibly get more absurd, it does.
So I'm working on adjusting my expectations.
From quite low to extremely low.
Next up, nonexistent.
Well said. We need to vastly restrict the money they bring in, so that public office isn't a cash cow. Make it unattractive.
the votes by the states could not made deceitfully without everyone in the states knowing it and stopping it
I disagree. I know it and I know no way of stopping it.
when the final vote on an amendment is one vote per state, the people involved at the state level would know their elector pretty darn well
oh, I see. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying. I believe we’d be taking a risk with each state voting on each proposed amendment, but I would trust the process if very thoughtful new amendments can be formulated.
Thanks, Rita, for providing evidence and useful citations for people to go back to as they consider both sides of this. What I didn't realize until I studied the Constitution and took some classes, is that we don't have to "guess" what our Founders intended. There are reams of notes and writings as they debated and constructed our Constitution. This isn't a mystery as some would have us think. But above all, I think we need to remember that the clock is ticking and as we continue to be divided on this topic, we are losing what we have left of the Constitution. At some point, we need to quit being fearful and take some action. If you keep trying the same thing over and over, you'll get the same outcome. I am not comfortable living in a socialist or worse country and we aren't far away.
As much as I like the idea of a Constitutional Convention, I'm terrified at what the 'leaders' would come up during such an exercise.
A "Convention of States" is what is proposed, not a "Constitutional Convention". They are very different. The first can only propose Amendments, the latter can rewrite the whole Constitution.
A few bad Ammendments could effectively gut the entire document, couldn't they?
Amendments coming out of a COS have to be ratified by 38 states.
My personal favorite "bad Amendment" is number 17, popular election of Senators. If you are unfamiliar with this (most people are!) go read it. Senators were intended to represent the interests of their individual States, for States to look out for themselves, so to say. Senators were appointed by State legislatures and served at their pleasure. If a Senator got out of line, they could be immediately recalled by their State's legislature. There were no guaranteed terms and no term limits on Senators. Let this sink in and let sink in how things work, today, in contrast.
You're right — a perfect example of how easy it is to really screw up our country with just a small change from the plan the Founding Fathers so carefully crafted!
Two bad ones nearly have already.
But none of those came from a Convention of States. They came from Congress!
I have seen organizations advocating both, but you're correct that this group is the former. Although I don't believe we even need that to propose Amendments, do we?
Well, Congress can propose anything it wants. But if what is needed is a reduction in power concentration, and power corrupts, then what reason is there to believe that Congress will ever propose amendments to reduce their power? As soon as we elect someone the power will corrupt them too, and they won't propose the amendments. Given that it's now "legal" in SCOTUS's eyes to buy politicians with campaign cash, the only way to get elections cleaned up is with a COS which can propose amendments that reverse Citizens United and other rulings that allow lobbying. My viewpoint that makes COS necessary.
I agree with half of what you say -- they will never decrease their own power. However, in my view CU was ruled correctly, because otherwise you'd have the government being allowed to determine what is allowable speech.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-money-speech_b_1255787
Of course, money is not "speech." Money is money, a car is a car, and a ribbon is a ribbon. These are objects, not speech. But all of these objects, and many more besides, can be used to facilitate free speech. Consider a car. The government can lawfully impose all sorts of restrictions on how, when and where we can drive a car, and no one would argue that those restrictions implicate the First Amendment.
But suppose a city enacts a law prohibiting any person to drive a car in order to get to a political demonstration. Such a law would clearly implicate the First Amendment, not because a car is speech, but because the law restricts the use of a car for speech purposes.
Similarly, a ribbon is a ribbon. A ribbon is not speech. But a law that prohibits anyone to wear a pink ribbon for expressive purposes would clearly implicate the First Amendment, because it restricts the use of a ribbon for speech purposes.
Like a car or a ribbon, money is not speech. But when government regulates the use of money for speech purposes, it implicates the First Amendment. Suppose, for example, an individual at an Occupy protest burns a dollar bill to convey her disdain for corporate America. A dollar bill is not speech, fire is not speech, but a government law prohbiting any person to burn money as a symbolic expression of opposition to corporate America would surely implicate the First Amendment.
The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Of course, this shows the fragility and variability of the tool we call language. At issue is not whether money can be used for speech, but whether it can be used for things other than speech too. it clearly can, such as bribery. And since SCOTUS made no distinction that b/c of those other uses it can be regulated, we have a problem. And we can solve that problem with COS, revolution, or praying that Congress will propose that amendment. I like COS.
While it is tempting to say SCOTUS use the tool correctly, I think that the tool is only useful when it serves the majority interpretation at the time of the writing. As political campaigns didn't exist in 1787, and no one could equate speech and campaign cash, the ruling was not proper. Isn't this tool so interesting that we have this different opinion of its use, despite wanting the same outcome?
Luckily, the founders knew language was fragile and variable, and that they hadn't foreseen all its uses, and left us an out clause!
CU has nothing to do with bribery.
Dismantle CU and you have no right to speak against the government.
Current leadership would have to be banned from the convention. States will do the the work.
She comes across as snide and insulting.
I'm no scholar in any shape or form. I believe it would be opening a can of worms.
Why can't we follow the Constitution? Isn't that the issue? Congress overspends. An amendment forcing a balanced budget would lead to massive tax increases.
One must always look at what the unintended consequences would be. Always, because there always are unintended consequences.
Dr. Malone thank you for allowing this debate.
I agree that the personal attacks did not do her any favors. Jill is a bit angry at me for even publishing this rather than sending it back to have those taken out. But my thinking was that this is what she chose to say and how to say it. So I should let her make her case.
I did not feel that the author made any personal attacks. I think she could have been even more polite and balanced, but it seemed very fair and appropriate to me that she covers the credentials of those who are offering their opinions on the topic. Having been previously on the “left” and opposed to the COS without really knowing much about it, I can understand if she’s been feeling frustrated by those of us who have been closed-minded rather than curious about the issue. I’m impressed and deeply grateful that you’ve chosen to give us the opportunity to learn about the issue. This is just my two cents worth, but I’m glad that you let her address the issue in the way that she chose to address it.
It's hardly upon you to work for a cause you have't accepted. And you and Jill have already accepted a great cause. While I wish it had been written differently, I agree with you. The debate moderator isn't supposed to help one side or the other. I only hope that others will be as insightful as you are, and judge the concept, not the person defending it.
"An amendment forcing a balanced budget would lead to massive tax increases"
You are right, and those massive tax increases just might get those Congressfolks voted out of office. That is entirely the point. If the borrowing were not possible, that would facilitate push back on those borrowing and blowing all the money.
Anybody remember the 2011 "Sequester" that was to automatically reduce spending even-handedly? It lasted about 2 years before the Lefties were screaming bloody murder. Spend, spend, spend.
Get them voted out of office? I doubt it. They could frame it as more giveaways.
The argument in favor of the COS that rings true to me is that there are phrases in the constitution like “promoting the general welfare” that those who are overreaching use to believe they are acting within the intent of the constitution. Also, letting out debt reach a truly crippling $30 trillion while sweeping billions in taxpayer funds into the pockets of private industry (e.g., for overpriced drugs and vaccines, bailouts for mismanagement, etc) isn’t just a little overspending. Perhaps we should consider whether some very thoughtful amendments could be used to address these issues. I also deeply appreciate the opportunity to debate this issue. I was not previously a COS supporter, but wonder now whether it could have a useful role to play. For one thing, Congress would then be on notice that if they can’t live up to their responsibility to lead responsibly, the states can step in. I’d like to see some proposed very thoughtful amendments. As they say, “the devil is in the details”. I too, greatly appreciate the opportunity to consider and debate these issues!
Before we open this can of worms and start writing "some very thoughtful amendments" how about we adhere to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments?
And how do you propose to make the lawless do that. Elections? I think a change in government structure will respond in a more timely fashion. Elections are gross tools. Specifically allowing a majority of state legislatures to over-rule congress on a specific issue is a more precise tool, but that would require an amendment.
I agree she didn't make our case as convincingly, as she decided denigrating the opposition was better than presenting and discussing facts. But as to why we can't follow the constitution, the answer is that power corrupts; and the same number of hands that used to have the power of 13 sparsely populated colonies now has the power of 320 M people. Federal power needs to be more easily revoked than before, but corrupted by that power those with it will never admit reduced and more easily checked power is needed, or propose such solutions. And elections won't work either, as you'll elect new people to be corrupted by a system that has power so concentrated it can corrupt anyone who will accept it. That's the reason no one reasonable runs for federal office; reasonable people realize the threat that so much power is to them. So the structure of our government guarantees we will just progress toward either a tyranny and revolution or a COS. I'll take COS.
But God, it is great to debate this!
What do we really know?
1. The Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it. It does not enforce itself. The citizenry voluntarily submits to what it says and agrees to abide by the edicts of those in authority. That's what a civil society is all about.
2. In today's political environment, where certain people feel totally comfortable playing fast and loose with the rules, opening up a process that could potentially provide for and legitimize significant changes needs to be thought through very carefully. The fact that 'smart people' (see the author's list of luminaires) think that the situation can be controlled does NOT mean that they are correct.
3. If push came to shove, my strong feeling is that the Supreme Court would NOT allow the courts to get involved in monitoring the process citing that it was an inherently political process, which means there would be every incentive to make this Convention of States a complete free-for-all.
I understand the frustration everyone has, but the answer is the ballot box -- make convincing arguments as to why policies need to be changed.
The courts have had a MAJOR hand in getting us to this place by deciding significant social issues vs. allowing the people to decide.
Before we start fiddling with the Constitution, let us first demand that the judiciary stop putting their finger on the scales of justice.
=====================
Thanks to Dr. Malone for facilitating this discussion. He will now, no doubt, be blamed for some future Constitutional crisis. Soldier on, Doc! This is your cross to bear, sadly...
Agree. But if 'the answer is the ballot box' we had better make sure it isn't getting stuffed with fake ballots in the middle of the night. Stolen elections have consequences. How do we fix that?
Again, thru the ballot box....
Why can a country like Brazil know who won the Presidency within three hours and do that with a high degree of confidence?
I agree with you. Just like the Constitution, people need confidence in the system.
Maybe you've seen this gem: https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s
I've come to the conclusion that the pendulum needs to swing back to the Jeffersonian Federalist position as to the power of the states vis-a-vis the Federal government. While I admit that, if I were alive in 1787 I would have sided with Hamilton , Jay and Mason ....the concerns Jefferson argued we consider have now "come home to roost" ... The Federal government can now be likened to England during colonial times .... (and, furthermore, Those in its thrall can be likened to Tories)
But while it is true that there is a constitutional way to address this via Article 5 ....and if we went that rout, I would support it .....there is also a way for the States to push back.....JUST PUSH BACK!!
Every state has its own constitution....it is its own entity with its own powers .....if each one pushes back....the Feds haven't a leg to stand on ....
Desantis is doing this now ....and Kari Lake of AZ and Doug Mastriano of PA promise to do so if they win their elections .....that sort of constitutionally justified defiance can be infectious ...
So I understand the yearning for an A5 convention and will support it if I'm asked ....I think we still have plenty of ways to push back on the Feds at our disposal without having to endure the drama ...
Pug Henry
That's the point !!
Everyone of us who are citizens live in a state that has its OWN constitution that is said to conform to the Federal constitution .....But if you study our history ....The Federal government was, at its inception, a 10 x 10 mile creation of the Constitution ...only because the Founders realized that if it resided in an existing state, said state would accumulate asymmetrical power vis a vis the others ..
10 x 10 square miles .....look how far we've come since then ....
Just look at how much land the Federal government is now in possession of above ground (land) assets...i.e property
TIME :The Federal Government’s $128 Trillion Stockpile: The Answer to Our Debt Problems?
https://business.time.com/2013/02/05/the-federal-governments-128-trillion-stockpile-the-answer-to-our-debt-problems/
Just How Much Land Does the Federal Government Own — and Why?
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/
Why have we allowed this, essentially, foreign entity to control so much of the nations wealth when it has shown itself wholly unworthy of such privilege ?
And guess what??? The Federal governments above ground assets are dwarfed buy the 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive economic zone) that extends to the continental shelf ...
Again, what has our our federal government as it presently is constituted done to deserve such trust??
Those assets need to be returned to the states where they will be closer to "We the people"...so that we can deal with whatever eventual corruption evolves from such a windfall , locally ....closer to the people we can get our hands on ...
10th Amendment .....enforce it ...and return the mundane day to day activities of government to the 'citizens' of the states ...
Pug
Disagree with your four points ....they are demonstrably false ....
So we don't agree at all
Well ....since you replied within minutes after my initial comment ....I'm going to assume that you failed to read the two links I sent ...
Now, I'll be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps your computer doesn't evidence the embedded hyperlink (mine does) ....
My response is a fairly succinct...and I think honest response that much of your 4 points were addressed in those two articles.
Does that make sense?
Nothing better than good debate for We the People to consider in making informed decisions. Thank you Dr Malone for your due diligence.
Nice post - sorry to hear your hand got caught in the saw initially. This is an excellent article.
Very condescending article. I unfortunately fear the left would pull some shenanigans out of their hats.
the tone erodes the arguments. IMO
Unfortunately, the far left is always coming up with corruption that confounds the right.
I've noticed you are our Gandollf, looking to solve the mysteries. Have you investigated the solar geoengineering, direct atmosphere capture, and/or government protocals, regulations, and research?
As I open my comments, I’d like to boast (modestly, of course 😊) that the first cited authority in the rebuttal, Prof Rob Natelson, was my professor at UM School of Law back in the late 80s. Much like how Rush gave voice to the thoughts that had been forming at the time, before Rush there was Prof Natelson - having grown up in a socialist-Marxist environment it was eye opening that my nascent conservative leanings had, indeed, firm groundings.
OK, that said, I posted my support for a Article V Convention of States in response to the previous article and previous to that signed my name in support of that action a couple years ago. My biggest gripe at this time is repeal of the 17th - if the two senators had to answer to the state legislatures that appointed them to the senate vs pimpimg their votes out to the general electorate as the framers designed the House, it is my opinion much of the acrimony and division we’ve come to accept since the 60s would not have happened. The framers set up two separate legislative bodies with, not opposing but perhaps competing, interests that needed to be reconciled in order for legislative action could take effect. With the 17th, both houses now have the same pressures to enact, or not enact, legislation - pimping to the public, while ignoring the impact such action would have on the states themselves.
Oh, sure, there are lots of other actions I’d like to see taken, chief amongst them being term limits (if the elected won’t sit and git after 2 terms, then the law needs to make it so).
The framers gave us a way to take back our government, the states to take back government, let’s not be afraid to trust in the framers wisdom.
SR Miller, UM School of Law, 1991
". . . term limits (if the elected won’t sit and git after 2 terms, then the law needs to make it so)."
Ah, the "LAW" is VERY specific about how to terminate every two years 435 members of the House of Reps in Article I, section two and one 1/3 of the Senate in section 3.
My goodness, the Framers of the Articles of Confederation had "term limits." The framers thinking on the matter has to be taken into consideration. They did away term limits by law, As you say "we must not be afraid to trust in the Framers wisdom!"
Christian Gomez's article focused in on the label "Convention of States" that Natelson introduced at speaking event in 2010, September 16th a day before Constitution Day.
https://thenewamerican.com/magazine/tna3813/
'I’m going to put our concepts on “reset.”… The Constitution gives the convention a specific name — a convention for proposing amendments — and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention, or a convention of the states.'"
When it comes to the Article V convention method why be afraid to trust in the wisdom of James Madison who feared a second convention by whatever name it is given? Madison knew that any future convention would be the center of big trouble. Madison was wise to "fear" a new convention and used the word "fear."
You have to ask yourself why he said that and also look hard at the ignorance from college professors and their disdain for the Constitution. One such disdainer is Robert P. George who is a COS legal advisor. Gomez nailed him on George's gosh awful rewrite of the Second Amendment. You have to read Robert George's puky, albeit Fascist rewrite of the Framers' manly amendment to congress "shall make NO Law" regarding these 9 areas with the 10th declaring if we forgot anything you can't do that either!
George's wimpy Second Amendment hand must have been shaking when he pulled the trigger on hunters with red flags!
Wow!
here is the tail end of Robert George's amendment: "provided that States and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others. "
You, SR Miller, state that "the framers gave us a way to take back our government, the states to take back government, let’s not be afraid to trust in the framers wisdom."
Article VI has wisdom written all over it! How do we force congress to use Article VI right away?
Birchers use these friendly tools: https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-index/legislator/congress/117/
Given that the process is that an Article 5 Convention can only propose an amendment, that the proposed amendment must be listed on the State petition subject to SCOTUS review, and that like any other proposed amendment, 38 States must ratify, I see no problem with an Article 5 Convention. I appreciate the article being posted here because I had never paid much attention to Article 5 and had been led to believe in junk articles that it was a process to abolish and replace the Constitution, something I would adamantly oppose. But the reality of it is its just a way to do what Congress failed to do in terms of making a proposal for ratification. I'm totally good with this process. JMO of course.
Great article! It is good to see both sides. The Constitution was created so that we would have minimal government. There are so many regulations put into place by our Federal government that we are loosing our freedoms.
In my husbands work as a criminal defense attorney.He sees the search and seizure laws broken all the time. They have to have a warrant to search a place or car for drugs yet the police dogs who sniff out drugs to detect if there are drugs and smell drugs, then the police say they have probable cause. No search warrant. Things like this are happening all the time because they want to get the criminal.
The judges are fudging on search and seizure laws as well because they have to get the bad guy.
My husbands complaint is that if they continue down this path, then the rights of citizens don’t matter. Laws are made to keep everyone safe . That means search warrants should be needed. It is so easy now they make a phone call and the warrant is sent via internet. Some choose not to use the warrant and are getting away with this breach of our constitutional rights.
I think term limits on our legislatures would be a good thing. You get senators and representatives in there for over 40 years. Pelosi has been there for way to many years and she thinks that she is untouchable. They have so much power that we loose a compromise. It goes for both parties. They are not there for the greater good.
It's always useful to hear from both sides, or indeed all sides, of an issue. I'm still unconvinced we could control a COS. No, I'm not a lawyer and don't have letters after my name. I'm an 80-year-old political junkie who is MENSA certified and pride myself on being practical. I have every confidence I can make a wise decision given all the facts. At this juncture, with Democrats, their gestapo, and the general judicial system running roughshod over the law and the Constitution as RINOs care less, I would fear for our country should we convene an Article V Convention. As someone else said, we need to take our country back by changing hearts and minds and elect an honest Congress who can effect needed changes including impeaching judges. Our abrupt left turn cannot be corrected by a COS. Thank you, Dr. Malone, for going where angels fear to tread!