Frustrated by Obamacare and seeming helplessness of the people to stop this affront to life and liberty?
Well, helplessness is a reasonable feeling. Even if conservatives win the day in November and take the House, little could be done to repeal most of Obamacare. Even if conservatives won BIG in November and took back the Senate, the filibuster and its 60 Senate rule would doom repeal and two thirds in both houses would be required to override a presidential veto. So by 2012, conservatives would have to take back the House, the Presidency, AND 60 seat in the Senate to repeal. Not likely.
Like I said, helpless.
But are we? What about Article V of the Constitution? This is a long shot as well but may be, just may be, more plausible than the scenario outlined above. Article V states:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
RealQuiet from Redstate says…
“I LOVE this last option. The power is solely with the people and the states. This is the people’s and the states’ strongest weapon and will likely terrify Democrats as their folly in hoisting the freedom and liberty robbing legislation upon the American people becomes apparent to them. “
The expressed purpose of this Article of the Constitution is to give the power of redress to the States when faced with a tyrannical federal legislature. I think this time qualifies and I am not alone. In fact Rep Louie Gohmert of Texas (I love Texas) took to the floor of the House to discuss just such a response.
Again, its a long shot. But at least its a shot. What do you think?
March 24, 2010 at 4:44 am
I say, Let's Do It! Tell me where to sign up, I'm there!
March 24, 2010 at 7:45 am
I say let's go for it.
March 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Count me in!
March 24, 2010 at 1:17 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm
It would be wonderful, if it happens… and definitely, let's try it. But: what's to prevent us from "snaking" through a repeal using some version of the "filibuster-evasion" technique used by Democrats to *pass* this (literally) bloody thing in the first place?
I see three advantages to this:
1) It would be easier than the amendment route (though I have emotional sympathies with a Constitutional Convention, I must admit).
2) The courts couldn't easily declare it unlawful without declaring the previous Dem "snake" unlawful on the same grounds.
3) Having the Dems hoist by their own petard would satisfy both a sense of justice and a wonderful sense of irony.
March 24, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Bad idea, real, real bad idea. "Progressives" have for years attempted to get a Con-Con going. They have wanted it because with it EVERYTHING in the Constitution is on the table. EVERYTHING. The same danger is there whether conservatives propose it or progressives propose it. A Con-Con could mean (and likely would mean in this corrupt political environment) the loss of the 1st Amendment, the loss of the 2nd Amendment, etc., and even further destruction of our liberties. Don't get on board with this idea. It's very, very dangerous. I suggest that you all look into this very carefully before supporting it.
March 24, 2010 at 1:52 pm
This idea is all over talk radio right now. I heard Mark Levin, Andrew Wilkow, and Mike Church talking about it. I think its great!
I doubt the repeal is going to work. Although it fires me up that the Dems are so cocky and arrogant saying that their legislation is not un-Constitutional. How do they know? They haven't even read it!!!
March 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Anon. 9:35 AM has a good point.
What I would like to see is a Constitutional Amendment requiring term limits for all elected officials. Nothing I can't stand more than career politicians. This is supposed to be public service, where you put your career on hold for a few years, serve your state, then go back to private life.
IMHO, if you can't get it done in 2 Senate terms or in 3-4 terms as a Congressman you need to get out and let somoene else give it a shot.
March 24, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Apparently, the light at the end of the tunnel is a Texas-sized train of oncoming crazy with Gohmer(t) Pyle at the controls yelling "Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!"
When are you going to realize that the r's are playing you for suckers, hoping to get your vote in November?
March 24, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Anon – I hear you, but there's no way in blazes that two-thirds of the state legislatures would ratify a repeal of the First or Second Amendments. Nor would the Left propose such things: they don't need to, having already successfully ignored them (and most of the rest of the Constitution) for many years.
I say we empty the magazine at this fat, bloated target: like most horror film baddies, this takeover will not fall easily.
March 24, 2010 at 3:39 pm
@nightfly Preserving the 1st & 2nd Amendments makes sense to freedom lovers like us but not to Socialists who are controlling both House and Senate. They've already ignored the spirit of the Constitution. Would you take to take the risk and have them rewrite a Constitution more in line with their ideology?
March 24, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Since the House controls the purse strings couldn't they refuse (assuming there's a turnover in November) to fund any portion of the health care bill until they could repeal it?
March 24, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Exactly. Repeal the 17th amendment. That would give the states ultimate control over the filibuster.
March 25, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and give us the first convention; what else from corrupt politicians? What they fear we must embrace and demand. Learn all the facts at foavc.org and become a member of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention.
March 25, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Will. Not. Happen.
March 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Love the blog.
Remember, Republicans DON'T need 60 in the Senate to overturn this legislation (a Republican president is necessary though) . . . . there is a little option I think the Democrats refer to as "reconciliation" . . . . this is not over!
March 30, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Will happen. First a convention cannot write a new constitution. It states that right in Article V. Second, the public record shows all 50 states have already submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention far in excess of the 34 applications required to cause Congress to call. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org. So, let's get over the notion this is an "idea." It is constitutional requirement which has been deliberately ignored by Congress and whose time has come. The truth is finally out: the states have applied in sufficient number to cause Congress to call a convention and unless you favor giving the government veto power to refuse to obey the Constitution, a convention must be called.