Limiting the Government; Re-Creating the Republic

Because the issue keeps arising and I tire of re-making the same arguments over and over, here’s a bit on my objection to an Art-5 Convention of States (“COS”).

The government we have now routinely ignores the Constitution. This includes all three federal branches and the governors of every state. We HAVE the Constitution (with one exception, below) that we need to ensure our personal freedom, liberty and prosperity. We have the laws we need, for the most part, to do so.

Neither the Constitution nor the laws are enforced.

Nothing about a COS will change this. The idea that the same voters will elect a set of legislators or a president or governors who will pay any more attention to a new Constitution, or a few new amendments, than they pay to the current Constitution is an absurdity; why would they? No reason on earth. The same voters will elect the same idiots. If this were not true, we’d not return the same congressmen cycle after cycle after cycle while rating the honesty of our government below that of a used car saleswoman.

While I applaud those working toward a COS as believing strongly in fixing our problems, the avenue being pursued, with the exception referenced above (described below), cannot work.

(At this point I get accused of call Mark Levin a “liar.” Levin’s an entertainer. Look up the SIC code for actors, radio hosts, or pro sports. They are entertainers. Their job is to sell soap. Levin’s a bright guy, but according him any more weight than Oprah only reveals one’s side in the debate.)

What examples can I provide to support the above? Here are a few:

  1. Article 1 leaves the entirety of the “times, manner and places of elections” to the States. Period. SCOTUS has exactly zero authority to reject VoterID. None. Any governor worthy of the office would tell SCOTUS in re: their rejection of VoterID, “that’s nice, but you lack that authority, so we’re going to ignore you.” The 14th Amendment weighs in on voter fraud and provides a single remedy (which is never used) for same – but it does NOT allow the federal government to define “the manner” of elections. Why would a new Art-5 Constitution, which defines only Federal powers and limits, create State governors who suddenly understand and act on their Constitutional authority? Who suddenly grasp the purpose and power of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? No reason. No reason at all.
  2. The Enumerated Powers, Article 1, Section 8, defines the ONLY powers granted by the States to the Feds when the (superior) States created the (inferior) Fed by ratifying the Constitution. The following are not among those enumerated powers, so are none of the business of the feds. (And, OBTW, SCOTUS is part of the Federal Government, so is – designed to be – limited by the Constitution, as well.) Is Marriage among the enumerated powers? Nope. So when an idiot like Kasich (R), says that gay marriage is the law of the land due to a SCOTUS holding outside its authority, he’s wrong. Will a COS make him understand what is clearly in the Constitution today? Why? Same with bathrooms, schools, energy, abortion, etc. These are NONE of the business of the federal government. We don’t lack the right Amendment or law or Court or Constitution; we lack adults willing to abide by the Constitution we have NOW. Nothing about a COS will alter that; it only will give the same pols a new Constitution to ignore, and demoralize any citizen still believing in government of the people.
  3. In today’s environment, 2A is under assault. Any idea that a COS would preserve 2A is absurd. The Ruling Class lawyers who would run any COS would demand gun control. (No, no one is going to kick all the lawyers and current pols out of the room; if we were willing to reject them, we’d not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today…) And the Left would ensure a couple of school shootings during the Convention to push it over the top. “But we will limit the COS to ONLY these few things!” Cool. You are aware, are you not, that the original Constitutional Convention had limits placed on it – that were ignored? Why would this be different? But … 2A – as does the entirety of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part – limits ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SCOTUS has invented out of whole cloth the idea of “incorporation,” through which they have decided they get to grab sovereignty from a State and tell State government what they can and cannot allow. This is nowhere in the Constitution. It is a blatant usurpation of State power by an out-of-control federal government. The federal government is INFERIOR to the State governments except under the specific grants of authority written-in to the Constitution. If a State wants to ban guns under the Constitution of that State, and if the voters of that State allow that via referendum or by voting anti-gun pols into office, that is entirely Constitutional. SCOTUS may, via incorporation, throw that out – but they have no Constitutional authority to do so. The same is true of abortion and gay marriage: Not in the enumerated powers, the feds have no authority over them. Period. This works both ways, but requires an intelligent and lawful government to accept: IF a new Constitution did NOT have a 2A, but STILL was designed to as to limit the Federal government, ANY STATE could prevent gun control simply because the States are Superior to the Feds. But if we don’t change the franchise, the voters will continue to elect morons, like Kasich, who don’t grasp the  most fundamental aspects of our Constitution. (However, it is far more likely that any new Constitutional authority on guns would be written to ensure guns are among the powers enumerated to the federal government.)

Reasons to object to a COS can be listed for days; I’ve chosen these three. Many will object to the statement that the Bill of Rights applies only to the Feds. They are mistaken. The entire Constitutional construct was to both create, and to limit, a federal government. It is not about the States. Through the Constitution, the States created the Federal government; they didn’t create themselves.

So what is a reason to support a COS? I have one. An amendment. One amendment that can change just about everything back to the design of the Constitution. COS or not (other avenues to amend the Constitution exist), this will go farther than anything else in fixing the destruction the Ruling Class (let’s not pretend it’s one party) has done.

The problems we face today are the result of empathy. Government is force, not empathy.

  • Foreign Aid? Empathy
  • Mass immigration? Empathy
  • Out-of-control entitlements? Empathy
  • Welfare? Empathy – remember, welfare has managed to do something not even slavery accomplished: Destroy the Black family. It’s also caused the skyrocketing of out of wedlock births & single-parent households – across all races.
  • Disruptive schools, including shootings? Empathy.
  • Wilsonian democracy export and the pointless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Empathy.
  • The LACK of punishment for laws, including gun laws, already on the books? Empathy.
  • Lowering teacher standards because they fail these standards? Empathy.

And the ONLY way to rid the government of overindulgence in empathy, which also is the exception noted at the top, is to return to the original franchise, absent the abomination of racism. CAN women be tough disciplinarians? Vanishingly few. CAN men be empathy-driven? Vanishingly few. Are adults more objective about government than kids? Yes.

If we want to force the government into the limits created by the Founders – and ratified by the States, if we want the government they created, the only way to do that is to return to the franchise the Founders created to sustain it: Adult, male, property owners. (As a fall-back, at least enfranchise only payers of income tax; why should those not contributing to the pot get to vote on how the pot is split (today’s pot and tomorrow’s pot as pols seem intent on intergenerational theft to buy votes today)?

A COS will not – repeat, NOT – attempt to reduce the franchise, which is the only way to achieve their stated goal.

The Founders did everything they could think of NOT to make the nation a democracy. The extension of the franchise to near-universal is THE problem America faces, and ONLY a restriction of the franchise back to the original intent can cause a return to a democratic Republic that is NOT a democracy, and so does not devolve, as America is devolving today, into a dictatorship.

Unless a COS spends its time and energy on, and only on, altering the franchise, it only will waste time and raise expectations that cannot, and will not be met.

Oh – it will do one other thing: The COS will be created and exist on the premise that more government is better, for what is a new Constitution, particularly if including Levin’s so-called “Liberty Amendments,” But more government?

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT, not to expand, government.


About Alex Scipio

About Alex Scipio: Alex moved out of the People's Republic of California to the Free State of Arizona, finally tiring of the lack of the Bill of Rights, the overgrown idiocracy, and the catering to non-Americans & welfare recipients. He still wonders how America got from Truman, Eisenhower, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the Liberal and Conservative extremes so badly managing America today. And, yes, islam DOES need to be annihilated. And doing what he can to get folks away from the extremes of political life.
This entry was posted in Domestic, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *