Kolbe en banc decision

[Mike]

3/4 of the other states would have to agree. The question isn't whether or not you trust any specific legislature, but whether you trust that there's unlikely to be agreement between 3/4 of them on anything other than that which at least 3/4 of them agree to be a real problem, and 3/4 of them would have to agree upon a solution for that solution to be implemented at all.

But the text of Article V says:



(emphasis mine).

That suggests that the legislatures aren't necessarily going to be the ratifying bodies involved. It's not clear to me exactly what a "Convention" is in the above context. That would be worth looking into.




Then propose a peaceful alternative. I'd love to know what options exist that don't involve shooting people.

We have pickets and other demonstrations like Rack & Roll organizes.

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=205454

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=199141&highlight=patriot+picket

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=192196&highlight=patriot+picket

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=196990&highlight=patriot+picket

When the Hatch Act no longer applies to me this is what I plan on doing when I can.

Maybe in MD we can't get the votes to kick their butts out of office, but we can get in their face and put the fear of God into them.

 

[kcbrown]

We have pickets and other demonstrations like Rack & Roll organizes.

Those demonstrations at most have the effect of pleading with the majority, but that does nothing to address the problem of tyranny of the majority in the first place.

A right which requires agreement of the majority for its operation is no right at all, and a liberty which depends on majority assent is one that can disappear at any time as the winds of majority opinion change.

Again, the problems here are structural. They cannot be addressed within the existing system, because they are artifacts of the existing system. Continual erosion of liberty is not a mere chance occurrence in the context of the existing system, it is an inevitable outcome of its operation.

 

[SWO Daddy]

3/4 of the other states would have to agree. The question isn't whether or not you trust any specific legislature, but whether you trust that there's unlikely to be agreement between 3/4 of them on anything other than that which at least 3/4 of them agree to be a real problem, and 3/4 of them would have to agree upon a solution for that solution to be implemented at all.

But the text of Article V says:



(emphasis mine).

That suggests that the legislatures aren't necessarily going to be the ratifying bodies involved. It's not clear to me exactly what a "Convention" is in the above context. That would be worth looking into.




Then propose a peaceful alternative. I'd love to know what options exist that don't involve shooting people.

When someone says now is the time to act because 70% of the legislatures are conservative, it's worth pointing out that some of those legislatures he (and you, apparently) is counting on to ratify that new constitution (that's the most likely outcome) are responsible for egregious offenses against our civil rights. Period.

I'll also point out the (false) dichotomy that we re-write the constitution or start shooting each other is yours, not mine. However, if the divide is that deep, I'd imagine the other side would be willing to shoot us over your idea of a more perfect constitution as you imagine it...ie, violence regardless.

 

[kcbrown]

This is the reason we have juries. They introduce the notion that the community can act to prevent abuse of justice by bad law, or wrong circumstance. If enough defendants are exonerated by jury nullification, enforcement is forced to take notice, and either stop enforcing laws that the community refuses to support, or act legislatively to remove such laws.

A law which isn't enjoined in its entirety is one that will stifle the liberty it targets, if only because the people who would otherwise engage in the liberty in question will refrain from doing so simply because of the chance that they may lose all their liberty by doing so.

That is why jury nullification is insufficient -- it depends on every jury having at least one person on it who will nullify the law in question. For laws that were passed with the assent of the majority, that is of no real use whatsoever.

No, jury nullification is even more difficult to employ for the purpose of wholly nullifying a law than is repeal of the law at the majority's insistence. That makes it worthless for protecting minorities from tyranny of the majority.

 

[kcbrown]

When someone says now is the time to act because 70% of the legislatures are conservative, it's worth pointing out that some of those legislatures he (and you, apparently) is counting on to ratify that new constitution (that's the most likely outcome) are responsible for egregious offenses against our civil rights. Period.

That's a fair point, of course. In practice, it means that it's unlikely that the desired remedy will be approved. That's very different from saying that things will get worse as a result of such a Convention, when what is more likely is that nothing at all will happen.

EDIT: To be honest, I think the most likely outcome of an Article V Convention is that the states will seize power from the federal government. Whether that is "worse" or not would then remain to be seen. Regardless, the structural characteristics that have inexorably led to where we are now cannot be addressed in any way except through alteration of the Constitution (whether that happens before or after a civil war). Even alteration of all of the state constitutions would be insufficient.

I'll also point out the (false) dichotomy that we re-write the constitution or start shooting each other is yours, not mine.

I said alter the Constitution, not rewrite it.

But if you believe it to be a false dichotomy, then that implies that there's an unmentioned third alternative. What alternative would that be?

Well, okay. The unmentioned third alternative that I can think of is for us to sink into the quagmire of tyranny, to simply have things continue on as they have been (at least in terms of the effect -- how those effects are achieved can change over time, of course) as a result of the continued operation of the existing structure. I didn't think it was worth mentioning that because I thought it would be obvious.

If you don't think that operation of the existing structure must inevitably lead to the extinguishment of liberty, then answer this: at what point of time in the country's history did the number of laws decrease by any significant amount?

We have over 200 years of operation under the existing structure that proves that it leads towards the extinction of liberty, because very nearly every law that is passed removes someone's liberty, and the number of laws we've been operating under has been continuously increasing over time as a direct result of the operation of the system as it is.

However, if the divide is that deep, I'd imagine the other side would be willing to shoot us over your idea of a more perfect constitution as you imagine it...ie, violence regardless.

That may well be the case, but you refuse to address the main argument: some chance of peaceful resolution is better than no chance. You cannot get peaceful resolution if you don't even try.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

When the Hatch Act no longer applies to me this is what I plan on doing when I can.

The Hatch Act does not prohibit you from any of these activities outside of work.

 

[Mike]

The Hatch Act does not prohibit you from any of these activities outside of work.

Even when it is for one political party candidate and or against another? Some of the pickets do call out individuals. I will have to talk to the agency lawyers.

 

[SWO Daddy]

That's a fair point, of course. In practice, it means that it's unlikely that the desired remedy will be approved. That's very different from saying that things will get worse as a result of such a Convention, when what is more likely is that nothing at all will happen.

EDIT: To be honest, I think the most likely outcome of an Article V Convention is that the states will seize power from the federal government. Whether that is "worse" or not would then remain to be seen. Regardless, the structural characteristics that have inexorably led to where we are now cannot be addressed in any way except through alteration of the Constitution (whether that happens before or after a civil war). Even alteration of all of the state constitutions would be insufficient.

Interesting topic. Would it result in a power grab by the states, though? Or, are some states so dependent on wealth transfer between states that they would strengthen the status quo? After all, haven't most of the states willingly abdicated their power to the Feds in exchange for money?

I said alter the Constitution, not rewrite it.

Once an Article V convention is initiated, anything is on the table. What you suggest would be an ideal conclusion, but it's not inevitable...particularly with the horse jockying which would go on.

But if you believe it to be a false dichotomy, then that implies that there's an unmentioned third alternative. What alternative would that be?

Well, okay. The unmentioned third alternative that I can think of is for us to sink into the quagmire of tyranny, to simply have things continue on as they have been (at least in terms of the effect -- how those effects are achieved can change over time, of course) as a result of the continued operation of the existing structure. I didn't think it was worth mentioning that because I thought it would be obvious.

Funny, I think tyranny is a potential outcome of an Article V convention, too.

Just one possible outcome: I think it could be possible to have a relatively peaceful fracturing of the union, potentially. I don't think politicians nor the public have the stomach to use violence in order to preserve it. An outcome like this would result in Constitutions more likely to appeal to both sides, IMO.

If you don't think that operation of the existing structure must inevitably lead to the extinguishment of liberty, then answer this: at what point of time in the country's history did the number of laws decrease by any significant amount?

We have over 200 years of operation under the existing structure that proves that it leads towards the extinction of liberty, because very nearly every law that is passed removes someone's liberty, and the number of laws we've been operating under has been continuously increasing over time as a direct result of the operation of the system as it is.

I'm with you 100% on that. As I said earlier, it's the nature of government to grow. Outside of war, famine, or a black swan event, that is going to sadly continue.

That may well be the case, but you refuse to address the main argument: some chance of peaceful resolution is better than no chance. You cannot get peaceful resolution if you don't even try.

Again, I reject the conclusion that we will necessarily have violence without an Article V convention.

 

[fidelity]

Even when it is for one political party candidate and or against another? Some of the pickets do call out individuals. I will have to talk to the agency lawyers.

Shouldn't at the state level.

And if a US Congressional/Senate person is being picketed ... as long as you're not at work, not using gov't resources, and not advertising specifically what you do in the gov't or making claims on behalf of the gov't, you should be fine. It's leveraging the position to influence others or using gov't resources that's verboten. Even hosting a fund raiser at your home for a Congressional candidate may be restricted because attendees will likely be aware of or learn of your employment.

However, generally being involved in state and local level political fights should be fine. Realize that a past MSI President was a federal employee at the time he was had official MSI duties. I'm sure he had to get outside activities sign offs by his agency ethics officials. No paperwork needed for picketing at the state level. (whether one might get targeted/adversely affected at work if in a televised protest is another issue)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[kcbrown]

Interesting topic. Would it result in a power grab by the states, though? Or, are some states so dependent on wealth transfer between states that they would strengthen the status quo? After all, haven't most of the states willingly abdicated their power to the Feds in exchange for money?

Well, if the Constitution is being altered, what says that the states would have to trade one for the other?

Once an Article V convention is initiated, anything is on the table. What you suggest would be an ideal conclusion, but it's not inevitable...particularly with the horse jockying which would go on.

Yes, I'm not arguing that a wholesale rewrite isn't possible. It clearly is. But that has always been true. If a wholesale rewrite is possible when Article V is invoked, then why didn't that happen for any of the last 15 Amendments that were passed?

I think the probability of a wholesale rewrite is quite a lot less than you seem to believe it to be, based on the history of Constitutional Amendments.

Funny, I think tyranny is a potential outcome of an Article V convention, too.

Yes, but there is a difference between that which is logically inevitable (tyranny under the current structure) and that which is possible or probable (tyranny as an outcome of an Article V Convention). If the choice is between certain doom and merely probable doom, I'll take the latter, as would any sane person.

Just one possible outcome: I think it could be possible to have a relatively peaceful fracturing of the union, potentially. I don't think politicians nor the public have the stomach to use violence in order to preserve it. An outcome like this would result in Constitutions more likely to appeal to both sides, IMO.

That ... is an interesting point. But now you'd have two separate countries, each with its own government. That means new government structures in at least one of them. Worse, most countries (at least when they start off) have contiguous land. But here, the logical separation would yield a country that occupied the central portion of the landmass and one that occupied the coasts.

And the two countries would be diametrically opposed in their core philosophies. Since when have two countries with diametrically opposed core philosophies willingly shared borders without a fight? Even the Koreans couldn't pull that off, and are "peaceful" now only because of the larger countries (the United States and China) that oversee them.

In any case, what you speak of is a possible outcome, to be sure, and then whether or not the question of the extinction of liberty is addressed would depend on the constitutions of each resulting country. But I don't know. The difficulty of actually pulling that off (think of the logistics of setting up a completely new government from scratch), the inevitable mass migrations that would occur, not to mention the likely war between them that would probably result (it's only because of the presence of nuclear weaponry that we didn't go to war with the U.S.S.R., and we didn't share a border with the U.S.S.R.), leads me to believe that such an outcome that avoids violence is even less likely than a good outcome of an Article V Convention.

But now we're way into uncharted territory, and there's no way to say which is a more likely outcome.

I'm with you 100% on that. As I said earlier, it's the nature of government to grow. Outside of war, famine, or a black swan event, that is going to sadly continue.

Yes, it will unless we arrange the structure so that it can't. That's the entire point of the proposal.

If you agree with the logic, then you must agree with the conclusions, because the conclusions follow directly from the logic itself. I've proposed a mechanism to deal with the problem, and I welcome you to poke holes in it. Tell me why it cannot achieve the goal of protecting liberty.

Again, I reject the conclusion that we will necessarily have violence without an Article V convention.

Well, see above. What I'm talking about is achieving an outcome that actually protects liberty. The question is: what alternative actions exist that can achieve that outcome without bloodshed, save for an Article V Convention?

 

[BeoBill]

It will also disappear the 1st week a D sits in the White House...

And that date is at least four, and possibly eight or twelve or more years away.

 

[BeoBill]

Even when it is for one political party candidate and or against another? Some of the pickets do call out individuals. I will have to talk to the agency lawyers.

That is ALWAYS wise.

 

[SWO Daddy]

Yes, it will unless we arrange the structure so that it can't. That's the entire point of the proposal.

If you agree with the logic, then you must agree with the conclusions, because the conclusions follow directly from the logic itself. I've proposed a mechanism to deal with the problem, and I welcome you to poke holes in it. Tell me why it cannot achieve the goal of protecting liberty.

A agree with the logic; where I think we disagree is in the feasibility of it all. To be blunt, I don't trust the state legislatures to fix the problem.

Your ideas on checks and balances for the minority against tyranny by the majority are interesting.

 

[kcbrown]

A agree with the logic; where I think we disagree is in the feasibility of it all. To be blunt, I don't trust the state legislatures to fix the problem.

Nor do I. But what alternative have we? This is a choice between something that has a low probability of working (using an Article V Convention to alter the foundation to impose additional feedback mechanisms) and something that has no chance of working (staying with the current mechanisms).

Another thing for you to think about: suppose we split the country up. Why would you believe that the process of crafting the constitution for the country that represents our preferences will not be heavily influenced by, if not controlled by, the very people you don't trust? Who do you believe will draft, or at least ratify, that new constitution if not the legislatures of the states that will comprise the new country? After all, that is exactly how it occurred for the original Constitution.

Your ideas on checks and balances for the minority against tyranny by the majority are interesting.

Thanks. Like I said, I welcome you to poke holes in it. My purpose is to come up with something that will have the desired effects by design. I regard this as an engineering problem.

 

[Rob00taws6]

I personally wouldn't support the Maryland general assembly participating in a article V convention, nor a few other states. That said freedom loving people in Maryland can support states that stand up for there citizens rights. There are a few choices we have at are disposal, we can move to a state that upholds our rights. We can start getting a little more aggressive like the crazy left. Or, we can ask for help from the states that value freedom.

I know that many of you make signs together and take trips up to Annapolis, and I appreciate that I truly do. But, the Maryland general assembly doesn't respect natural rights, or the constitution for that matter. No amount of statistics or signage will change there opinion. It still important to have a presence, but the system needs a kick in the teeth. It might not seem like it but the Democrat party and the left is on their heels right now. That probably not going to be the case for to long. The most important thing is we must not be complacent with a trump presidency. As much grumbling as we do about Hogan, and it's rightfully due, we need to support him, and give him what he needs to have a back bone. And, most importantly all of us can't be stuck in the past. I stink at this but we can't discredit social media. Twitter, twitch, YouTube, instagram, Facebook whatever needs to be exploited.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Rob00taws6]

I also want to apologize, just in case I get under someone's skin. Truth is I like my firearms, am I more passionate about other things, I am cars specifically. For me it's a freedom argument, and I'm not going to capitulate, especially when it's written in black and white on our founding document that I don't have to.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[kcbrown]

I personally wouldn't support the Maryland general assembly participating in a article V convention, nor a few other states.

You don't need to support all the states. Just 3/4 or more. If that threshold isn't met, then yeah, an Article V Convention wouldn't be a good idea.

That said freedom loving people in Maryland can support states that stand up for there citizens rights.

Learn from history or be doomed by it. Majority support for a right is a fleeting notion. That's why we're here in the first place -- because the support for the right to arms has changed over time. We've seen it disappear in the majority of the country, and seen it resurrected in much of it. That doesn't happen to a real right. A real right is protected regardless of what the majority thinks.

It's not until we recognize that rights protect minorities from majorities, and use that recognition to build the appropriate protective mechanisms, that we will actually see rights truly enshrined. Anything less is just lip service.

 

[abu Haqiqa]

My take is it started with the 'progressives' attempt at alcohol prohibition.

Prohibition was pushed most fervently by conservative Christians (e.g., the Anti-Saloon League and the WCTU), often in line with the Ku Klux Klan, largely as a way to demonize the Irish and "saloon culture". Just as the early drug prohibition movements were aimed at demonizing the Chinese (opium), blacks (cocaine), and Mexicans (and blacks) (marijuana).

In that way, it is kind of like prohibition, given that the modern gun control movement was arguably started by Ronald Reagan's signature on the Mulford Act in response to the Black Panthers open carrying in California.

 

[Rob00taws6]

You don't need to support all the states. Just 3/4 or more. If that threshold isn't met, then yeah, an Article V Convention wouldn't be a good idea.

Learn from history or be doomed by it. Majority support for a right is a fleeting notion. That's why we're here in the first place -- because the support for the right to arms has changed over time. We've seen it disappear in the majority of the country, and seen it resurrected in much of it. That doesn't happen to a real right. A real right is protected regardless of what the majority thinks.

It's not until we recognize that rights protect minorities from majorities, and use that recognition to build the appropriate protective mechanisms, that we will actually see rights truly enshrined. Anything less is just lip service.

I would like to post this in regards to a run away article V convention, or the Constitution being rewritten in an article V convention, for all those interested, .

https://www.conventionofstates.com/an_article_v_convention_can_be_limited

The threshold for approving a amendment is 2/3rds, i just looked it up and that threshold has been met, republicans sit in 68% of state legislative chambers.

As far as history, if your really want an excuse to pack away lots of ammunition, check out this book Pendulum by Roy Williams. I'm not crazy about some of the sources of the book, but they serve the book well. it will truly open your eyes in regards to whats going on socially in this country and in Europe.

As far as the second amendment being a minority right, or even a right that's loosing ground, I have to disagree with you. I agree that it has changed over time, but we are on a upswing, people are embracing the second amendment. Take a moment and search all the states that are looking into or have approved constitutional carry. Some states and some areas firearms are a necessity. As far as other countries, control and capitulation are forefront, their founding documents are the pinnacle power in peoples lives. They decree rights and take them away. The second amendment is a negative liberty in our country, and the Framers got it right. It basically says that God and the laws of nature are higher than the federal government and we Cannot take this away from you. The beauty of an article V convention is you don't need to knock down the house and rebuild it, the language is already there, all we need to do is weed around the foundation a little bit, maybe cut down some ugly brush in some areas.

 

[LeadSled1]

I'd like to see the EO go through for now, and watch the outcome when states (CA, NY, MD) sue that it is unconstitutional. That should give a real good read on where things are falling on the 2A with the current SCOTUS inhabitants. Basically calling them on the carpet.