I totally understand what you're saying about their modus operandi, but as for the actual tactics that you warn against, I'm at a loss... can you give me an example, one that could actually derail a parliamentary process? Even persistent points of order can, after awhile, be simply ignored by the chair.

It is a setup for AS - Now Non-Fiction.

I like your sentiment, RimCountry, but the way that the Democrats will work with regard to Article V is that we will deploy a delay tactic at the last possible moment much like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. Then they will do the same thing the time after that. They trained as lawyers. Lawyers pull these sorts of amateurish stunts. We let them get away with it.

Alrighty then! I apologize for making assumptions, but you gave me very little else to go with! 3D printers... very cool... I can't wait for the day when I can send a copy of a ham sandwich by eMail.

Like everyone else, I'm waiting for AS III... I'm certain, however, that this place, Galt's Gulch, or whatever was / is on the other side of that inter-dimensional transition, that time-warp, is not a place to do nothing, but a place to plan for everything... for everything will be possible... eventually.

I got the latest short clip this morning and was kinda bummed... as I'm sure you all saw, it ended with James Manera saying rather ominously, "Yeah, the bad guys have taken over... for the moment."

Is this a set-up already for AS IV?

OK... that's fair... I would expect no less... I'm running a little behind on responding to your posts, so maybe as I make some progress in catching up here, I'll eventually get to those where you are trumpeting the positive possibilities.

First, let me thank you for your service. That's more than just something I say to VN-era vets... I mean it. I turned 18 in '67, but college kept me stateside. As an Air Force brat, I grew up all over the world, waking up every morning to a father in uniform who taught me by example what it means to be a patriot, dedicated to the flag and service to country. Thank you, again.

In response to your last comment, regarding your suspicions as to the intent, honor, fidelity and trustworthiness of the nation's state-level legislators, all I can really speak from with any credibility is personal experience, although I could certainly site numerous other examples, if need be. Allow me to submit the following:

In December of last year, Citizens for Self-Governance, a grassroots organization headed up by Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, held a convention at Mount Vernon that was attended by legislators from 32 states. At that assembly, the concept of a state-level movement for a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution was introduced. As a result, many of those legislators returned to their home states and began the process of introducing legislation applying to Congress for just such a Convention of States.

In the first states to do so, the legislation received overwhelming support from conservatives, and virtually no support from liberals. That, in itself, is telling. These legislators are legal mechanics… tinkering with the fine print is what they do for a living… if somewhere deep down in the guts of the proposed legislation there were some secret “back door” that would have allowed a Soros-funded take-over of the movement, don’t you think that at least one Democrat somewhere among the several states would have noticed it and signed on to it? Well, none did.

In what is expected to be a 3 to 5 year process, 10 states succeeded in rushing the legislation to the floor during what was left of their 2014 legislative sessions. It passed both houses in 3 states, and is pending in 3 more. Here in Arizona, it passed easily in the house and was headed for passage in the senate, but fell victim to a pocket-veto by the senate president, who was barraged by age-old, fear-based arguments foisted upon him by the John Birch Society and Phyllis Schlafley’s Eagle Forum. It’s sponsors, co-sponsors and bi-cameral supporters have promised their constituents a renewed push in the next session, and have encouraged activists to embark on a program of EIM in the interim – Educate, Inform and Mobilize.

That’s the reason I am here.

A second follow-up conference of state legislators is being assembled as we speak, this one to be held in St. Louis, I believe. Attendance is expected to far exceed the first event in Mount Vernon. My point, I suppose, is there are in fact, despite your suspicions, many locally elected state legislators who see that our current, out-of-control, runaway federal government is an imminent danger to the republic. Their support of this movement is diametrically opposed to any alleged self-interest, any upwardly-mobile motivation, or any Washington, DC-centric inclinations that you have implied. It is those legislators to whom I refer when I speak of good, God-fearing, Constitutional Conservatives. I have met them, and they are us.

I was responding to your hostile rhetoric, and I suppose I became a bit hostile in return. Plus, I was on a droid.

But enough excuses. I think you already know the answer to your question. From your posts that I've read so far, it's clear that you know this issue well. What I don't know is why you are so adamantly opposed to it. Your stated reasons seem to be based not in cold logic or reason, of which you do have a very capable grasp, but in some brand of emotional idealism. I find that difficult to reconcile.

Let me ask... should I allow for the possibility that you may be, like I was a year or so ago, in a state of flux, of introspection and transition, that you have very long and closely held opinions on A5 that you are disinclined to let go for reasons of ideology, fealty or just good old stubbornness? I would understand and accept that. What I cannot accept is that you are uninformed or dense.

When you make a blatantly inaccurate statement, I know that you know what you're doing. I know that you know that our state legislators are victims, not the cause, of this nation's deepest ills. I know that you know that government closest to the people is the best government. I know that you know that no government is anarchy, and that anarchy is a wild-west free-for-all, worse than the worst government, because at the very least, even a tyrannical regime must have a tax base. And I know that you know that if we do nothing, or if we just keep doing what we've been doing, sending shiny new faces to DC hoping that they will change... themselves... if we continue with the status quo, we can only further devolve, and then the republic truly will be lost.

So to your point, the COS will be state legislators meeting in order to reign in federal legislators. Simple as that. That's how that's supposed to work.

Teeth... that's exactly what's needed, and that's what's being discussed out there. As I mentioned before, I don't have much of a head for numbers, but in trying to decide if I was going to support the Compact for America's Article V movement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, I forced myself to wade through the text of the proposed legislation. I didn't have to read all that far, I think it was Section 6, before the words I was reading made the time I had spent well worth my while.

Among other things, it talks of restricting the power of Congress and the Executive to raise the debt limit, raise taxes or increase the annual budget, requiring specific actions by each in a specific time frame, under threat of impeachment! The legislation clearly spells out that certain actions, and failures to act, shall be impeachable offenses!

And if that wasn't good enough, the next section said that even if Congress & the White House toe the time line, whatever they propose still has to be ratified by the state legislatures... no more unilateral monetary monkey business.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that almost all of the things you guys are saying "should" be and "needs" to be are some extremely good ideas, and are being given some very serious consideration by some very serious people, and NONE of them are in DC!

As for putting off any remedy until there is a groundswell "from the mass citizenry" instead of the political class, I like that and I believe that will happen. We are a republic, not a democracy, so each of us, We the People, are represented by someone selected from our local legislative districts, tens of thousands of them all across the country. If and when both houses of the legislatures of 33 states file an application with Congress to call for a Convention of States, that, in my opinion, will have constituted the groundswell you set as a precondition. I'm afraid that any procedure or action outside of that structure would have us acting un- or extra-constitutionally ourselves.

I cannot disagree with a word. I might quibble as to whether or not your philosophy more closely aligns with Idealism than Objectivism, but that's splitting hairs... on your primary point, we agree.

I think that we may both take some solace, though, in knowing that, although the Constitution itlself does limit its establishment of natural or God-given rights, it was preceded by the Declaration of Independence which left little doubt as to what the Founders had in mind.

George Mason, my all time favorite delegate to the Convention of 1787 and primary advocate of Article V, echoed the influence of Locke when he penned Virginia's Declaration of Independence just a few months before signing the United States Declaration of Independence, enshrining in both documents the doctrine of Natural Law, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, and that the primary purpose for the institution of government is to secure those rights, not to restrict, abolish or destroy them.

One proposal that I would like to see from an A5 COS would be an amendment to establish the doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction (as opposed to concurrent jurisdiction), whereas one level of government – either state or federal, but not both - would have “subject matter jurisdiction” over every topic, every issue, every problem, every question in the nation, eliminating overlapping, excessive and redundant regulation.

One immediate example of such “subject matter” that is currently affected by concurrent jurisdiction would be education.

Removing federal regulation from areas where states should have primary jurisdiction would allow school districts to adjust the curriculum according to the needs established at the local level, not in Washington or Cambridge.

Once again, students would be taught such things as Natural Law from Day One... and we could let them find about Sally and her Two Mommies in their own time, on their own time... at home with their parents.

We can hope it's a howitzer.

Another excellent analogy.

I think politicians and bankers aren't nearly as powerful as they think. I remember during the bailout their talking about the economy collapsing. No one could allocate capital without the banking system with existing institutions and that required a bailout. The bailout worked, but I always felt like the people involve truly believed they were key to all productive activity, as if we wouldn't find ways to serve customers and invest our profits in ventures to serve more customers w/o them.

I echo Zenphamy on this one, RimCountry, especially regarding being late to the battle with no bullets. As much as I would like to believe that Article V is a silver bullet, unlike the vampire that liberalism is (sucking blood, living unreasonably long, etc.), Canada is the only country I have seen that peacefully reversed its liberal course. They did so before their debt was out of control. We haven't.

Rim: I'm not going to engage in a fruitless response to your 10 replies other than to opine that you miss the point of my comment and the items I list. The point I feebly attempted to make was that if all of those actions could happen under the Constitution as written, how could anyone imagine that new words added to it would make any difference.

While it would offer to the many, the idea that they're doing something and making a difference, I'm of the opinion that it would only serve to be a distraction and a show. I certainly understand and sympathize with the drive to do something, anything to change what's happened to our country. But I fear that we're a little late to the battle with no bullets.

I do appreciate your obvious enthusiasm and wish you well with your efforts.

+1 for Zenphamy.

jbrenner: Great point. Again, I'll quote Lincoln, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” -Abraham Lincoln

and then Jefferson, "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson Third President of the United States

The one Amendment I'd really like to see is one granting the citizenry the ability and the means to directly indict and impeach government officials, elected or appointed, with criminal charges for treason if they act or vote against the plain wording of the Constitution. As it stands today, you, or even Congressmen can't at least sue in court without first proving standing deriving from actual, personal damages.

You have made a lot of solid points, RimCountry. You made a comment earlier today saying that you don't take a path of easy choices. That is true of all of us here in the Gulch. The path toward liberty and to the Gulch requires a series of difficult choices. Rush Limbaugh has said many times that "liberalism is an easy choice". He is right. If I offer you the opportunity to improve yourself via education, you will take that opportunity. Most people will not. They will say it is too hard. Should we try to convince them, or should they come to our viewpoint on their own?

Robbie: It's not so much a problem with the Constitution as it relates to SCOTUS as it is with the 1803 decision by John Marshall (the Federalist Secretary of State under Adams whom attorneys love to this day) in which SCOTUS granted to themselves the power to interpret the Constitution and to have the power (not mentioned in the Constitution) of Judicial review to determine the constitutionality of all laws enacted by Congress or States. In essence, as Jefferson said to appoint themselves as an Oligarchy.

I will fight along with you, RimCountry, but my enthusiasm for doing so is less than it was because my optimism has been tempered. When it comes to my inventions, I remain quite optimistic.

Robbie: I'm in strong agreement with your last paragraph. Well said.