We are in complete agreement here.

Rim: Excellent analogy and right on the money.

I reject it right along with you, j... I'm just gonna try to change it, and I'm asking for help.

No need to respond... I'm not asking you personally... I'm getting a sense of the depth of your depression. I'm on a quest to inform and educate and pique the interest, the curiosity, maybe even fan the dim flame of pride in those who still have those attributes.

No, there's no need for you to respond.

Not really... IMHO.

How cool is this... after that last post, I rec'd an eMail from the admins that I now have voting privileges! What an awesome thread!

#10 You said:

Golly gee whiz and just WOW! What great Objectivist thought.

- - -

Thank you.

#9 You said:

And we're going to straighten all of that out with an Article V Convention manned by people drawn from the minor league of professional politicians who mostly seek to graduate to the big leagues in DC themselves?

- - -

Casting aside your arrogant and elitist denigration of fine men and women you can’t even pretend to know, the answer to your question is yes… at least we are going to try.

We are not, however, going to be able to change history. What has been will always be, and if you set the bar to determine the worth of calling for a Convention of States so high as to make the goals impossible to achieve, then I’ll be forced to simply reject your arguments as irrational.

#8 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

A US dollar's purchasing power is about 3% today of what it was in 1913.

- - -
Now, on this one you’ve got me. I am not an economist, no matter how many nights I spend in a Holiday Inn. Not only do I not have a head for finance, but that’s one reason why marrying my wife, a former banking officer, 35 years ago, was without a doubt the single best decision I’ve ever made. She has made every other decision since, at least the sound ones, and as a result we have today a very short list of things we’re sorry for not doing, but a very long list of things that were thankful we didn’t do!

Having said that, let me suggest, however, that I am confident that the Fed’s current monetary policy is a very rich target for supply-side reformers, and I’m certain that there will be no shortage of delegates in attendance whose sole purpose will be to address those and other fiscal and economic issues. Remember, it’s a one-state / one-vote assembly, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be dozens of delegates sent from each state, each specialists in their respective fields of expertise.

As with all conventions since the beginning of time, there will be committee assignments, and those with seats on the Budget & Finance Committee, or whatever they decide to call it, will not only be fiscal policy experts, but will most assuredly have first-hand experience running a government with constraints. Forty-nine of our 50 states currently have balanced budget requirements written into their state constitutions, even those dominated by liberals, which is why it’s so important to keep reminding the nay-sayers that these will be state-level delegates, not their federal kin who have virtually no concept whatsoever of actually having to work within any sort of fiscal absolutes.

#7 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

None of the limits imposed on the Federal government by the Constitution are followed by the government.

- - -

I’m starting to think that if they removed the word “none” from the vocabulary, you wouldn’t know how to start a sentence. I’m also starting to wonder what country you live in.

Please… if you have a specific point to make, a definitive issue to examine that is relevant to the discussion here, then do so. We’re talking about solutions to the problems here, not just gathering ‘round the campfire and regurgitating exaggerated talking points.

#6 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

None of the natural rights referred to in the Constitution nor even those guaranteed to not be infringed in the Bill of Rights still exist in fact today and the government doesn't even bother to pretend that they do anymore.

- - -

I don’t even know where to begin with this over-statement. You see, that’s the problem with hyperbole, exaggeration and outright fabrication of “facts”… at some point, people will be forced, by the power of their own reasoning, to stop taking you seriously. I believe that YOU truly believe that the nation is in trouble, but you do yourself and your cause a disservice with this kind of distortion.

Another analogy: I have a buddy who hates Obama… every eMail that hits his in-box, no matter how outlandish the claim against the president, he forwards it on to his entire mail list, without so much as giving Google, TruthorFiction or even Snopes a second thought. As some point a couple years ago, I stopped opening anything from him with FW: in the subject line… even the truthful ones. Get my point?

If things were as bad as you say, where NONE of our natural rights existed anymore, then the government could, without benefit of law, kill anyone, anytime, anywhere at will; they could lock us up and take all of our stuff… any of us, all of us, without a writ or warrant; they could simply throw the switch on the Fox News Channel, close the doors at the Washington Times, and have Matt Drudge assassinated… and do it all publically. Do I need to go on?

Get serious, and so will I.

So, no, you don’t have the Article V argument right.

#5 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

No President, Congress, or Court has followed the Constitution since at least Teddy Roosevelt, if not Lincoln.

- - -

Besides being an absurd exaggeration on its face, it’s a meaningless straw man, and even if it were true, it would still be a logical fallacy. Just because this is how it is does not prove that this is the way it shall always be.

But more to the point, I’ve contended before and will continue to submit that both Congress and the Executive do, indeed, follow the Constitution, but only as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Like a child, they do what the parent allows them to get away with. If you will indulge me in a tenuous analogy of my own, it’s time we schooled the parent in originalism (completely overhaul the SCOTUS – Levin suggests eliminating presidential appointments, replace with one judge from each state, impose term limits, all of which I think would make for a great start) so that the parent now knows how to keep the child on the straight and narrow, not the broad and wide, living, breathing, malleable document we keep hearing about but never seem to be able to pin down because it’s never the same from one day to the next because of a politically motivated SCOTUS and an out-of-control president with a pen.

So, no, you don’t have the Article V argument right.

#4 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

The 16th Amendment, though not actually ratified by sufficient State's in the proper time was listed as approved by the Federal government.

- - -

This point actually matters. Unfortunately for the nation, the majority of constitutional scholars agree that a call for ratification that does not contain a time element cannot expire, unless withdrawn, and there never was much of a chance of that. Like it or not, it’s the Law of the Land, enshrined by a SCOTUS that also needs some serious revision, and the best way to fix the 16th Amendment is to repeal it. Hmmm… I wonder if those Constitutional Conservatives over at that Convention of States called for proposing amendments to reduce the size, scope and power of the Federal would be interested in debating such a radical notion? /s

#3 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

Lincoln's Federal government replaced State's governors, legislators, and their Congressional representatives and senators to get the 14th Amendment agreed to.

- - -

Again, another North versus South issue from the dustbin of history, formally and properly resolved by ratification, forced or otherwise… there had just been a war. This is more of a distraction than an argument, for or against A5. It’s irrelevant to today’s reality and this conversation.

So again, no, you don’t have the Article V argument right.

#2 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

Thomas Jefferson's original 13th Amendment mysteriously disappeared from all mention when Lincoln's 13th was added.

- - -

There’s really nothing all that “mysterious” about it. At the time of these events that you’ve plucked out of history, this nation was caught in the throes of establishing its values regarding the natural law of equality, and ultimately determining its destiny. It took a Civil War to sort all that out, which it did… that is, for most of us.

Anyway, we’re not about trying to re-write anything, particularly history. I will not here engage in a Blue vs Gray… I’ve grown partial to Red, White & Blue.

So, once again, no, you don’t have the Article V argument right.

#1 You said:

Let me see if I've got this Article V argument right:

The original intent and wording of the Constitution has been subverted through mis-interpretation and implied additions by
the Federal government and acquiescence by State government and by citizens.

- - -

Not really. Where you’ve got it wrong is the “acquiescence” part. Please go to www.ComventionOfStaes.com and read the material. Heck, just give it a casual perusal, if you don’t have the time or the energy. You’ll discover that what this conversation is about is the exact opposite of “acquiescence.” It’s about a grassroots movement by citizens (your word) to encourage state governments (your words) to apply for an application to Congress to call for a Convention of States limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

So, no, you don’t have the Article V argument right.