🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Patterson wrote:

>[From Atl.General]

Noted

>The modern liberals are very unlikely to go for an amendment since
>that process comes under Article V of the Constitution and they know
>that their feel-good legislation is very unlikely to withstand such
>scrutiny and a 2/3 to start and then a 3/4 to ratify majority.

The only legitimate means of getting what they want is to have a
convention or get Congress to pass amendments, and yes, you're
right -- they won't likely get what they want when those outside their
group of supporters find out what's proposed.

It also fits their moral laxity instead to bend and twist and distort
the meaning of the law, to use specious argument such as basing
their claims on the Preamble to the Constitution or to say that the
feds can do something not delegated to it because the Tenth
Amendment includes "the people" (meaning the localities and
the municipalities and the individual citizens), claiming that it
can refer to the federal government as the agent of "the people"
(both cases above are failures at the Constitutionality 101 level;
the Preamble is not the body of the Constitution, and the federal
government is mentioned specifically in the Tenth Amendment).


>One of the more important blocks in their way is "...and that no
>State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in
>the Senate. " Which means that they can't rely on the 'popular' vote
>which is dependent on the generally liberal public-tit-hangers in the
>big cities.
>
>When it comes to amendment ratification, then Montana becomes just as
>important as California. (Which is not the case in legislative
>representation within the Federal house of representatives.) Even if
>it is sent to popular referenda within the states (an option) it
>remains state-oriented.

Yep.  Some scraps of federalism remain alive, if not well any more.

(The Supreme Court decision inventing the requirement for _both_
houses of state legislatures to be based on one-person, one-vote
representation was illegitimate, and how ironic that the Senate
remains the way it is.)

The Senate could be abolished, neatly sidestepping the prohibition
on depriving equal state suffrage within it, but of course abolishing
the Senate would require amending the Constitution, and good luck
getting that ratified.

(One of the stupidest left-wing books I read was a whiny book about
the Senate and it ends with a scenario in which members of the 
federal government declare the Senate abolished.  It's characteristically
pathetic that the basis they claim for making that action is the Preamble!)

>Hence, they become judicial activists claiming that if the courts
>declare 2+2=5, then that is the oh--fishul sum.

Right -- they choose to become un-American openly by their actions.

If it keeps up, Congress should look into passing legislation (which the
Congress can do) limiting the scope of ruling by the Supreme Court.


Dave Simpson