Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
I keep hearing that as many as 38 states are preparing legislation banning the new Socialized Medicine act from their borders. Who can blame them? An unconstitutional law is no law at all.
But 38 is an interesting number. It's slightly more than 3/4 of the states. Where have we heard that number before? At least, those of us who have read and understood the Constitution?
That document says that Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution itself, by passing them with a 2/3 majority of each house. Then the proposals go to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify them to make them stick.
Anybody think the present Congress will muster 2/3 majorites to repeal Socialized Medicine? (snicker)
But, that antique document also says that's not the only way to get amendments proposed. 2/3 of the STATES can also call for a national Constitutional Convention... and if they do, Congress MUST call one, whether it likes it or not. And that ConCon can propose any amendments it likes... again, whether ANY part of the Fed govt likes it or not.
A ConCon could be an interesting development, especially if spawned by this Health Care travesty.
A ConCon, of course, cannot modify the Constitution by itself. All it can do is propose amendments, just as Congress can propose them with 2/3 majorities of each house.
Any amendment that comes from a ConCon (or from Congress) must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can. But if the 38 we keep hearing about would like to put their money where their mouth is, this could get interesting.
And there is NO LIMIT to what a ConCon can propose. If 38 states see fit to ratify, then it (and they) can make ANY law they want. These 37 or so, seem to be in an anti-Federal mood... which, all things considered, isn't a bad idea nowadays. How about an amendment that declares the EPA, OSHA, etc. edicts to be null and void in any state that has not given explicit agreement to them? Or even an amendment that simply dissolves those agencies... and others?
The amendment process was deliberately designed to give the highest office in the land (the Presidency) NO voice in any amendment, either proposal or ratification. The entire country was based on the notion that the people, far removed from government, were the best arbiters of their own lives AND the running of the country. For that reason, the Framers even provided a means of amending the Supreme Law of the Land that completely cuts out ALL of the Federal government: States can call a national ConCon to propose amendment, following which the States can then ratify what they proposed... and if the Fed Govt they just modified, doesn't like it, too bad.
Liberals in the Fed govt (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating Constitutional provisions for decades - and just added to the total today. If they start trying to ignore or violate the purely-state-based amendment process too... we could have a real problem.
Of course, the idea of States unilaterally exercising supreme power like that, flies in the face of everything those far-left liberals hold holy. If the Federal government thinks it's a good idea to take the choice out of our hands of whether to buy health insurance, is it beyond consideration that they might think it's an equally good idea to take the choice out of our hands, how to modify the Fed Govt itself, particularly if those liberals don't like the proposed changes? Either act is equally a violation of the Constitution... and they've already done one of them.
But 38 is an interesting number. It's slightly more than 3/4 of the states. Where have we heard that number before? At least, those of us who have read and understood the Constitution?
That document says that Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution itself, by passing them with a 2/3 majority of each house. Then the proposals go to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify them to make them stick.
Anybody think the present Congress will muster 2/3 majorites to repeal Socialized Medicine? (snicker)
But, that antique document also says that's not the only way to get amendments proposed. 2/3 of the STATES can also call for a national Constitutional Convention... and if they do, Congress MUST call one, whether it likes it or not. And that ConCon can propose any amendments it likes... again, whether ANY part of the Fed govt likes it or not.
A ConCon could be an interesting development, especially if spawned by this Health Care travesty.
A ConCon, of course, cannot modify the Constitution by itself. All it can do is propose amendments, just as Congress can propose them with 2/3 majorities of each house.
Any amendment that comes from a ConCon (or from Congress) must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can. But if the 38 we keep hearing about would like to put their money where their mouth is, this could get interesting.
And there is NO LIMIT to what a ConCon can propose. If 38 states see fit to ratify, then it (and they) can make ANY law they want. These 37 or so, seem to be in an anti-Federal mood... which, all things considered, isn't a bad idea nowadays. How about an amendment that declares the EPA, OSHA, etc. edicts to be null and void in any state that has not given explicit agreement to them? Or even an amendment that simply dissolves those agencies... and others?
The amendment process was deliberately designed to give the highest office in the land (the Presidency) NO voice in any amendment, either proposal or ratification. The entire country was based on the notion that the people, far removed from government, were the best arbiters of their own lives AND the running of the country. For that reason, the Framers even provided a means of amending the Supreme Law of the Land that completely cuts out ALL of the Federal government: States can call a national ConCon to propose amendment, following which the States can then ratify what they proposed... and if the Fed Govt they just modified, doesn't like it, too bad.
Liberals in the Fed govt (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating Constitutional provisions for decades - and just added to the total today. If they start trying to ignore or violate the purely-state-based amendment process too... we could have a real problem.
Of course, the idea of States unilaterally exercising supreme power like that, flies in the face of everything those far-left liberals hold holy. If the Federal government thinks it's a good idea to take the choice out of our hands of whether to buy health insurance, is it beyond consideration that they might think it's an equally good idea to take the choice out of our hands, how to modify the Fed Govt itself, particularly if those liberals don't like the proposed changes? Either act is equally a violation of the Constitution... and they've already done one of them.
