Thread: Mark Levin: Georgia is in! First State to pass Convention of States Resolution

Mark Levin

Georgia is in!





Georgia become first State to pass Convention of States Resolution

Measure calls for Convention to propose amendments to limit federal power.

By: Buzz Brockway (Diary) | March 6th, 2014 at 01:23 PM | 4
PRESS RELEASE
March 6, 2014

Contact Rep. Buzz Brockway (678) 895-9064
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
State Representative Buzz Brockway (R-Lawrenceville) Celebrates Passage of Convention of States Resolution.

(Atlanta, GA) State Representative Buzz Brockway (R-Lawrenceville) celebrated the passage today of Senate Resolution 736 by Senator Cecil Staton (R- Macon) in the Georgia House of Representatives. SR736 calls for an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution on the limited topics of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and establishing term limits for federal officials
Brockway, the resolution’s primary sponsor in the Georgia House said, “I’m proud Georgia has taken the lead on the very important work of restoring our Republic. An Article V Convention of States would provide an opportunity for the citizens of this great nation to restore the balance of power between the States and the Federal government. I urge Legislators in the other 49 states to join Georgia and call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. constitution.”
By a vote of 107-58, Georgia becomes the first state in the country to pass this historic resolution which is being promoted nationwide by the Convention of States Project (“COS”), a grassroots, non-profit organization founded this past August by constitutional attorney, Dr. Michael Farris, of Virginia, and Mark Meckler, founder of the political think tank, Citizens for Self-Governance. The same resolution has been introduced into 13 different state legislatures in 2014 with more to come. COS hopes to gain passage in 34 states in time for a convention to be held in 2016.
Buzz Brockway was first elected to the State House of Representatives in November of 2010. He is a Majority Caucus Deputy Whip and serves as Vice Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. He is also a member of the Appropriations, Economic Development, and Insurance Committees. He has been named a ‘Defender of Liberty” by the American Conservative Union for the past two years, and scored 100% on Legislative scorecards for Americans for Prosperity and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Buzz holds a B+ average from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, and an A+ average from the Georgia Parents Alliance.
Buzz has been involved in local politics since the mid-1990′s and served as Chairman of the Gwinnett Republican Party from 2002 – 2005. He also served the Gwinnett Republican Party as a Precinct Captain, District Manager and 2nd Vice Chairman. Since 2005 Buzz has blogged at Peach Pundit, the State’s most popular independent political blog. He is a 1990 graduate of Georgia Tech with a Bachelor of Science in Management Science and runs a small business in Lawrenceville with his wife Christa. They are the proud parents of three daughters. The Brockway’s are active members of Victory World Church at Hamilton Mill. Buzz has lived Lawrenceville since 1976.

For more information visit Buzz Brockway’s campaign website at www.vote4buzz.com, follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/buzzbrockway or “friend” him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/buzz.brockway

http://www.redstate.com/diary/buzzbr...es-resolution/

An Upside Down World

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | February 28th, 2014 at 04:30 AM | 108

In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the thirteenth amendment constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the twenty-first century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.
Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business. A number of states have been working to pass laws to prevent this weird conundrum, but in an irony that knows no bounds, gay-rights activists are comparing these religious freedom laws to Jim Crow.

The issue boils down to one question — should a Christian who believes a wedding can only be between a man and a woman be forced to provide goods and services to a gay wedding? Despite the histrionics of some, no one suggests that anyone be allowed to simply deny service to any class of people, be they black or white or gay or straight. The issue only arises in the context of gay weddings.
Gay rights activists have lately claimed that Jesus would bake the cake for the gay wedding, so Christian bakers should. Jesus, of course, affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also told the various sinners he encountered to “sin no more.” So it becomes highly dubious that Christ would bake a cake for a gay wedding, and he most certainly would not preside over the service.
Therein lies the problem. One side is arguing that Christ would not do this so they should not have to do this. The other side is arguing that not only would Christ do this, but the government should be able to force Christians to do it. Gone are the days of turning the other cheek and going to another baker.
In one real world case, a florist had a long time relationship with a gay couple. She had sold them flowers on multiple occasions. She knew they were gay. She gladly served them. When they asked her to provide flowers for their gay wedding, she declined because of her faith. She assumed they were friends. They sued her business for discrimination.
She did not take the position that she should be allowed to deny gays any good or service. She only objected to participating in a gay wedding. Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work they can share the gospel and glorify God. Because committed Christians believe marriage is a relationship created and ordained by God Himself to be between a man and woman, they believe they cannot provide goods and services to a marital union that would run counter to that which God ordains. Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith.
The government saw it otherwise and forced the florist to perform the work or be punished.
Similar situations have come up in Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, and other states with florists, photographers, bakers, and others. None of them denied all goods and services to gay. They just declined to provide them for a gay wedding because of their faith.
A number of states have sought to ensure Christians cannot be compelled by the state to violate their consciences. The laws are being badly mischaracterized as anti-gay. Christians are being compared to Bull Connor for trying to honor their God. The state is picking sides in matters of conscience. Instead of living and letting others live, tolerance has become a one way street. Those who seek to dissent or opt out are made to care whether they want to or not.

(c) 2014 Creators Syndicate
Tags: Civil Rights, freedom, Gay Marriage, religious liberty, You Will Be Made to Care

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/28/a...de-down-world/

The Great Establishment Deception on Winning Back Senate

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | February 25th, 2014 at 08:16 AM | 70

The unambiguous strategy of the GOP establishment this year has been to avoid any and all confrontation in the hopes of gliding into a Senate majority in 2015. To that end, they have capitulated on all of the major leverage points, passed a number of Democrat spending bills, and are in the process of pushing “small-ball” legislation in the House so as not to rock the boat before November.
This pusillanimous strategy is predicated on the false hope that a bare-minimum Senate majority – comprised of the same Republicans who support these Democrat priorities – will somehow alter the landscape in Washington. They are misleading conservative and GOP activists into thinking that as long as the GOP can hold tight on the status quo until 2015 we will enjoy robust power to push for conservative priorities thereafter.

The reality is that nothing will change in 2015. Irrespective of the outcome in November, Republicans will control the House and have the ability to block bad legislation. On the other hand, President Obama will still be in the White House for another two years. Consequently, the addition of six more Senate seats with the current incumbent leaders and rank-and-file members will not change the legislative dynamic.
Republicans who lack the will or principles to fight on major issues will still use Obama’s obstructionism as the baseline for excuses not to advocate bold initiatives. Whether it’s a debt ceiling or a budget bill, they will fear brinkmanship with Obama as much as they do now.
What about blocking bad bills? Certainly Republicans will have the power to do so if they win back the Senate, won’t they?
Well, they already have the power to stop bad bills with control of the House, yet, time and again, we have seen a de facto Democrat super-majority in the Senate pass harmful legislation only to be rubber-stamped by the House – or at least open for consideration.
Unless we elect the right candidates for Senate, a weak GOP majority would still net enough votes to pass amnesty, an internet sales tax, omnibus bills, highway bills, or the anti-liberty “ENDA” bill.
Moreover, in some respects, these same Republicans will be even more frightened to fight for a bold conservative agenda in 2015. As much as they would have us believe that a GOP Senate-majority is the road to the Promised Land, it will be overshadowed by the presidential election the minute they take office.
If Republicans are recalcitrant to stand for anything ahead of a midterm election, imagine how fearful they will be to even stick their fingers in the wind with the White House at stake.
“Well, we can’t get anything done without the White House anyway,” they will contend. “Let’s not undermine the effort to win the presidency by picking fights with Obama.”
The entirety of the 114th Congress will be driven by fear of 2016.
Ok, but wait until 2017 when Republicans control everything. Then they will really fight for a decisive conservative agenda and will overturn every inimical policy of the Obama administration.
Maybe in some dreamland, folks.
With control of all branches of government, and the undivided responsibility that comes with such power, Republicans will be even more indisposed to roll back big government. “How can we risk losing power?”
Furthermore, let’s remember that many of the same arguments promulgated by Republicans in the minority will persist even when they are in control of the White House. These same hackneyed politicians have already agreed to the Democrat premise of default. So they will feel compelled to raise the debt ceiling even with full control of the government.
The current crew of GOP leaders has already agreed to the Democrat premise on immigration. That will not change when they are in the majority.
They have already accepted the notion of a permanent federal control over transportation and agriculture policy. That will not change when they are in power.
Republicans have made it clear that they will not publicly fight back against the growing anti-religious–liberty agenda forcing alternative lifestyles on private citizens and organizations.
In fact, these same non-leaders tend to be at their best specifically when they are in the minority. The allurement of power only moves them to the left when they are the majority party in Washington.
Hence, whether we are talking about 2015, 2017, or well beyond, there is never an end-game for these politicians. The pursuit of power over principle; the quest for authority for its own sake is a circuitous cycle of failure.
The only way to end the failed cycle of politics is to change the way we approach primaries. This year would be a great time to start.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Tags: John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, primaries

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/25/g...g-back-senate/

State pulls U.S. Constitution's trigger to rein in feds
The wisdom of the Founders was demonstrated today when this fed-up state legislature became the first to use the Constitution's nuclear option for bypassing Washington.

Get out of the way, Harry Reid, John Boehner and Barack Obama ...

WND EXCLUSIVE

Historic: 1st state adopts plan to rein in feds

Georgia legislature: 'Enough is enough,' calls for restraints on Washington

Published: 3 days ago
Bob Unruh



The plan to put the brakes on Washington’s expansion of the federal government is under way.

Convention of States confirmed that the Georgia legislature on Thursday passed the organization’s application “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”
State Sen. Cecil Staton, R-Macon, told the organization he is “pleased that the Georgia legislature has given voice to the frustrations of millions of Georgians.”
“Enough is enough. It is time to impose fiscal and other restraints on our runaway federal government. We urge other states to join us,” said Macon, the primary sponsor of the resolution.
“We Georgians have become the hope of the nation today,” said Jacqueline Peterson, the Georgia state director for the Convention of States Project. “Many thanks to our state legislators for standing for liberty. May God bless us, every single one!”
The idea is to have an Article V Convention of States, the one process the U.S. Constitution gives to citizens to bypass the White House, Congress and even their own governors to establish a new path for the nation.
The new president in 2017 would face new limits on executive orders, Commerce Clause actions, a balanced federal budget and a ban on using international treaties to govern inside the U.S. if the state-based movement is successful.
There could even be term limits for Supreme Court justices and Congress, and a mandatory sunset of all existing federal taxes.
The ideas are being discussed in legislatures where a Convention of the States has been proposed.
The Convention of States Project, launched by Citizens for Self Governance, is working to have state lawmakers call such a convention through the Constitution’s Article V.
Thousands of Americans already have signed on in support of the idea that Americans, themselves, need to address Washington’s massive spending, over-regulation and takeover of authority from states.
State lawmakers in Alaska, Alabama, Florida and elsewhere also are now looking at plans that if approved would be submitted to Congress in support of a convention.
Michael Farris, who has been know for years as the face of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, now is on the front line of seeking a convention in which state delegates would meet, agree on a path for the country and then tell Congress what will happen.
Tell Congress?
Exactly that, if the amendments are proposed at the convention and ratified by the states.
The organization proposes a convention for “the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”
“We believe the grassroots is the key to calling a successful convention,” the promoters say. “The goal is to build a political operation in a minimum of 40 states, getting 100 people to volunteer in at least 75 percent of the state’s legislative districts. We believe this is very doable. Only through the support of the American people will this project have a chance to succeed.”
Among the issues that could fall under the single subject would be a balanced budget amendment, a new definition of the General Welfare Clause, a redefinition of the Commerce Clause, a ban on the use of treaty provisions inside the U.S., limits on executive orders, term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, federal tax limits and a sunset of all existing federal taxes.
“Of course, these are merely examples of what would be up for discussion,” the promoters say. “The convention of states itself would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments.”
Farris told WND he expects support for a convention to be gathered over a period of two to three legislative cycles.
The timing would align with the 2016 presidential election.
Farris said it definitely would throw a wrench in the works.
“In my opinion, a good wrench,” he said. “We are convinced that Washington, D.C., is broken and that it will never, ever fix itself.”
He said all three branches need fixing.
“The judiciary legislates, the legislative branch, the Congress uses power it never was intended to have, and the president misuses power worse that George III ever thought of,” he said.
He earlier told WND that Washington, D.C., “will never voluntarily relinquish power.”
“If we allow Washington, D.C., to continue on its current course of big government, it will utterly destroy American liberty. Debt is the most tangible method of destruction. But big government complete with spying on the American public, the improper use of executive orders, over-regulation, etc., etc., will most certainly destroy American liberty relatively soon.”

See the case for a Convention of the States:

Video at the Page Link:

Farris said trying to elect more conservatives hasn’t worked, and there really shouldn’t be a fear that the Constitution would be opened up to destruction. After all, any change would have to be approved by voters in 38 states.
“The Founders gave us Article V for the very purpose of creating structural change when the federal government abuses its power,” Farris said. “State legislatures control this process from beginning to end. Governors are irrelevant. Congress can only name the time and place. State legislature name the delegates and give them their instructions.
“We will either get good amendments or we will get nothing,” he continued. “The people who must approve the work product – state legislatures – are the ones who name the delegates. They are also the ones who give the convention its subject matter.”
Would anyone be interested in the idea of removing federal officials?
“State legislatures currently have no power to impeach federal officials from their states. This is not a viable option. This would, however, be a proper amendment to suggest at the Convention of States we are proposing. I like the idea of giving the state governments the power to impeach congressman and senators from their states,” Farris said
Another possibility?
“The federal courts regularly refuse to rule on constitutional issues they want to avoid by calling them ‘political questions’ or by claiming that no one has standing to sue … One of my ideas for an amendment would be to automatically grant state legislatures standing to challenge any action of the federal government as violating its constitutional limitations,” he said.
There also could be a fix to the problem of an entrenched Supreme Court.
“I [would] propose reconfiguring the Supreme Court after the model of the European Court of Human Rights. There are 46 nations in that court’s jurisdiction, and every nation appoints one judge. We should expand the Supreme Court to 50 justices and have the states appoint the justices for a specific term (six or eight years) with no right of reappointment. That one change would do more to ensure a constitutional government than anything I know,” Farris said.
The Convention of States Project contends that “who decides what the law shall be is even more important than what is decided.”
“The protection of liberty requires a strict adherence to the principle that power is limited and delegated,” the organization explained.
Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged the federal government has overreached, stating in a 1992 case: “The federal government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the federal government, rather than the states, would assume such responsibilities.”
The organization has posted online details of how state legislatures can advance the project.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/historic-...-rein-in-feds/

I see a flurry of Executive Orders coming down Georgia Way ..