# data[].attributes.body
https://conventionofstates.com/news/the-article-five-solution-the-way-to-implement-the-10th-amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the third installment in a five-part series on Article Five of the U.S. Constitution published on TheBlaze.com. Please check back every day this week for new content and click here for the entire series.
It's the elephant in the room. The 10th Amendment boldly declares:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But if the daily news is any indication, there is no subject exempt from federal power. Through its power of the purse, which is virtually unlimited under the modern interpretation, Congress can impact, influence, or coerce behavior in nearly every aspect of life.

The question, then, that holds the key to unlocking our constitutional quandary, is this: how do states protect their reserved powers under the 10th Amendment?

On a piecemeal basis, states can certainly challenge federal actions through lawsuits, arguing that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to act in a particular area. But what if the court, as it is wont to do, "interprets" the Constitution as providing the disputed authority? What then?

In their frustration and disbelief over the growing extent of federal abuses of power (and the refusal of our Supreme Court to correct them), some conservatives argue that states should engage in "nullification," whereby the states simply refuse to comply with federal laws they deem unconstitutional.

While there are some, less dramatic forms of nullification that are perfectly appropriate and constitutional-such as states refusing to accept federal funds that come attached to federal requirements-this state-by-state, ad hoc review of federal law is fraught with legal and practical pitfalls.

First of all, which state officer, institution, or individual decides whether a federal action is authorized under the Constitution? Is it the state supreme court, the legislature, the attorney general-or can any individual make the determination? After all, the 10th Amendment reserves powers to individuals as well as to states.

Secondly, how can a state enforce its nullification of a federal law? For instance, if a state decides that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is unconstitutional, how can it protect its citizens against the "tax" that will be levied against them if they fail to comply? It's difficult to envision an effective nullification enforcement method that doesn't end, at some point, with armed conflict.

But for true conservatives whose goal is to conserve the original design of our federal system, the far more fundamental problem with this type of in-your-face nullification is the fact that it was not the Founders' plan.

Article Six tells us that the Constitution, and federal laws passed pursuant to it, are the "supreme law of the land." Under Article Three, the United States Supreme Court is considered to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. While some claim that this was not the Founders' intention, historical records such as Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78 demonstrate it was, in fact, the judiciary that they intended to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts.

And then we have the 10th Amendment itself. It establishes a principle, but it does not establish a remedyor process for protecting the reserved powers from federal intrusion.

That missing process is found in Article Five. Faced with a federal government acting beyond the scope of its legitimate powers-and a Supreme Court that adopts erroneous interpretations of the Constitution to justify the federal overreach-the states' constitutional remedy is to amend the Constitution to clarify the meaning of the clauses that have been perverted. In this way, the states can assert their authority to close the loopholes the Supreme Court has opened.

You don't have to take my word for it.

In an 1830 letter to Edward Everett, James Madison said:

Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. Usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.

In other words, Article Five is the ultimate nullification procedure. For states that have the will to stand up and assert their 10th Amendment rights, they can do so by applying for an Article Five convention to propose amendments that restrain federal power.
Rita Martin Dunaway serves as Staff Counsel for The Convention of States Project and is passionate about restoring constitutional governance in the U.S. Follow her on Facebook (Rita Martin Dunaway) and e-mail her at rita.dunaway@gmail.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Article Five solution - the way to implement the 10th Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the third installment in a five-part series on Article Five of the U.S. Constitution published on TheBlaze.com. Please check back every day this week for new content and click here for the entire series. It's the elephant in the room.

# data[].attributes.body
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/09/d5/0c/09d50c90c80cc05f7af2126f791a9db7.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2992834!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://pixy.org/src/153/1534244.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://edu.glogster.com/library/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F54%2F1d%2F80%2F541d809411300d71accfcf203de2470a.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
http://worldartsme.com/images/5th-amendment-clipart-1.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://50a8d2.medialib.edu.glogster.com/JgsWaMgz4C0AMMtHhAiB/media/ee/ee855e8aad954bcf6b508fbef671b134f8d01d9f/warrant.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LKrmoj-9yas/hqdefault.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.livescience.com/62160-how-to-repeal-second-amendment-constitution.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The AR-15 semiautomatic rifle has been called "America's gun," but it also has a dark history.

Credit: Shutterstock

A former Supreme Court justice is calling for its repeal. One in five Americans want to see it go. The president has come out swinging in its defense.

The Second Amendment has emerged as a dubious target in the U.S. gun debate after a March 27 New York Times op-ed by former justice John Paul Stevens suggested that repealing the amendment would be a "simple" way to move toward gun law reform. A survey conducted in February by The Economist and YouGov found that 21 percent of Americans favor repealing the Second, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [ 5 Milestones in Gun Control History]

President Donald Trump tweeted in response that "THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED," while many activists for gun-law reform said that repeal was not a goal.

"I think a proposal to amend the Constitution to substantially change the Second Amendment would more likely be used by the NRA [National Rifle Association] to galvanize their supporters and maybe even engage less active gun owners," Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) told The Atlantic.

So that's modern politics. But what of Stevens' assertion that repeal would be "simple?" There's historical precedent for that. Only one constitutional amendment has ever been enacted to repeal another. The Twenty-First Amendment, ratified in 1933, repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, ratified in 1919, which had instituted Prohibition.

The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale or transportation of "intoxicating liquors," but the resulting explosion in black markets, bootlegged liquor and organized crime turned public opinion against Prohibition, according to The National Constitution Center.

Public support for the Eighteenth Amendment was never particularly overwhelming anyway, according to The Mob Museum in Las Vegas. In 1922, just three years after the ban on alcohol went into effect, 20 percent of people wanted to see the Eighteenth Amendment repealed, and 40 percent wanted to see modifications to the Volstead Act, the legislation designed to enforce the amendment, according to the museum's online Prohibition history.

By the late 1920s, public opinion was increasingly souring on Prohibition, especially after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the execution-style killing of seven members of Chicago's North Side Gang. According to the Mob Museum, even Prohibition advocates were over the Eighteen Amendment: Pauline Sabin, the first female member of the Republican National Committee and a former advocate of Prohibition, switched sides in 1929 and started campaigning for repeal. It would be a bit like Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, suddenly deciding to oppose the Second Amendment today.

Meanwhile, as the Great Depression sent unemployment skyrocketing and shantytowns named "Hoovervilles" after President Herbert Hoover popped up around cities, anti-Prohibition advocates declared that repealing the Eighteenth Amendment would open up new sources of revenue for the government and new sources of employment for the destitute.

"By repealing an experiment which, however rightfully intentioned, has failed with lamentable consequence, we should raise vast revenues for the government, we should greatly help agriculture, we should substantially decrease unemployment." John J. Raskob, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, was quoted as saying in a 1931 economic report. (That report concluded that repeal would bring in almost $1 billion to the federal treasury annually.)

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned, in part, for repeal, also using the economic argument for taxing alcohol sales. He won handily over Hoover, who was widely blamed for the Great Depression. The now Democrat-controlled House and Senate started plotting out the Twenty-First Amendment shortly after the election.

Article V of the Constitution provides two paths to amending the Constitution. The first requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention. The Twenty-First Amendment went the second route: Congress called for the amendment with a more than two-thirds majority vote, sending it to the states, which were required to hold referendum votes. These votes would then bind delegates to a convention in each state, where there were straight yes-and-no votes on whether to approve the amendment. According to the Mob Museum, the goal was to avoid "dry" state representatives from holding up the amendment.

The process moved swiftly. Congress passed the repeal of Prohibition on Feb. 21, 1933. Utah approved the amendment on Nov. 7, 1933, providing the necessary two-thirds majority to send it back to Congress, which ratified the amendment on Dec. 5, 1933.

Original article on Live Science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Easy Would It Be to Repeal the 2nd Amendment? History Has an Answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A former Supreme Court justice is calling for its repeal. One in five Americans want to see it go. The president has come out swinging in its defense. The Second Amendment has emerged as a dubious target in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cagle.com/dave-granlund/2018/08/1st-amendment-freedoms#.W5EZRehKjIU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Father Mychal Judge was a Catholic priest who served as the chaplain for the New York City Fire Department.On Sept. 11, 2001, as word spread about the terror attacks, Father Judge rushed to the North Tower of the World Trade Center and began to ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Father Mychal Judge was a Catholic priest who served as the chaplain for the New York City Fire Department.On Sept. 11, 2001, as word spread about the terror attacks, Father Judge rushed to the North Tower of the World Trade Center and began to ...