1. There are some good points in your article. I admit to being a purist. I also know we have to adjust our position somewhat, but…BUT,,to speak in defense of all the other 'purists' out there, we have reached our 'line' in being up to our elbows in NON-PRINCIPLED politicians who no longer seem to find it 'necessary' to follow/protect/preserve our constitution.

    We are losing our morale compass in this country because our politicians would much rather fill their pockets, and 'play the field' for votes rather than fulfill their promises and responsibilities. The level of debt, violations of the constitution, a president that simply side steps congress (with what appears as their approval) and re-writes and implements 'laws' as is convenient. And more than half of all new candidates that state they will fulfill their oath of office, wants to 'clean up Washington' ends up swimming with the rest of the rats in the sewer.

    I think it is safe to say that most Patriots would/could be more flexible if they could see more candidates with more intregity, ethics, honor, and loyalty to their constituents.

    I would like to see the states take full control of the salaries and benefits and operating budgets of their respective senators/congressmen. Include with that single term limits in both the House and Senate. Add an Amendment that FORBIDS any business, PAC, or SuperPAC from donating to any candidate; only the AMERICAN CITIZEN AND LEGAL RESIDENT of the particular state may donate to that states candidate to a yearly maximum of $2500 (spread out to one or more candidates of choice).

    This accomplishes two very important things: !) that Senator/Congressman is not completely dependent on his states constituents (the people he/she is supposed to work for and answers to), and 2) It is now possible for EVERYBODY/ANYBODY in that state to run for public office…. not just the wealthy and well 'connected'. Cuts down the risk of corruption by A LOT. Every two years the constituents get to vote by ballot whether or not the politician gets a raise in salary and/or budget. I.E. A) PASS, B) 1%, C) 2%, or D)3%. LESSON: When their salary/benefits are controlled by their constituents…. they will actually do their job and 'work for the benefit of their constituents'.

  2. Ah! Flexibility is sooo good! Principles schminciples! Tis a fine and honored liberal position, perhaps the most honored principle of liberalism.

    But seriously, Mr. Baldwin has probably written good articles. Even in this one he tries to support his points so we know his reasoning. In my opinion, however, he has simply created a caricature of Tea Party people, beginning with dubbing them "purists." Certainly he has not presented the views accurately of any Tea Party person I've met. Not to say there is not a Tea Party person somewhere as stupid as Baldwin suggests but I think there are too few of them to multiply.

  3. I am on the Board of the Bozeman Tea Party and I have never met a Tea Party Purists, what ever that is. Please give some specific examples. I am sure there are a few out there and my guess is that , in your opinion,it is any Tea Party Member that has a different opinion than you have.

    Article 5 Convention, bad idea, won't work. There are lots of Constitutional scholars out there that are way more knowledgeable than Rob.
    Nullification is the answer, read Tom Woods information and book

  4. I have considerable experience with the Tea Party, at the local level, at the State level, and at the National level. I, too, would like some specific examples of these Purists. And, I would like Mr. Baldwin to provide a list of references to Tea Party people that he spoke with, that served as the foundation for his argument. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and pick the most egregious examples, in an effort to buttress their viewpoint.

  5. I won't bother to address each of Baldwin's points. I'm sure a number of us have already done that replying to his other articles supporting an Article V convention. My main principle is that I don't compromise my principles. I don't compromise my rights or the rights of others for all the same reasons Carole Wood, the first to comment, stated. Bottom line, some of us won't be sold on the Article V snake oil elixir being pushed by the legal profession.

    A lucrative profession that thrives on the number of rules, codes, statutes and yes, "laws" it manipulates legislators into passing. My trust of Congress adhering to the constitution may be low but my trust in the state legislatures is lower. Fixing a leaking boat by draining the pond just enough so the boat rests on it's bottom isn't my idea of saving the USS Republic.

    I can support State unification to nullify unconstitutional Federal acts, bureaucratic agency rules and regulations, to mandate that the Feds adhere to the chains of the Constitution. Or better still for the States to recognize and a support the return of the authority and power to investigate government oversight and corruption to the People's Grand Jury, on it's own initiation.

    Brand me with whatever moniker fits your predetermined agenda, but I for one will stand firm. Period

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.