Posted on 11/08/2012 9:58:12 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
Lighten up, Francis.
I have read the Constitution and I understand it. But there is more to it than that.
Mark Levin understands how things really work, since he has up close and personal experience, having served under Reagan.
I defer to his expertise, not you.
Now run along.
The founders did not have the faith in the mob that you do. Once you fix that the rest falls out.
Let me spell it out clearly: Letting people who don't work, pay taxes or own property vote is a collossal mistake.
One other could be if we abolish all labor unions from gov jobs.
Stuff like the above would be a game change but wouldn't necessarily require a conventions just a few amendments.
Are people final wakeing up to this?...and I propose only one adment...The United States is hearby desolved...it the only hope to split up the states to firewall off the parasites
“The problem is cultural. We will not be able to force a set of rules via a proceedural end run, on a populace that does not support us enough to give us victories in elections.”
Victories in national elections are given by union controlled (mostly government and teachers) urban strongholds. The country class is in total more numerous than their urban counterparts but they at the national level they have no reason to get excited. The Senators are picked for them, either democrat or RINO. To vote they need to believe in something. Evidently they did not believe in Romney.
So then how is it that conservatives hold the House of Representatives?
Because of districting.
How is that conservatives hold so many state legislatures?
For similar reasons. The state legislator district lines are drawn geographically.
Therefore, it is evident that conservatives hold all the cards in the setting of a Constitutional Convention run in Statehouses. The Left can try and fight in this setting but they will lose because they are top down hierarchical and vertically integrated which they need to be to control cities and other urban environments. They can’t fight in the country, simple as that. They don’t have enough people, enough money and if they did take the chance to deploy people and money, then they would fight on hostile grounds.
The only way the Left could control a conservative state legislature is to take the legislators hostage by coercion or bribery. They might try and it would be very expensive but it would be their undoing. And they would need to do it in 38 states. Not going to happen.
“In other words, it’s a leftist dream-come-true. Bye-bye America.”
Well I’m sure glad we haven’t reached that point yet.
First of all my name is not Francis. Secondly you should not respond by telling someone to run along. It means you can’t hold yourself in the debate and that you have lost the debate.
This is a forum for debating issues.
When you hide behind a perceived ‘expert’, then you have lost the debate.
First off, Levin is knowledgeable and sharp but when it comes to the Constitution he is not the sharpest. Randy Barnett is far more sharper than he is.
Secondly, I would welcome the opportunity to debate Levin on this issue. Most other issues I agree with him so there would be no debate but on this I would relish the opportunity to prove him wrong.
As for my own background, my father was a federal appeals judge in the DC circuit. From childhood I have been steeped in the Constitution and American history. Did you know those subjects were once taught in high school? I don’t need people to tell me how the Constitution works.
They already gutted it.
Wow!
A whole herd of strawmen!
“most damaging set of policies” According to which set of standards?
“directly damages....” The notion that anything is “damaged” is your own personal problem, based on your priorities.
“Which party...” There is bipartisan support for “the war on drugs”, and “some” bipartisan opposition.
Show me a set of policies more destructive to the Bill of Rights.
“directly damages....” The notion that anything is “damaged” is your own personal problem, based on your priorities.
Not really. Consider the Kelo decision, it justified the government claiming that the imagining of better tax revenue [a projection based on a project that was never even been started] qualifies as public use for the purposes of the 5th amendment restriction of eminent domain. So according to that decision the government just has to imagine some way that depriving you of you possessions will increase taxes and it has legal justification [and the precedence] to do so; therefore a government agent could want your heirloom rifle, used by your great great grandpa in the civil way, and respond to your refusal to sell with a projection of how it being on the market would increase sales tax and use that to steal it. (Granted, highly unlikely because of the low value of the goods vs the amount of conspirators needed to rubber-stamp it.) But the 5th (and 4th) is in this state because the taking of property has also been achieved through "arresting" property, and has been held legitimate; and in so doing has destroyed most of the idea of private property.
Then there's Filburn & Raich; which respectively said (1) the growing of food on private property impacted sales in the state, and therefore the supply/demand, and thence the interstate market and though never entered into commerce was still commerce; (2) even though there is no legal market for something grown if it was sold then it would have an impact on that market that doesn't exist and thus is interstate commerce. The first was a horrid judgement decided that way only to legitimize horrible contra-constitutional law passed by congress, the latter was specifically justifying the War on Drugs.
Now look at things like the raw milk raids. That's where the WOD takes us.
“Which party...” There is bipartisan support for “the war on drugs”, and “some” bipartisan opposition.
Maybe this will help you; the WOD has been pursued most vigorously by the Republican party... despite it's inherent contra-constitutionality.
I imagine that would be exceedingly easy to do if Romney had won and issued hie little Obamacare waivers.
"Do what I say or I'll cancel your waiver."
The risk would be enormous but WE WOULD FIND TODAY’S JOHN ADAMS, TODAY’S JEFFERSON, TODAY’S FRANKLIN, TODAY’S MADISON and all the other heroes of our founding. But consider the risk the Founders took—they feared hanging in the square after being gutted and having body parts hacked off.
NEW MEN of principal and courage would fight for our country in the same way that generations have. They will debate and vote. I have faith. Great men respond to great chalenges. Now is the time to save our Republic.
Nice arguments going on here but they all presume we can play by the rules established in the Constitution. That document is no longer valid otherwise the turd in the whitehouse would never gotten past his senate seat. One has to consider more aggressive methods, legal ones aren’t an option anymore.
John Locke thought of that.
” If a government violates the social contract by endangering the security and rights of the citizens, it rebels against the people, and the people have the rights to dissolve the government. “
Locke was clear to point out that “rebellion” was a state of war or revolution by the government against the people.
It is the government that is in rebellion/revolution, be it a by rapid assault or slow transformation, and it is the people that stand for natural law and order and puts down the rebellion by government by any means necessary.
For a second there I thought you were Levin lurking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.