Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Article V...Constiutional Convention
April 15th, 2014 | SgtBob

Posted on 04/15/2014 4:35:55 PM PDT by SgtBob

U. S. Constitution


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: article5; article5convention; articlev; articlevconvention; concon; constitution; conventionofstates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Yesterday, while lurking the FReepdom, I came upon a thread titled "34 States Call for a Constitutional Convention", authored by some bimbo from Newmax.

The article she wrote bore nothing in common to the title, but the some in the FReepdom were spinnin' like a bunch of whirligigs. They seemed to not know, or not care, of the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.

Now, I ain't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, so somebody sharpen me up, where needed.

An Article V Convention of the States is a way for the People to circumvent the wrongs thrust upon us by the Centralized Government.

The only role Congress is allowed is administrative. The State Legislators send Delegates to act as proxy for the People of the individual States.

All Amendments must pass with 3/4 majority. That way commonsense might prevail....the left-wing nut jobs can't pass the "Eat Yer Own Garbage to Prevent Landfill Expansion" Amendment.

If I'm way off base, let me know...it might help other FReeper know the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.

Flame on....Grammar Nazis, too.

1 posted on 04/15/2014 4:35:55 PM PDT by SgtBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Publius; Jacquerie

A pingy-dingy...


2 posted on 04/15/2014 4:37:57 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Sounds like you got’er figured out sarge.


3 posted on 04/15/2014 4:39:25 PM PDT by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan; AllAmericanGirl44; Amagi; Art in Idaho; Arthur Wildfire! March; Arthur McGowan; ...

Article V ping.


4 posted on 04/15/2014 4:42:05 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Article V convention has a specific, stated purpose. No other agenda is permitted except that which is proposed for the A5C.

A ConCon can become a free-for-all, from what I’ve heard, where Lefties can poison otherwise Constitutionally conservative amendments and vice-versa.

This is all based on years of reading on both FR and other print sources, but I believe this is a sound summation.


5 posted on 04/15/2014 4:42:39 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Make the Tenth Amendment the FIRST.


6 posted on 04/15/2014 4:42:46 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
My usual boilerplate... ---

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

Implicitly forbidden:

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

7 posted on 04/15/2014 4:42:58 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
I think, to stall for time while the heavies show up, that the major concern, even of people who do know something about it, is that an Article V Convention could take on a dimension that incorporates features far outside its designed scope. Whether that is actually possible is an item of considerable controversy.

We have to recall what happened to the convention that was supposed only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Mason fled in disgust when he realized what those lunatics Hamilton and Madison actually had in mind... ;-)

8 posted on 04/15/2014 4:43:56 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
We DO NOT need a constitutional convention! That is a sure-fire way to lose what little we have. We need to abide by and enforce what we have. It works.
9 posted on 04/15/2014 4:44:59 PM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of liberty only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Plubius, do you know how many states have approved this specific Convention of States project by C for SG?


10 posted on 04/15/2014 4:48:06 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Thumbs up from a Sailor? We need to go bust up a tavern over a broad at the end of the bar;-)


11 posted on 04/15/2014 4:50:38 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I believe it’s only 1 for the Levin project, but I may be wrong. The balanced budget amendment effort may have 34, but there are confusing issues about rescission and timeliness, so that’s going to be up to the Archivist of the United States and Congress to decide.


12 posted on 04/15/2014 4:51:52 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
There's only 22 active Article V calls right now.

---
Although it is apparently true that 34 states have applied for a constitutional convention, 12 of those states have rescinded their applications. That means that there are only 22 active applications for a convention.
---


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18006-is-congress-about-to-call-for-a-con-con
13 posted on 04/15/2014 4:53:59 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rarestia; Publius

The Newsmax chick threw the Con-Con as her title...that wasn’t the thrust of the article, but a bunch of FReepers went wild.

Gotta keep pushin’.

Thanks!


14 posted on 04/15/2014 4:55:55 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

Thank you. I’ve been looking for that number.


15 posted on 04/15/2014 4:58:52 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
For those who say:
"... this is dangerous ..."
"... this is a terrible idea ..."
"... liberal States might send extremists as delegates ..."
"... other important things might be changed ..."
"... they will attack the Bill of Rights ..."
"... the right to free speech or right to bear arms could be taken away ..."
"... they might try to re-write the entire Constitution ..."
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from
at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
-
The State resolutions currently circulating call for an Article V Convention of States using the same language.
"...for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution which:
- Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government;
- Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
- Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress."
-
When/if the two-thirds threshold is met, each State would send delegates to gather in the convention.
The delegates would be selected by the various State legislatures.
The delegates would discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.
-
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States
(fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office)
would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
-
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States
would require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
Read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

16 posted on 04/15/2014 5:00:15 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

The between/and construction doesn’t require a comma.


17 posted on 04/15/2014 5:01:03 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

#16 is especially designed just for you.


18 posted on 04/15/2014 5:02:17 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
It's far too late for a Constitutional Convention.It's time for secession.They can have Detroit and Oakland...we'll take Charlotte and Omaha.They can make Mexico one of their states and we'll kick every illegal Mexican (and every other illegal) out.They can recognize 12 different “genders”,we'll recognize two...which are determined,by the Creator,at birth.
19 posted on 04/15/2014 5:06:46 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Considering you co-posted The Federalist, your comment is especially troubling. I know you didn't get the bum info from the Birchers, but the same wrong history is printed there.

Quick and tight timeline:

1781 & 1783. Congress asks for limited commerce and taxing powers. RI refuses.

March 1785: Mount Vernon Conference. Legislators from MD and VA discuss Potomac navigation and commerce issues. Conferees suggest wider state meeting in Annapolis.

September 1786: Annapolis Convention. Few states attend. Nothing of substance, other than a call to meet in Philly in May of 1787.

February 1787: Congress calls for a convention that was going to happen anyway.

These meetings/conventions were extra-congressional. Congress had no authority to call a convention, nor commission its members, nor define its purpose. Congress was an impotent advisory group, which was the reason for the meetings/conventions of 1785 -1787.

20 posted on 04/15/2014 5:08:09 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better - Richard Hooker. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
This could lead to massive spending, budgets deficits many times larger than now. The amendment could read something like:

The Federal government shall provide to the states all the money which they request.

The states would have a magical money machine. Just have the Feds print more money.

21 posted on 04/15/2014 5:10:12 PM PDT by Siegfried X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
Along with the fact that an Article V Convention is for proposing amendments, while a constitutional convention is for proposing a new constitution, another thing to keep in mind is that anything an Article V Convention would propose would then be submitted to the States for ratification. The Convention would have the same authority for proposing amendments as does the Congress.

If the Convention proposed anything the States disliked, then the States could reject the proposed amendment and so the proposal would not become part of the Constitution. The last two amendments proposed by the Congress (Equal Rights Amendment and District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment) were rejected by the States, so the States are certainly not rubber stamps regarding proposed amendments.

Finally, there's no way the Convention would be able to impose amendments or a new constitution. Any such attempt would be viewed as illegitimate and would destroy the Convention's credibility. Any thought that the federal government, the States, or the People would acquiesce in such an act is laughable.

22 posted on 04/15/2014 5:10:47 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
Many comments in this related thread:

Sarah Palin: Elect Candidates who Support “Convention of States”
23 posted on 04/15/2014 5:13:26 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Yer plenty sharp Sarge, now back in yer scabbard afer Ya poke out your eye;)


24 posted on 04/15/2014 5:15:05 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Mason fled in disgust when he realized what those lunatics Hamilton and Madison actually had in mind...

Gosh, that is a horrid and unsubstantiated cheap shot!

Mason attended the entire convention.

Tell me of Madison's and Hamilton's lunacy.

25 posted on 04/15/2014 5:16:21 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better - Richard Hooker. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Con Con? No thanks.


26 posted on 04/15/2014 5:16:53 PM PDT by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Well the congress critters could actually get together and propose an amendment to nullify the states being able to propose amendments.....

Heck they just might if not enough of the states get serious about an article V convention to propose NEW amendments to take their power back from FedGov...


27 posted on 04/15/2014 5:16:54 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

You, obviously, missed the misspelled title;-)

Thanks!


28 posted on 04/15/2014 5:31:10 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

Educate yer damned self! 34 States HAVE NOT signed on to a Constitutional Convention! They ARE considering an Article V Convention of the States.

READ THE CONSTITUTION!

Don’t mean to yell, but after yesterday, stoopid posts need it.


29 posted on 04/15/2014 5:35:13 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

Thanks. My home state was one that rescinded. So sad...


30 posted on 04/15/2014 5:36:22 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Siegfried X

Read my post, again, and the read Article 5...sheesh...


31 posted on 04/15/2014 5:38:54 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sasparilla; mabarker1

TELL ME WHERE THE HELL I SAID WE NEED A DAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!?

SOME O’ YOU ASSES JUS’ CANT READ!

MY FRUSTRATION IS BECAUSE OF YESTERDAY’S POST, AND THE IGNORANCE OF FREEPERS!

(those of you, to whom this does not apply...you know who you are...thanks fer puttin’ up with my yellin’.)

Bayonet in eye, yet?


32 posted on 04/15/2014 5:46:17 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Thank you, much. I tried to put it in “easy read”....you make me a piker. I shall endeavor to follow suit.


33 posted on 04/15/2014 5:50:32 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

You posted this yesterday, and folks didn’t get it. That was part of my frustration...I was trying to get FReepers to look at it in a simple fashion...some posts say I failed.

Thanks!


34 posted on 04/15/2014 5:54:23 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Not quite sure what brew you have, but I’d like a heads up, as a purveyor of fine brews.


35 posted on 04/15/2014 5:56:58 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Na maybe a splinter.

I see no reason for anything to be done to the Constitution except FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER.


36 posted on 04/15/2014 6:02:53 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob; All
There's basically two stages with all new constitutional amendments; corrections welcome. The first stage produces a proposed amendment. Either Congress can propose an amendment, or a convention of the states can propose an amendment.

Once a proposed amendment is drafted then it is up to the 3/4 Article V state majority to either ratify it or ignore the proposed amendment. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the drafting stage, either with Congress or the convention of states, was a waste of time imo.

Note that regardless of the signatures of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on the final draft of the Constituiton, the delegates still had to go back to their states to sell the new Constitution. So even with the original Constitution, the states could have chosen to ignore it instead of ratifying it.

United States Constitution

37 posted on 04/15/2014 6:12:29 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

You’ve done a fine job. People need to be educated as to what an Article V Convention can and can not do.


38 posted on 04/15/2014 6:17:22 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

So expressing an opinion—which stands, by the way—is stupid? OK.

I have read the constitution many times. I carry a copy with me at all times. I would not go so far as to say I am an expert.

So, tell me, genius, how the Article V route makes us somehow immune to the same mummery and shenanigans that would occur during a regular constitutional convention, or any other political situation.

If “our side” sends representatives, do you think that the other side will not? Do you think that the other side will not try the same tactics they use in any other political situation? What makes you think that the other side won’t just ignore any results like they currently do? Please, explain all that to this poor, dumb ol’ boy from Missouri.

We have something that works. Use it. Hold your government accountable by whatever means are at your disposal. Like it or not, we’re eventually going to have to make an omelet.


39 posted on 04/15/2014 6:17:33 PM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of liberty only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1

How many Congresses would it take to get the Centralized Government within the confines of the Constitution?

I don’t think it could happen without an amendment to impose term limits. Mind you, I, once upon a time, opposed them. You get good representation, you want to keep it....then they get wealthy and become a K Street lobbyist.

Just askin’...like I said in my post, I ain’t the sharpest spoon in the drawer.


40 posted on 04/15/2014 6:18:38 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Looks good to me and yer gram mer ain’t tooo bad neither.


41 posted on 04/15/2014 6:24:54 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Well, let’s see:

House - Terms last 2 years IIRC

Senate - 1/3 every 6 years IIRC

So congress is the opposite of Progress * (50% uninformed voters / 3.14) + Vote Fraud^3 = roughly 400 years.

We are so screwed!


42 posted on 04/15/2014 6:30:14 PM PDT by mabarker1 (Please, Somebody Impeach the kenyan!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

An Article V Convention of the States is very small scoped.

Let’s say 32 States legislatures, represented by the people of the 32 States, decided the U. S. Congress needs to be term limited. That would be the only Amendment to be debated...the U. S. Congress has no voice, whatsoever; No other Amendments can be debated, whatsoever.

In an earlier post I said the “Eat Yer Own Garbage to Stop Landfill Expansion Amendment” will not be heard.

This would not be a Constitutional Convention. This is a group of States, with the foresight of the Founding Fathers, to amend the Constitution without the interference of an out of control, lawless, Congress.

Shout back if ya need more help;-)


43 posted on 04/15/2014 6:37:46 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ronnyquest

I must respectfully disagree. We need a CoS desperately. We are very late. And not because there is anything wrong with the current constitution, the wrong lies in the federal government itself and the people who make it up. The overall intent of the CoS is to empower the states to reign in the federal government and force it to follow the constitution. It’s that simple, to abide by and enforce the constitution. Just as you stated.


44 posted on 04/15/2014 6:41:12 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Just one question FReeper, do you really think they will let you leave?


45 posted on 04/15/2014 6:42:31 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1
Well, let’s see: House - Terms last 2 years IIRC Senate - 1/3 every 6 years IIRC So congress is the opposite of Progress * (50% uninformed voters / 3.14) + Vote Fraud^3 = roughly 400 years. We are so screwed!

Well, Sir, yer mathematical skills astound me...=roughly 400 years extrapolates to Article V....I need ta take a sip of that water in yer pretty neighborhood lake;-)

46 posted on 04/15/2014 6:44:19 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1

I worked hard on my grammarisms coming up in the primary schoolin’;-)


47 posted on 04/15/2014 6:45:49 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Lunatics? I don’t think so. Read the Federalist Papers.


48 posted on 04/15/2014 6:45:52 PM PDT by huckfillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

Arghh. Youse needs to keep the sabers and cutlasses well oiled to prevent rust don’t ya know? It’s ah lil harder to poke out yer eye within a longer blade. arghh.


49 posted on 04/15/2014 6:48:41 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: huckfillary
Read the Federalist Papers.

Oh, I did. You might consider reading the series Publius and I put together on them over 14 months here on FR. It's HERE. Let us know what you think.

50 posted on 04/15/2014 6:59:06 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson