Skip to comments.U S Two States Away from Constitutional Convention
Posted on 12/11/2008 5:28:28 AM PST by GWMcClintock
click here to read article
They can completely rewrite the US Constitution. And I think they can then approve the rewrite without any states voting.
I have asked for a State Constitutional Amendment demanding that firearm’s be issued to all those born here and for those who move here, but they have to send a request for theirs (we don’t know if they are staying, so we don’t want to supply the enemy)!
That was a good read. Well written and caused my heart to beat faster . . . got to read your first and now this book. Definitely on my “New Year’s” list.
I hope you don’t mind, but I sent your excerpt to Sen. Chambliss for his staff to read, along with your website url. Gave you credit for it all.
I may also send it to a few other Senators’ offices. Might shake up a few RINOs like Chambliss.
A Constitutional Convention is a second option to the other method of “proposing amendments” to the Constitution.
Note that it is for “proposing amendments”... as the states still have to *ratify* whatever the Constitutional Convention proposes as an amendment. It has to be submitted to the states for that same 3/4 of the states to approve before it is put into effect and changes the Constitution.
So..., just like an amendment that the Congress proposes and 3/4 of the states may or may not approve — likewise — a Constitutional Convention proposes an amendment which 3/4 of the states will approve or not approve.
It still has to go through the same “approval process”...
You said — “Do we still have a constitution? Seems it dies a silent death long ago!”
Well..., if you’re referring to this process of calling for a Constitutional Convention — yes..., that is a constitutional process...
You said — “A Constitutional Convention, when called, can completely re-write the Constitution, even if it was called only to address a narrow issue. With the dims in control, delegates to such a convention would be the Jesse jackson, Bwarney Fwank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid types. In short: it would be the end of this Country as we know it.”
It’s not the Congress who can choose delegates. It’s the states that can. And even if some sweeping amendment or amendments are proposed — they *still* have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, just like the other method for proposing amendments.
This changes *only* the method for “proposing amendments”. It doesn’t change the “approval process” — which still requires 3/4 of the states to approve.
You said — I think this will happen. I think much of what Obama is planning requires this. Even the birth certificate issue plays into this — “Oh? You’re concerned about my status as a natural-born citizen? Well, why don’t we straighten that out at the Convention??”
No matter what is proposed for an amendment, it still has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. It’s still *just as high* a threshold as it always has been.
And then you said — And the new wording for Second Amendment will be: “Guns are for hunting. For purposes of hunting, federal gun licenses and registration are required.”
And do you think that this would pass 3/4 of the states for ratification?
I knew it was more than just a majority. And I have to admit, it has been some time since I sat down in a classroom to cover this stuff. But of course, I probably should have re-read the Constitution before attempting to use my faulty memory.
You said — “Interesting that as the communists take over our country we havw this happening at the same time.”
The request for a Constitutional Convention is the second method by which the Constitution has for proposing amendments. It was put in there in case the Congress would not act to propose an amendment. This is the second way it is done.
Now, any amendment is still required to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
And besides that, this particular call for the Balanced Budget Amendment (since Congress has not put it forth) is being done by the “second method” for proposing amendments to the Constitution. And, as I said (and as the Constitution says), it still requires 3/4 of the states to approve for ratification.
You said — “ok - then what happens? Does each state then get to vote on the new constitution? What if a bunch of red states decide to reject the new one and the blue states all approve? Van we then write our own and go our separate ways? If so, then I am all for having a constitutional convention, the sooner the better.”
Then what happens is that 3/4 of the states must approve the amendment (or each of several amendments, if it came to that) — in order to ratify the amendment. It hasn’t always been easy to get 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
You said — “I’ve always believed this country would see a military coup to save the Constitution someday. I just never expected to see it in my lifetime.”
This is one of two methods for proposing amendments for the Constitution — and it happens to be a “Balanced Budget” amendment being proposed. Since the other method is for the Congress to propose an amendment and Congress has not acted on it — this method provides a way for the people to *bypass* Congress and propose the amendment themselves.
It still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
And, as such, as it is being done — it is a Constitutional process in and of itself...
The question becomes can you find 13 states to reject a wild ammendment. Looking at the red/blue map we are probably OK for another few years, but the demographics, media brainwashing, and public school indoctrination system are all working 24/7 to finish the job.
You said — “I do not trust any modern day politian to re-write my Constitution!”
They can’t simply re-write the Constitution. They must propose amendments that 3/4 of the states must ratify, before anything can take effect. It’s the same standard for ratification for the Congress proposing a Constitutional Amendment.
It is my understanding as the article points out that they are under NO requirement to only address the balanced budget amendment, they can re-write the US Constitution.
I think you may be in error as to the states having to ratified the new document or amendment.
I’ll have to re-read the article that staes what you have said.
Do you know which amendment that may be?
"All Amendments to this Constitution shall be ratified by vote of the majority of Senators elected by the separate states."
I wonder if you could get 3/4 of the states to approve that? Because if you did, then it would be so much easier to come back and get 51 senators to trash the whole doucment the following year.
And oh the way, after they trash the document with 74 new Amendments, they will pass a 75th Amendment: "All Amendments to this Constitution shall be ratified by voting among 3/4 of the states."
All you all can move to Texas and Texas may secede, but that just provokes the evil ones to push that much harder to over take us (Texans).
We may have some fire power here, (and we do!) but I’m certain a stand alone state cannot overcome zer0, his muslim militia and millions of z0mbies willing to die for their great deceiver.
I’m thinkin this would only result in our ‘invasion’ (ok - retreat) to the land of Mexico....maybe they need some landscapers, construction workers and housemaids down there.....