Posted on 12/16/2008 3:15:47 PM PST by Greystoke
The mind-boggling amounts of the bailouts Congress has passed and is still debating, plus shocking Wall Street frauds, seem to have plunged some lawmakers into a silly season. Ohio state legislators this month held a surprise hearing on a resolution calling for a national constitutional convention, and then canceled a vote after dozens of citizens showed up to speak against it.
We already have a U.S. Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians are not obeying it and judges are indulging in too much activism.
The idea that adding new words to the Constitution to require balancing the federal budget, or to give President Barack Obama a line-item veto so he can veto the extravagant spending he has already endorsed, is delusional. The only thing more outlandish is the fanciful notion that a 2009 constitutional convention (colloquially known as a Con Con) could adopt such requirements while avoiding other mistakes...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The Con Con con...
"Next time we'll have to meet a 3 am."
Tar and feathers.
Her abiding issue is that a constitutional convention cannot be controlled. Therefore, one called for a limited purpose can necessarily conduct itself as a general convention, proposing changes on any and all issues.
If she i a competent lawyer, she knows that this claim is a lie. I think she is competent. I therefore conclude that she is using this lie as an effective fund-raising tool, no more, no less. In short, on this issue, she is a fraud.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Doncha Love Chicago Deep-Bleep Politics"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
More importantly, even if a convention can’t be controlled it still has to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. That means a single house each in 13 states can block ratification.
The more changes such a convention made, the less likely it is that it would be ratified.
Can anybody seriously think of a single controversial issue that could be ratified? The amendment process just doesn’t work. The only truly controversial issues ever settled by it were the post-civil war amendments. And they were arguably ratified using unconstitutional means.
Personally, I'd like to see a Con Con deliver two issues: (1) the complete elimination of the US Constitution as it is currently applied, and (2) an entirely new Constitution to be ratified by the respective states.
That way, Texas can ratify the first issue, reject the second, and reclaim its Republic status. The remainder of the country can just go its merry old way!
Unlike that unfortunate episode in 1861, the US Government cannot intervene if the Constitution disbands it. Who knows? Maybe several other states would like to join the Republic of Texas.
This country is toast, learn to love it.
To void the Constitution via an amendment would indeed be fully constitutional. To get what you want the convention would first have to propose your plan, and then 38 states would have to ratify it.
Offhand, that’s about as likely as either of us being elected dictator.
So once again I will post a link to my essay, vetted by our own Congressman Billybob, a constitutional lawyer, who made sure I got the facts right.
"A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution"
However most of the old time conservatives battle reactionaries who would like to have a new constitutional convention for purposes of opening pandoras box -- no matter how limited we would structured it to be, it would get out of hand if held.
We must remember the first Constituional Convention. It was never foreseen to be tasked with the making of a whole new government at the time. The breadth of its achievement was unexpected and some corners were outraged that the Articles of Confederation were just cast aside.
Too bad the third plane hit the Pentagon.
I agree, my two-part proposal would only be done so that 38 states would ratify the first part —most states would think that the second part would naturally follow.
Those states that don’t ratify the second part become de facto Republics.
I can live with that.
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.