Posted on 08/25/2013 2:36:07 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Levin is not proposing a Constitutional Convention.
Repeat: Levin is not proposing a Constitutional Convention.
Call it whatever you want. It is ill-advised.
Focus on electing men and women who will fulfill their sworn obligations to support and defend the Constitution we’ve got now.
Then we can tweak it at our leisure.
People who respect the Constitution constitute a larger share of public officials at the state level than at the national level. Therefore, there is a greater chance of succeeding at the state level than at the national level.
You haven’t read Levin’s book.
I’m not calling it whatever I want. I’m calling it what it is, and what Levin is calling for.
You called it a Con-Con, which it is NOT.
If they are refusing to obey the current constitution what chance would the obey the rules. Plus they can make up new rules as they go. I just have a total lack of trust of any of them.
The 1787 Convention was done in secret. Now look at us.
Franklin was right. A Republic if you can keep it!
Didn’t last long did it.
If we were to restore the before 16th and the 17th and maybe the 14th a lot of this problems would go away.
One amendment disappeared. Where did it go. I think it was titles of nobility. Like no ESQ. holding office. Title of Nobility.
Hillary and Kerry were and are illegal appointments.
oMao shouldn’t be where he is.
Fed Reserve is illegal as is the IRS and lots of other non enumerated things the government is into.
So if we would just go back to enforcing things that were in effect before 1900 life would be lots better.
Simplistic? Yes. Buttt...
I’ve read enough of it to know what I think of the idea.
Frankly, I wish Mr. Levin would instead use his celebrity to demand that the folks in office follow the Constitution we have, as currently amended. What good is it to change a document that is almost uniformly ignored anyway?
And again, why does he neglect any suggested amendment to protect innocent life and natural marriage? Everything else pales in comparison to those two fundamental things.
No offense, but I think the insistence that this is not a Constitutional Convention is a game of semantics. Once something like this is convened there is no controlling legal authority, to borrow a phrase.
And there is no way that the delegates assembled out of this political universe of characters would be fit to tinker with the work of inspired genius of the framers. There just isn’t that kind of visionary leadership out there right now in sufficient numbers, not in the Republican Party, and certainly not in the Democrat Party. The few that do have the kind of principled vision represented by the founders would NOT be allowed anywhere near any convention convened by the powers-that-be as they now exist.
That’s my opinion.
LOL, You guys are FUUUUUNNNNNNYY!
So, tell me YOUR picks as delegates to said CONCON?
Oh wait. I forgot. YOU don’t get to select them.
I'm sure I will have a far greater voice in this than you will. Your opinions are not likely to carry further than the end of the bar.
I can read just fine. But, it’s clear you can’t.
In January, 2009, the Democrats effectively controlled 60 seats in the Senate. For the fraction-impaired, that was 3/5ths. In the House, Democrats were only 4 seats short of controlling 3/5ths.
Any Supreme Court decision in the last two years of the Bush Administration could have been overturned.
DC v. Heller was decided on June 26, 2008. So, until Ted Kennedy died, the Democrats would have only needed 4 more votes in the House to reverse DC v. Heller. The prevailing law would have still been: there iis no individual right to own a firearm. There would have been no further judicial review, according to the proposed amendment.
Are you starting to get the picture now? Do you still think it’s a good idea?
Ratification of constitutional amendments require the approval of state legislatures in 3/4ths of the states. This amendment would effectively reduce the requirement to 3/5ths. That’s 30 states, instead of 38 states. And, it wouldn’t even require proposal of an amendment, which requires 2/3rd of Congress.
Anyone that still thinks this is a good idea should study the law of untended consequences. This is a classic example where the cure would be worse than the disease.
Your opinion, you’re entitled to it. I’d suggest however, that you familiarize yourself with the process that is being proposed and is laid out in the Constitution. This will be tough enough to get done even with specified amendments; there is NO WAY that this is a process that could go “rogue”.
Even if the Amendment Convention did propose an Amendment that was not foreseen, it would still require ratification by 3/4s of the States. As far as I am concerned, if any Amendment can achieve that threshold, it will sit well with me.
As far as being “fit to tinker” is concerned, I’d point out to you as gently as I know how, that the statists have been doing just that for a century - via judicial activism and by simply ignoring the law. This tinkering is precisely what we are trying to undo.
Or, maybe you would prefer to just give up and open another beer.
Your position is based on a number of assumptions that are specious.
First, you assume that votes on such an issue will split strictly according to party lines. That is wild.
Second, you fail to account for the fact this proposed amendment is taken along with a return of control of the Senate to the State legislatures. Neither the makeup nor the loyalties of Senators in this scenario would be anything like the Senate of 2009.
And just to be clear about my position, I am aware that as will all things, there could be unintended consequences, but they could never be worse than the consequences of having an unbridled government - and that is precisely what we have, right now.
And the excesses of government will only get worse unless they are checked.
Unless you have a real good suggestion, I’m sticking with this one.
Don’t drink much beer these days, and no, I have no intention of giving up. I simply consider this to be, at best, a diversion from what should be the priority: finding and electing leaders who understand the Constitution and its moral, natural law basis, who are actually committed to keeping their oaths to support it.
Currently, we have almost none in positions of power.
Another thing-
There are several amendments that have been proposed by Mark Levin. Others will make further proposals, I am sure. Each of the proposed amendments will have to be ratified, and not all will make it through the process, which is arduous.
Most likely the proposal that you seem most concerned about won’t survive the process. But, hopefully, the most important among them will.
So far, the most important ones haven't come from Mark Levin.
I have no problem with electing leaders who understand the Constitution and its moral, natural law basis. We did that last year here in Texas with our work on behalf of Ted Cruz.
But it is obviously not enough. So, we’re looking for citizens to work with us in every state to bring about not merely changes in personnel, an upstream swim at best, but to effect structural, lasting change that will restore the country to its Constitutional basis as a limited democracy federal republic.
We are taking on the great task of undoing a century of statism. There are many oxen to be gored, and the resistance will be fierce.
You could join us.
And just what would that be, if I may ask?
You would certainly be welcome to proselytize for your favorites, no question. That's the process.
In that case, your opinion is crap.
The legislatures of the states would specify precisely the amendment(s) to be proposed. The “runaway” convention is a bugaboo.
1) Protect innocent human life, from conception. Make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection requirement applies to the unborn, from their creation onward.
2) Protect one man, one woman marriage.
The two most important issues of our day.
By the way, we don’t have to amend the Constitution to do either, right now. We simply need representatives who will follow the Constitution and the laws of nature and nature’s God.
Well, good luck then.
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.