Skip to comments.Are You a Constitutional Hypocrite?
Posted on 09/02/2013 7:03:49 AM PDT by dontreadthis
Practically everyone I know agrees that strictly obey the Constitution and that is why those that oppose the calling forth of Article V Convention are Constitutional hypocrites. You can not support the Constitution while at the same time rejecting the provisions of Article V.
The Article V Convention was what the method the founders provided to insure the people would be able to control the government and prevent their abuse of power. There have already been more than 34 states that have petitioned Congress for an Article V Convention Even though the requisite numbers of states has been reached Congress continues to violate the Constitution by failing to do what is mandated in Article V. If we have the authority to pick and choose which portions of the Constitution we will follow and which portions we will ignore we are doing the same thing that Congress has been doing for over 100 years.
Currently the progressives get virtually everything they want. The Supreme Court rubber stamps every legislative act regardless of its constitutionality. Congress amends the Constitution every time they pass unconstitutional legislation, the President amends the Constitution with his Executive Orders and the Supreme Court amends the Constitution every time they re-interpret the Constitution to justify the actions of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government.
Why would anyone trust the criminals that created our problems to solve the problems? Anyone that looks to Congress to solve our problems is obviously a valedictorian of a government school. There are so many laws that unconstitutional laws that are being enforce, the Constitution has become an irrelevant piece of paper. Why is it wrong for a forum of the people to gather to discuss possible amendments to the Constitution? Since when is it dangerous to discuss potential solutions to a problem?
Some say that it would be dangerous to convene a convention to discuss potential amendments to the Constitution. Refusing to talk about the problems serves absolutely no useful purpose. Denying the people their right to voice their opinions is what tyranny is all about.
The calling forth of a convention would threaten status quo and the crime syndicate that benefits from the cesspool on Capital Hill. If we sit back and do nothing we are giving our consent to the crime syndicate to continue to rape and pillage what is left of our once great nation.
If the people and the states are supposed to by the masters as it was so eloquently expressed in the tenth amendment, then why are we allowing our servants to call the shots?
If Congress were to propose a terrible amendment and presented it to the states, a total of 38 state legislatures would need to ratify it. If an Article V Convention were to propose an lousy amendment to the state legislatures, it would also need the approval of three fourths of the states. The power to amendment the Constitution is in the people and the states, Currently the states and the people are powerless unless Congress proposes amendments that will limit their power to abuse us.
The American colonist knew that declaring their independence from England would be dangerous, but because they were willing to pay the price for freedom a victory was achieved. They won the war for independence because they believed that freedom was worth fighting for.
In the Declaration of Independence we were instructed to alter or abolish our government when it became tyrannical. If you believe in the principles espoused in the Constitution are worthy, we should not abolish the government. The alter our government lawfully we must utilize the provisions of Article V and avoid the blood bath that would result from efforts to abolish the government.
The worst thing that would come from an Article V Convention would be the proposal of a lousy amendment. If that occurred the proposed amendment would be rejected by the states and no changes to the Constitution would occur. In the best case scenario an amendment that would allow us to indict and prosecute elected officials for violating their oath would added to the Constitution. We have absolutely nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain;
Agree with me or you are a hypocrite!
FU (to the writer).
I’m not convinced, and being called names doesn’t sway me.
Keith badly needs an editor.
Gibberish sentence of the day.
There is no way that I want a convention - under ANY premise. I have watched these last 20 years where massive cheating, lying and extra-Constitutional means have been used to subvert or laws, our tradition, our ethics, and our morals. I am certainly not willing to see a supposedly innocent calling for “THE” convention to see it again raped, pillaged and subverted to evil’s aims. NOT EVEN AN IOTA!
We are at the point now where the only means to correct this is outright armed revolt - because there is nowhere left on this planet left to go and start over. These people are our enemies, not peoples of differing opinion and you cannot reason with them.
Yeah, Keith needs an editor, and he’s correct about our need for an Article V Convention. Meanwhile..., you’re the grammar police....
That said, agreeing that a Section V convention is allowed under the Constitution is NOT the same thing as believing it is a good idea. That is not hypocrisy, that is a disagreement over the best method to cure the problem.
I think I agree with what the author says,
but he is in desperate need of a proofreader.
ok, so we have criticisms regarding grammar and a call for armed revolt
Great way to convince someone, “you’re a hypocrite.”
He needs more than an editor.
So the last measure in the constitution to stem the tied of this monster is something you dont even want to try, but you are just all ready to go out and start shooting people?
And no it isnt a “constitutional convention”. Why do people keep saying that?
Is there ANYTHING that will sway you or are you prepared to be a serf to the Leviathan forever? And that’s not “name calling,” that’s just saying it as it is.
If the Convention of the States fails to produce anything of value, you can still have your armed revolution. Meanwhile there are still some adults in the country.
And, Gaffer, there’s no chance of that revolutionary action of yours ever being hijacked by leftists, now is there? (ROTFLMAO)
I’m sure such a convention would run as honestly as the DNC convention https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs (see 1:23, 1:43, and 2:10). I imagine such a convention would run with the openness of the debates over ObamaCare. I imagine such a convention would run with all the concern for our fundamental human rights that the IRS and NSA show on a daily basis. What could go wrong?
We already have a great Constitution, and the main weakness is that we the people elect sleazy politicians who are too corrupt to follow the Constitution. Why would we risk that for something so unlikely to be better, especially when there is a significant risk that the modification or replacement would be worse?
A better answer (and we do need a solution) is for decent people to get involved in politics and in government. We need to scale back government because excess government action is inherently inefficient and harmful. We need to scale back government because big government inherently reduces freedom. We need to scale back government because the massive spending of big government attracts corrupt and sleazy people who want to enrich themselves by guiding those billions (and now trillions) of our tax dollars into the hands of crony capitalists who repay them with thousands (and now millions) in donations and gifts.
It’s not enough to complain online. We have to get active - in every town hall with or without a prior fuss over any particular issue, in public rallies over specific issues or to support conservative candidates, in writing to our state and federal legislators on a regular basis to urge both specific and general cuts in the size of government and especially to identify potential cuts, in writing to the newspapers and posting online anywhere our words might be read by swing voters (which is probably not here on FR), and in considering how our positions might best be phrased to be convincing (which can most definitely be done here on FR).
“... criticisms regarding grammar and a call for armed revolt...”
Do I have to choose?
Can’t we do both at the same time, maybe?
Yep, it can be done, but considering the scalywags and carpetbaggers who would be selecting who gets to represent We the People, and what they might propose, it might be a waste of time, or worse yet, dangerous. With the full force of the Media behind anything the delegates might propose coupled with a dumbed down populace, the results might be far worse than anyone anticipates.
We might be better off to put those resources into forming a new political Party, and offer a clear alternative to the statists.
We have a perfectly good Constitution, we just need people in office who will honor it (and their oaths to uphold it).
Your idea of a meaningful, unhijacked, convention is Pollyanish, to say the least. Regardless of whether there are ‘adults’ in this country or not. Liberals don’t do ‘adult’ they don’t do ‘fair’ and they don’t do ‘nice’.
Your other comment assumes there are enough of a contingent outside our urban cesspools and high-pop areas that could make a difference after they’ve destroyed themselves in a feeding frenzy. This is the primary reason they want popular election of Presidents - because they do not represent the dispersed population of the rest of us. (ROTFLMAO, too)
Just a bad argument and a failure to understand what the word hypocrite means. Someone who believes no one should be able to drive a car, but drives a car themselves is a hypocrite. Someone who believes driving a car is a fundamental, but chooses to live in a big city and never drive is just not exercising a right they believe in.
Perhaps the author thinks any day the US Congress does not declare war on someone they are being constitutional hypocrites. Afterall the US Constitution give the Congress the power to declare war, so if they do not use it at every point in time the Congress must be constitutional hypocrites.
Let me know when an English version is available.
Any amendment adopted by such a convention would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, right? I don’t see the harm in having a convention. At least the conversation would be on our footing - how to limit the government. But with the country split the way it is, no amendments would likely ever be adopted anyway.
Because people like you are still trying to reason with these destroyers.
They don’t and won’t follow the law as it is now. What makes you think they will even give an Artcle V “get together” (if you don’t like ‘convention) any more than the immigration laws, the hate crime laws, the Bill of Rights or any of it. It has all been subverted.
Our laws about eligibility for President, etc were written down, too weren’t they? Immigration laws also. You can’t count the laws Obama and the Democrats have broken in 4.5 years.
If you have a convention, it only opens us up to more potential appeasement in the name of propriety and fair play(by our RINOs and moderate ‘adults’). It opens up a whole new venue for the media do demagogue and keep the real points from being aired. In short, it will be another “equal rights amendment” debacle whose leftover remnants have been slowly introduced into law by fiat and into practice by rote repetition and intentional re-education of our young.
I am in no way willing to open our Constitution up for that. I’d rather take a hard line to defend it as it is, even if by arms.
I’m open to considering the option. I’m not convinced it is a good idea as it looks like a double-edged sword to me.
My quibble is over the writer trying to insult people into agreement. If that’s all he’s got, his argument is weak.
By starting with an exclusionary argument, he used a favorite method of Obama, so I quit reading pretty quickly.
I have read your concerns which I too share. What persuades me in favor of a convention is the relative proximity of State Legislators to the people. The power and money behind the Federal legislators has so overshadowed that of the States, that we have neglected the State Representatives. Corruption and lack of accountability at the Federal level is better controlled at the state level obviously. Putting efforts toward electing the right representatives across multiple states would serve as a firewall against a hijacked A5 convention given the high bar required for ratification. That said, one would argue the likelihood of the coherence or competence of the initial amendment propoposals, but ultimate ratification is a high bar.
What the hell does that mean? I read it 5 times...no sense whatever.
I totally agree with your summary of what a “called convention” would be.
A question that also comes to my mind is, “Who decides who gets to attend such a thing?” I assume it would be state legislatures, which would tend to be somewhat less entrenched to the DC culture - but, when I think how it is nearly every state’s major cities that control how that state’s politics go, I’m not too certain that a Article V Convention would be much less liberal/marxist that what we have already.
I DO believe that state governors and certain state legislators could refuse to follow federal mandates in a lot of areas - like EPA mandates, Dept of Education money and mandates, and a host of others.
This is happening now with the so-called Obamacare insurance “exchanges” - some states are refusing to create them, thus causing a major wrench to be thrown into the mix - hurrah!
But, something like a Constitutional Convention would bring out the leftwing like you’ve never seen. You don’t think they would realize all the potential crap they could pull with something like this? Yes, it would take 3/4’s of the states to ratify - but, that’s just not enough protection in my opinion.
Does Article V state who attends such a convention? If not, then each state would determine its own qualifications, right? If I’m wrong, fine, but I just think a convention is opening a can of worms.
Stop federal intrusion by governors and state legislators just refusing the money, refusing to obey - force the feds to invade. Make them show their totalitarian face to the world.
“We are at the point now where the only means to correct this is outright armed revolt - because there is nowhere left on this planet left to go and start over. These people are our enemies, not peoples of differing opinion and you cannot reason with them.”
I couldn’t agree more. Lately I’ve found myself having to be real careful what I post online for fear of a Secret Service or FBI visit. It’s not that I’m scared of them, but if I step over a legal threshold I want it to mean something.
I’m not sure how a revolt would happen. It’s almost impossible to call for one online, with the NSA monitoring everything we do, not to mention all the morons who would report something like that.
I figure a revolt will almost have to be spontaneous. Maybe if Obama signs one too many executive orders, or if Congress passes one too many laws. Even if our govt. goes way over the line, and a spark is lit, I don’t see what the actual targets would be?
I wish a few states would have the balls to just start blatantly ignoring federal decrees. Call their bluff. I could actually see that happening in a state with one strong leader, and enough Constitutional Conservatives supporting him.
poor grammar. I think that he is trying to say that if you are a firm adherent to the Constitution, and because Article V is incorporated therein, opposition to a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution calls into question one’s adherence to the Constitution.
We are far passed the time where people can solve our problems at the ballot box. It’s just not doable anymore. Our “representatives” won’t even hold town hall meetings anymore. They keep getting reelected because of low information voters and name recognition. I bet, on average, that no more than 10% of voters have a clue what our Constitution says or what is going on globally as far as current events. There really is no cure for stupidity when it comes to voters. As long as govt. keeps offering “freebies” our politicians will be safe in their offices.
If a substantial minority of voters were informed, your suggestions would work. Sadly, that is not the case.
We are at a time in our history where the only cure for “what ails us” is not a ballot, it’s an ammo box.
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.” - Thomas Paine
I would like to see some documentation of this.
to mitigate the consensus of fears expressed, it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.
Id rather take a hard line to defend it as it is
That certainly would be the preferred method. But when one looks how the quality of the work by those choosen at the state and federal level to defend, let alone adhere to, has increasingly dwindled in the past 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 years there is room for considerable concern.
even if by arms.
That, in the spirit of responsible men who willing to defend the Constitution at all costs while they dream of freedom for all.
Of course, there is a timing issue; e.g., it would certainly seem prudent to take action prior to the day the entire country looks like Detroit or has the murder rate of Chicago.
A convention may have a flip of a coin results, but if it goes wrong it might serve as an important rally call to those that are left.
the info is out there but not widely known.
However, note that while many individual States have submitted applications for A-V conventions, these applications are rarely on the same issue. An even when they are, it is usually only a handful of States that get together on calling for a Convention to propose an amendment or amendments with the same underlying theme.
re: “. . . it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.”
That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes? Or, can the states do it themselves? I guess I’m just too cynical anymore to think that such a thing would accomplish what we want.
I know your heart is totally in the right place, dontreadthis, and if it were to happen, I would pray for its success. I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?
2. I consider a 2nd Amendment Reset more desirable than an Article V reset, as the latter could end up abolishing the former.
3. If this be
treason hypocrisy, make the most of it.
“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” the Congress “shall” call for the Convention is the wording. If that were to be somehow denied or tabled, I believe that those here now calling for an armed revolt would see it happen.
After Congress sets the place and time for the Convention, it is no longer involved.
Sorry getting active isn’t going to do it. We have to close ALL the loopholes in the USC.
The beauty of state(s) secession, it only leads to war if the Feds want one.
we understand that the 2nd Amendment was written so that Article V would remain intact. An Article V correction is what would be desired, not a Constitutional reset. The 2nd Amendment Reset is not in jeopardy during such a process, only towards the conclusion of the process should it turn sour, which again requires 34 states to ratify.
Where do you see loopholes in, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that permit the ObamaCare mandate to infringe on the free exercise of religion by those with religious objections to paying for the murder of unborn babies? It's not a loophole, just ignoring the plain language by a group of illegitimate and petty tyrants.
Where do you see loopholes in, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that permit the tens of thousands of anti-gun laws on the books today and the new infringements that are proposed by the far left? Again, it's not a loophole, just ignoring the plain language by a group of illegitimate and petty tyrants.
I could go on through the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Enumerated Powers, and the prerequisites for the Office of the President, but the point is clear. The fault is not in the Constitution. The fault is in corrupt and lawless politicians who are attracted by the opportunities to enrich themselves and the opportunities to exert power over others that an over-sized government offers - and in the amoral voters who can be bribed with other people's money.
The wording is perfectly clear. What are the chances of Congress ignoring something so unambiguous? They could no more ignore those words than they could ignore "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment.
The other side of this is that a Constitutional Convention would bring out the Tea Party like you haven't seen since the ObamaCare townhalls. I suspect we would swamp the left at such a convention. The problem is that I can't imagine what we could add to the existing Constitution beyond "and we really mean that . . . and we really mean that too" that would help.
detecting, (perhaps incorrectly) a bit of sarcasm in your reply, I would expect that the backlash would be enormous should Congress ignore 34 like-minded States whose citizens and legislators dedicated major time and effort to bring forth an application.
I can’t get past the first sentence, but I tried a few times.
Broader needs an editor.
I actually don’t see much chance of a “hijacked” convention, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to how that could actually happen - within the reality of how these conventions are set up and function. Beyond that, even if the convention were “hijacked” all the convention can do is propose amendments to the Constitution. The convention would have no power to adopt them. Any proposals still have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states where Wyoming’s voice is equal to California’s and Idaho counterbalances New York..
And as for Liberals not playing “nice,” “fair.” or “adult”,” I don’t care; they’re just doing what is natural to them, and we know what to expect. We can beat them on the battlefield or off. We just can’t expect the Beltway party animals to do it for us.
As for your second comment, you have succinctly revealed why the Amendment Convention can work, if you only listen to your own reasoning.
Have you read any of the proposals? They are all very practical.
Congress has no such power, express or implied. Congress' role has been described as "purely ministerial". In other words, all they get to do is "call" the convention, setting the date and time. Beyond that nothing.
Or, can the states do it themselves?
The states have full control over setting the rules of the convention where each state has an equal vote and voice, unless the states vote to employ some other voting mode, but I think that possibility beyond imagination.
I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. Theyve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?
I think the results of the convention and any proposed amendments subsequently ratified by 38 States will be honored without question because of their immediacy. These will not be the archaic words of men long dead; these Amendments will represent the bedrock will of the people TODAY.
And what is the alternative, anyway? According to many on this thread, it is civil war. Should we not first try the civil, Constitutional alternative given to us by the Founders for just such a situation?
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.