Posted on 03/20/2014 3:17:52 PM PDT by Jacquerie
I neglected to include the citation for my Red state / Blue state comparison...
* Source: https://www.statescape.com/resources/partysplits/partysplits.aspx
Howsabout making it an impeachable offense to knowingly vote for any measure that does not first pass constitutional muster? Just musing here... the kind of things one does before going to a convention.
nobody is going to want to be a member of Congress anyway imo.
I think that you are exactly right, to this extent: They'll not want to go for the same reasons as the money-grubbing, power-hungry, opportunist career politicians that they'll be replacing, that's for sure! They just might have other motives, like doing what's best for the country instead of what's best for their re-election fund, because, by golly, there's that Lifetime Term Limits thing to remind them that someday soon, they'll be returning to the real world with the rest of us to live under the laws that they pass. This Article V is starting to look like a magic bullet...
What we need is an amendment which allows states...
I'm not even going to finish your quote there, just to make the point that YOU can fill in the blank! That's what this convention will be all about... great minds coming together with great ideas, to propose, discuss and dispose... debate for as long as it takes to fully vet the issues and the solutions... and do so in the full light of day, not in some smokey back room! And the best part of all of this...? Just let the media try to ignore it!
Bottom line here, Amendment10, is that, for what it's worth, I like the way you think!
Liberals and judges don’t follow the Constitution now so even if you prevailed (you won’t) it is a meaningless exercise for people that like to preach to the choir. A few states will send their flaming liberals? Obama carried 26 states. But people waste their time with all sorts of nonsense. So have at it. However I will oppose it and encourage everyone I know to oppose it.
Wow... I never thought about it in the way that you just described, but but you could very well be right.
This may be one of the major issues that brings the parties together on this whole Article V movement - lifetime term limits. Kind of like a bunch of young members of the tribe jumping up and down to break the tip off an ice flow so one really old Eskimo can just float out to sea.
One less old Eskimo... I like it!
I must have been interrupted when I was making post 5. I meant the 17th Amendment but 16 can go too.
Hear, Hear, Publius!
To those who insist on dragging out that tired old saw, it should be sufficient to note that what emerged from that assembly was an AMENDMENT to the existing Articles of the Confederation which was submitted to Congress, which in turn unanimously approved said amendment and referred it to the 13 states for ratification.
Now, before anything else occurred, it's important to note that the ratification process set forth in the amendment, which was, in fact, the soon-to-be new Constitution, contained two important changes which were both required for ratification to occur.
First, rather than have 13 state legislatures approve the amendment, as required under the Articles, the Constitution called for each state merely to approve the calling of a state convention to ratify the amendment. If that were approved, then the ratification of only nine states was deemed sufficient.
The fact is that ALL 13 states legislatures approved the calling of state conventions to consider approval of the new amendment / Constitution, and in so doing, the requisite unanimous approval for the new nine-state ratification process occurred.
Eventually, all thirteen states adopted the Constitution, thus further negating any claim that the Constitution was somehow illegally approved.
It's a matter of history*.
Source: David F. Guldenschuh, JD
I'm sorry that you feel so defeated, and regret that you have given up on your country. Personally, I can't buy into your defeatism.
It is, however, one thing to feel that another's efforts are meaningless and futile, and another entirely to say you'll actively oppose them.
Thank you for the heads-up... I would have expected no less from the Democrat Party. It would appear that there are more enemies of Freedom and Liberty than I might have guessed.
Yes, the Constitutional Convention was a runaway convention, an attempt to resolve issues with the existing Articles of Confederation.
However ...
Neither the runaway Constitutional Convention, nor any such Convention in the future, produced a ratified new Constitution, but a proposed new Constitution for the states to later ratify if they so choose. This is because, after the delegates to the Convention had finished and signed the final draft, they then had to get out and sell the draft to the states for ratification, just as the states would have to ratify any amendments proposed by future Conventions.
"The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven States." --United States Constitution, Wikipedia.
Given up on my country? No. Given up on you. Definitely.
If amendments won’t be followed, then no harm can be done. Why oppose a convention?
States will send delegates with commissions. They will not send representatives. Delegates are identical to agents. Their discretion will be limited to the power their states give them. States will not send representatives with plenary authority.
Do you oppose other clauses in the constitution?
Your #39 is worth a stand alone vanity.
Conservatives follow the constitution not liberals. This can only make things worse not better. I see no upside and only downside. The existing constitution is not the problem.
Yes, they do. They follow it to the letter. But the Constitution they follow is the Living Constitution, the Constitution as a tree, the Constitution that keeps growing and evolving even though its actual words never change. They follow the case law generated from the Living Constitution to include various penumbras and emanations not written into it.
When the federal entity gets too far away from the Constitution as a rock -- the Constitution that means what it says -- then it's up to somebody to rein in the federal entity by sharpening and clarifying the words of the Constitution so that there is no question as to what the Constitution means. Today this would mean reviving federalism and giving the states the authority and means to restrict the federal entity. Would either House of Congress pass such a menu of amendments? No! It's absurd to think that the federal entity would willingly curb its power. But Article V permits the states to bypass Congress, propose its own slate of Amendments, and after Congress decides whether the states are to ratify by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions, the rest is in the hands of the states themselves via the ratification process.
Liberals had us outnumbered 26 states to 24 in 2012. Yeah - liberals will just roll over and allow conservatives to rewrite the constitution. :-) Conservatives don’t even have the power to run the House or the RNC much less rewrite a Constitution. Ha ha ha.
Nobody is talking about rewriting the Constitution. What does one have to say to get that though your head? Please read Post #27 before you comment further.
Sounds about right.
Somehow Democrats equate giving themselves more authority of the federal government to picking cotton on the plantation.
Proof that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
if the constitution doesn’t change then what is the point? LOL.
There is a difference between proposing amendments to be added to the Constitution if they receive the proper number of state ratifications — and “re-writing” the Constitution. Why do you not get that?
Precisely!
And as for giving up on me, I didn't know that you were trying to enlist my aid or support in anything... all I heard were criticism and derision. Maybe I was too quick to judge.
If you are indeed trying to win me over to another, better way of thinking, I'll drop my guard and give whatever you have to say fair consideration.
Maybe a good place to start might be... Where do you think I may have gone wrong in the first place?
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.