Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Article V Promoter Praises Democratic Leadership in Movement
The New American ^ | 28 June 2014 | Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Posted on 06/28/2014 12:17:12 PM PDT by VitacoreVision


Constitutional convention advocate Mark Meckler praised the participation of Democrats and others in the movement.

The New American
28 June 2014

How would conservatives — good-hearted, well-meaning, Constitution-loving conservatives who have been persuaded to join the Article V Constitutional Convention camp — react if they knew that some of the leaders of that very movement were not only accepting the participation of liberals in the planning, but praising their contribution?

I suppose we’ll find out soon enough, as soon as Mark Meckler’s latest article begins being bounced around the Twittersphere and Facebook.
...

Full Story:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18591-article-v-promoter-praises-democratic-leadership-in-movement


(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: articlev; markmeckler; wolfpac
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2014 12:17:12 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The main target of the liberals in this is to do away with the second amendment. Carry on at your own risk. This will go no where because in the end the red states will tell them to put it where the sun does not shine.


2 posted on 06/28/2014 12:24:11 PM PDT by oldenuff2no
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no
And Citizens United.

Example:

California seeks constitutional convention over Citizens United
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/California-seeks-constitutional-convention-over-5579322.php

June 26, 2014
3 posted on 06/28/2014 12:27:24 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a </>divinely inspired</I> document.


4 posted on 06/28/2014 12:29:56 PM PDT by buckalfa (Charter Member of the Group W Bench)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
The analogy is irresistible: The Roman Church's Vatican II was a good idea which was hijacked by cynical revisionists. One outcome was the epidemic of homosexuals flooding seminaries and the generation of predator priests which followed. A Constitutional Convention would be hijacked by the Left wing and would mean the total dissolution of the American idea. The Bull of Rights would be gone. Done. Not just the Second Amendment but the whole shebang.
5 posted on 06/28/2014 12:34:44 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
"In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a divinely inspired document."

Was all of it "divinely inspired", or just some of it?

6 posted on 06/28/2014 12:40:37 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
Fear mongers!!!! So I guess we should just sit back and let the runaway federal government do what they wish with no repercussions whatsoever. It doesn't matter who gets involved in the state convention process as long as the ball gets rolling. THERE CAN BE NO RUNAWAY STATE CONVENTION! Before you pass judgment on this process please ready everything you can get your hands on about it. You are doing a disservice to all the people that are working so hard to get this process started. It is about reducing the size of the big, bloated federal government. Congress will not fix itself. This Article five convention was written into the constitution by our founding fathers to stop exactly what is going on in Washington today. Please educate yourselves.
7 posted on 06/28/2014 12:43:59 PM PDT by katwoman5779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
"California seeks constitutional convention over Citizens United"

And what would happen if a convention passed such a proposal?

8 posted on 06/28/2014 12:45:24 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: katwoman5779

Liberals are going to hijack the Constitutional Convention.


9 posted on 06/28/2014 12:46:21 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
"Liberals are going to hijack the Constitutional Convention."

What if they did? What would happen then?

10 posted on 06/28/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

I’ve been leery of this Constitutional Convention from the beginning.

The government ignores the Constitution as it’s written now!

What good are new rules going to do?

And now we learn that the left is taking over the movement - like it did with our government, our education system, our media, etc.


11 posted on 06/28/2014 12:56:21 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
"... an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, ..."

Note that the product of a constitutional convention is not a new amendment to the Constitution. The product of a constitutional convention is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which the states later choose to ratify or ignore. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the constitutional convention that produced it was arguably a waste of time.

In fact, regardless that the delegates to the original Constitutional Convention had signed the final draft, their signatures did not constitute a ratification of the proposed Constitution. The delegates then had to go to their home states and sell their states on the Constitution which the states ultimately ratified.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution

12 posted on 06/28/2014 12:56:41 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
"What good are new rules going to do?"

What is your alternative? I'd like to see a plan! How's the status quo been working so far?

13 posted on 06/28/2014 1:04:15 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan; AllAmericanGirl44; Amagi; Art in Idaho; Arthur Wildfire! March; Arthur McGowan; ...

Article V ping.


14 posted on 06/28/2014 1:14:17 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
What is your alternative? I'd like to see a plan! How's the status quo been working so far?

I fear there's only one real solution left.

I'm not in favor of that - I'm just saying.

Just consider: the rules don't apply to liberals or their supporters. Look what happened to Chris McDaniel. He followed the rules and other guy broke all the rules and who's winning there?

Look at Lois Lerner and the IRS. They fixed an election and to date, no one's been punished.

Look at our southern border: immigration laws no longer matter or apply. But the laws giving those people welfare, social security, the privilege of using our schools, etc all still do.

The Ruling Class now thinks it can pick and choose what laws matter and which ones don't - like a neo-aristocracy.

And since those people keep getting elected (look at Chuck Rangel), they might as well be a nobility.
15 posted on 06/28/2014 1:17:46 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
Lots of fear and loathing with regard to the Article V Convention of the States option (along with mis-representing it as a "con-con").

Regardless, I see no evidence whatsoever that DC can be changed by DC -- regardless of party in power.

16 posted on 06/28/2014 1:23:17 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a divinely inspired document.

So, in your view, it is a divinely inspired document with the exception of Article V?

17 posted on 06/28/2014 1:24:32 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
Here is my usual pedantic boilerplate to these threads.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

Implicitly forbidden:

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

18 posted on 06/28/2014 1:25:22 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thank you!


19 posted on 06/28/2014 1:28:10 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

[ Liberals are going to hijack the Constitutional Convention. ]

Because a Convention of the States to PROPOSE New Amendments (which congress already can do and has done in the past) and a Total Constitutional Convention ie. (Write an entire new constitution) are the exact same Damned thing?????


20 posted on 06/28/2014 1:37:19 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision; buckalfa; hinckley buzzard; Da Bilge Troll; katwoman5779; Tzimisce; Amendment10; ...

(From VitacoreVision):”Liberals are going to hijack the Constitutional Convention.”

It’s not a “Constitutional Convention” but an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments, two very different things.

As far as the concept, the group with the best concept IMO is the Citizens for Self-Governance proposal for a Convention of States limited to a prepared agenda of SUBJECTS (not per-written amendments). Only those agreed-upon subjects will be on the agenda to hammer out proposed amendment(s).

http://conventionofstates.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/COS_Handbook.pdf

Example of topics for proposed amendments are.
- A balanced budget amendment.
- Reducing federal spending power (fixing the General Welfare Clause).
- Reducing federal regulatory power (fixing the Commerce Clause).
- A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States.
- Limitation on Executive Orders and Administrative Agency Law.
- Imposing substantive checks on the Supreme Court including term limits.
- A limit on federal taxation.

The only one I don’t support is the balanced budget amendment because it give politicians “wiggle room” to justify raising taxes. The key is LIMITING SPENDING and the size of the federal government. I would also add another topic for a proposed amendment.


21 posted on 06/28/2014 1:45:23 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wolf24

[ In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a divinely inspired document.

So, in your view, it is a divinely inspired document with the exception of Article V? ]

You got them there!

Also FEDERAL House and Senate have been the gatekeeper to the constitution for over 200 years, and while some amendments have been good, the bill of rights, end of slavery, 2 term limit on presidents. Some have been really bad, Prohibition, Federal income Tax, Direct Election of Senators.

The Number of Bad amendments PROPOSED by FEDERAL Congress in the last 100 years has been increasing.

How about we PROPOSE some new Amendments using a Meeting of the STATE Legislatures? FED-GOV has proven they cannot be trusted anymore to LIMIT their OWN POWER....

All an Article V “Convention of States” is, is a MEETING of STATE Legislatures to PROPOSE New Amendments ONLY, the Amendments Once proposed and STILL HAVE TO BE RATIFIED using the EXISTING PROCESS...


22 posted on 06/28/2014 1:45:56 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The rest of my last post...

I would also add another topic for a proposed amendment:

Limit federal enforcement power over the first ten amendments (fix the 14th Amendment to its original intent: ONLY a prohibition on state segregation laws (as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872).


23 posted on 06/28/2014 1:47:44 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: katwoman5779
Before you pass judgment on this process please ready everything you can get your hands on about it. You are doing a disservice to all the people that are working so hard to get this process started. It is about reducing the size of the big, bloated federal government. Congress will not fix itself. This Article five convention was written into the constitution by our founding fathers to stop exactly what is going on in Washington today. Please educate yourselves.

I have spent many hours studying both sides of this issue, inclding the proposed ammendments, who originally started this movement 40 years ago, and who has funded the movement. the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, along with other leftist ofginazations. The Naetlson, Levin, Barnett, Meckler, Farris crowd have picked up what the left has been attempting since the 70's including the same "balanced Budget Ammendment, approach. The proposed Balanced Budget Ammendment, going through state legislatures, does not contain the words balanced or budget, what it does do is give congress the authority to raise the debt limit by 5%, whenever they choose, and raise taxes aa needed whenever they so choose. How is that doing anything to control congress. The other proposed ammendments I studied did nothing to restrict congress, in fact some gave them authority that they don't now have.

I have given several presentations against the "Convention of States" proposal, I spent at least 40 hours doing research before giving those presentaions. I found nothing good that could come out of a convention, what I did find was a lot of half truths, misinformation, and name calling coming from the Naetlson, Levin, Barnett, Meckler, Farris crowd.

24 posted on 06/28/2014 1:50:08 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

” The government ignores the Constitution as it’s written now!”

The FEDERAL Government IGNORES it....

The STATE Government(s) SUFFER the Federal Government’s Abuses and Ignoring of the Constitution.

So the State Governments cannot get together to PROPOSE new amendments? You know like the way Corrupt FEDERAL Congress already can....

You do understand the difference between a STATE Senator and Representative and FEDERAL Senator and Representative???


25 posted on 06/28/2014 1:50:33 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wolf24

We should re-name it “ Article V meeting of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments to the Constitution. “


26 posted on 06/28/2014 1:51:52 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

That’s similar to how Levin has been referring to it.


27 posted on 06/28/2014 1:54:11 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I fear if we bicker and fight amongst ourselves over the fact that some of us cannot understand How Article V actually works that someone in congress will Propose a Amendment in Federal Congress to “Close the Article V Loophole” as the libs and the MSM and liberal media would sell it.

And a bunch of idiot dupes on this board would think it would be a great idea to do that not realizing they would be cutting off the States only recourse to Propose new amendments...

And then an some point they (being congress would add into this amendment a provision that congress itself could ratify new amendment with a 2/3 or 3/4 vote in the senate or house) and we can at that point kiss Federalism as the founders intended goodbye and have our only recourse be revolution violent or otherwise as our only option to roll back the federal Leviathan...


28 posted on 06/28/2014 1:58:33 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I fear if we bicker and fight amongst ourselves over the fact that some of us cannot understand How Article V actually works that someone in congress will Propose a Amendment in Federal Congress to “Close the Article V Loophole” as the libs and the MSM and liberal media would sell it.

And a bunch of idiot dupes on this board would think it would be a great idea to do that not realizing they would be cutting off the States only recourse to Propose new amendments...

And then an some point they (being congress would add into this amendment a provision that congress itself could ratify new amendment with a 2/3 or 3/4 vote in the senate or house) and we can at that point kiss Federalism as the founders intended goodbye and have our only recourse be revolution violent or otherwise as our only option to roll back the federal Leviathan...


29 posted on 06/28/2014 1:58:35 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

[ I have given several presentations against the “Convention of States” proposal, I spent at least 40 hours doing research before giving those presentations. I found nothing good that could come out of a convention, ]

How about instead of a Convention of the States we have a “Meeting of the State legislatures to propose new amendments” and then we give those proposals to congress to vote on like how any other amendments is processed? So then Both houses of the Federal Legislature can than vote on them and have them pass with a 2/3 votes before needing 3/4 of the states to ratify just like all the other amendments that have ever been ratified?

So instead of one congressman proposing an amendment for the House and Senate to vote on, instead we get the states together and they hand it off to a congressman so congress can complete the process like any other normal amendments?


30 posted on 06/28/2014 2:03:38 PM PDT by GraceG (No, My Initials are not A.B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

Do you support nullification?


31 posted on 06/28/2014 2:07:09 PM PDT by katwoman5779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision; All
"Liberals are going to hijack the Constitutional Convention."

Let them hijack a Convention of the States! The product of a Convention of the States is not a ratified amendment to the Constitution as many patriots seem to think. The product of such a convention is only a proposed amendment to the Constituton which the states later choose to either ratify or ignore.

32 posted on 06/28/2014 2:11:36 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: katwoman5779

Yes I do.


33 posted on 06/28/2014 2:15:27 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

The States are in debt.

The Fed has been handing them money for decades - which has led to the states overspending.

The States can’t live without federal money.

How hard do you honestly think the states are going to squeeze the fed?


34 posted on 06/28/2014 2:20:26 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Whatever.

If it’s hijacked by the left, those conservative amendments will never see the light of day.

That said: the problem we have in 2014 is that the Federal government is ignoring the Constitution AND its own laws!

I don’t know what good new amendments are going to do when the Fed ignores the old amendments.


35 posted on 06/28/2014 2:22:22 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; wolf24; Publius; PapaNew; Tzimisce
Open tyranny is at our doorstep. The tyrant will hopefully be gone in 2017, but the horrible precedents, the tyranny will remain.

This past week, and with little notice, Scotus rewrote the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution. It was done without the hassle of Article V. Oh.

Every executive branch agency stands ready to serve the democrat party.

Given all this and certainly much more, we are supposed to fear a meeting of state delegates in accordance with the Constitution?

There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from an Article V convention to propose amendments.

Article V is the last hope of a dying republic.

36 posted on 06/28/2014 2:24:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
Structural amendments cannot be ignored. They are the only sort worth considering. It is why Levin's proposed amendments are superb.

Levin's Amendments.

37 posted on 06/28/2014 2:27:27 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no

Count to 34, then 38. 13 doesn’t get you there.


38 posted on 06/28/2014 2:28:58 PM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

38 states are needed to ratify anything. What issue do you see that would be against conservative values that would be supported by 38 states?


39 posted on 06/28/2014 2:35:28 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

If Convention of States don’t work, the next step should be states beginning to nullify unconstitutional fed acts (Roe v. Wade, Obamacare should head the list) and begin financial independence from the feds.


40 posted on 06/28/2014 2:45:11 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
horrible precedents...Article V is the last hope of a dying republic.

Well, there are more options - more severe, but necessary in the cause of freedom, which is worth everything, IMO. Let's hope for a successful outcome of a Convention of States.

But if that doesn't work, states can begin nullifying unconstitutional federal acts and rulings and start taking steps toward financial independence from the feds.

"Creeping tyranny"? Let's counter with "creeping independence and liberty."

41 posted on 06/28/2014 2:55:58 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I don’t really see how adding ammendments to the Constitution will cause people who violate the Constitution with impunity to all at once start abiding by it because of new ammendments.


42 posted on 06/28/2014 3:04:13 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
"I fear there's only one real solution left."

If you read the notes and debate minutes left by the framers, they specifically included the convention process as a "last resort" before violence. To me, it's worth a risk to keep that from happening and the more I learn, the less risk I see.

43 posted on 06/28/2014 3:07:53 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1
"...people who violate the Constitution with impunity to all at once start abiding by it..."

Some parts of the Constitution have not been violated, such as the Presidential Term Limit. Would term limits for Congress and SCOTUS be ignored?

This is an example of a structural change that Levin is proposing, among others.

44 posted on 06/28/2014 3:21:56 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

By your logic, ammendments can do no harm.


45 posted on 06/28/2014 3:48:37 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
Some parts of the Constitution have not been violated, such as the Presidential Term Limit. Would term limits for Congress and SCOTUS be ignored?

I am not convinced that there won't be an attempt to violate that at some point.

46 posted on 06/28/2014 3:54:49 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
The last PEACEFUL hope of a dying Republic.
47 posted on 06/28/2014 4:22:40 PM PDT by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: c-b 1

I thought so. You guys are standing in the way of progress. Your way will never work.


48 posted on 06/28/2014 5:10:53 PM PDT by katwoman5779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: katwoman5779
You guys have bought into a dangerous pipe dream, you are playing with fire over an open pan of gasoline. We are standing in the waY of progress? That would be like Progressive? That is who started this scheme 40 years ago. Your guys are selling the same scheme.

You say nothing can go wrong. I'll give you three examples of what could go wronng. The Sixteenth Ammendment, Income Tax. The Seventeenth Ammendment, direct election of senators, and the stupidest, the Eighteenth Ammendment, Prohibition, all were ratified by three fourths of the State Legislatures.

49 posted on 06/28/2014 5:35:50 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa

“In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a </>divinely inspired</I> document.”

As much as I agree with you on the Constitution and bill of rights(including #11) the following 16 amendments are not so divinely inspired, and the rest of that constitution is now utterly ignored.

Unless we are able to make the injustice system accountable to the people and their States and thus remotely inclined to uphold that Constitution. We don’t really have anything to loses but the now effectively meaningless writings on Washington’s toilet paper.

For better or worse History will remain history no matter what is now done. The only thing we can do now is try to restore some of the checks and balances we once lost in hope that they may be enable us to restore and retain some of the practical freedom from boundless government we have lost.


50 posted on 06/28/2014 6:41:23 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson