Calling a Constitutional Convention

http://www.american-partisan.com ^ | October 6, 2003 | by Bruce Walker

[Squantos]

NOT JUST NO BUT .....HELL NO !

Just what the seditious socialists want IMO. The Republic is on life support as we speak.....why let Dr Kervorkian Clintonistas like polidiots and their handlers pull the plug on what we have left ! Time to remove the bullshit that the socialists have dumped on real Americans versus playing to the hyphenated welfare addicted bottom feeders wails for more and more for nothing ! Restore the original documents intent vs a bastardized rewrite !

Damn........Just Damn !

[SevenDaysInMay]

Congress since before the 1803 Mawbry v Madison power grab has had the designated powers within our RATIFIED Constitution to reign in and punish unlawful judges and justices.

Congress won't.

Because the federal government since 1861 has run wild with powers wanted never consented to by the free citizens or sovereign states comprising this Republic, feds need no Constitutional Convention to rewrite anything except to codify current and planned unlawful usurpations.

Stripping our 2nd Amendment from our civil rights, as affirmed by our Constitution, so that the political and socialist conected elite, aka apparatchiks and nomenclatura, can feel safer as they rule us is beyond foolish and a written invitation to civil war.

If the 20th Century's some 100 million dead, under the boots of their own governments' JBTs and politicians, can teach We the People one thing, never disarm letting our RATIFIED Constitutional Republic fail the free peoples of our United States of America.

We the People must retire our consent to be governed by the likes of the Rhenquist SCOTUS and the hundreds of blackrobes intent on unlawfully usurping our RATIFIED Constitution, the only document from which they and politicians out of blackrobes derive any and all of their lawful authority and police powers of the State. We must vote out of high office professioinal socialists now turning fascists, as the benefits of corruptions paid hansomely during the reign of XXX-XX-42s.

The Islamic Terror War is focusing the minds of some Americans, but unlawful federal government officials of all stripes must be taken to task and unemployment lines- because they are outlaws acting under color of law, beyond the lawful powers specifically granted by our RATIFIED and only lawful Constitution.

"Compelling State interests" are no "controlling legal authority" unless so granted in our RATIFIED Constition. "Compelling State interests" are just roadsigns to Concord Bridge II.

[EternalVigilance]

Man, it is a huge relief to me to see that so many fully recognize the danger to what is left of our republic that would be posed by a constitutional convention.

[Squantos]

Amazes me as to why folks want to fix what was never broke....just burdened with recently added seditious shit'n shineloa.

Just my opinion of course !........Stay Safe .....:o)

[EternalVigilance]

An opinion we share! :-)

[Qwinn]

Okay, so let's say we go with the "normal" method of getting an amendment through. Just one. What would you guys ask for? It certainly wouldn't be term limits for me... I mean, that'd be really nice, but it's not a priority, and hurts our guys as much as theirs.

Far as I'm concerned, the Lefties have shredded every one of the Bill of Rights so far (well, except for the 10th, we'll have to blame the Civil War for that one). Even though it's already in there, I think I would have to go for an amendment REaffirming definitively and forever against judicial activism - that the as-written meaning of the Constitution cannot be reinterpreted based on the logic of precedent. In effect, get rid of the entire notion of the Constitution as a "Living Document" (it hurts me just to say it). Granted, that's already -in- the Constitution, but an amendment specifically declaring it and putting a stop to judicial revisionism for good is the single most encompassing thing I can think of to fix our problems, and that would stand a good chance of passing.

What would you guys pick as your ideal amendment? Keep it within the realm of the politically possible - as much as I would love an amendment outlawing abortion, I don't think we have the numbers (even if I do think we're a majority - but we're not 2/3).

Qwinn

[Travis McGee]

Exactly. Not to mention that the Second Amendment would be crossed out in the first five minutes.

[Squantos]

Albeit I advocate trimming the crap 'n fat thats been added on to the original constitutional vs adding any additional amendment I would SWAG a flat tax amendment would be what I'd "like".

But then it's not about what we like it's about what keeps us free to enjoy the liberties guaranteed in the constitution. A constitutional convention these days would not be unlike a brain surgery at home kit IMHO.........

Just my opinion........Stay Safe !

[EternalVigilance]

Personally, I favor the repeal of the 16th and the 17th Amendments---by the amendment process.

[c-b 1]

The Left has been getting initiatives passed for years, by calling them Term Limits initiatives, which are a call for a Constitutional Convention. About 3 or 4 years ago these initiatives had been passed in enough states that we were two states short of having enough to call for a Constitutional Convention, 5 states have now recended the call.

Anyone who thinks a Constitutional Convention will solve our problems has not been paying attention. These folks have a constitution written just waiting for the opportunity to implement it. It is nearly word for word, the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

[Squantos]

16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913.

---

17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, anti-democratic. There is little doubt of this - the Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, was another. The system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature sent approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise - the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913.



I gotta get some rack time for now .....will check in later this AM.

Stay Safe !

[Badray]

You and me both, brother. Just when I most needed some reassurance, the opposition to this idea provided it.

[LibWhacker]

Amen to that, buddy! Too many hate-filled, socialist traitor rats, rinos and other selfish identity groups to even think about convening a constitutional convention today. They'd destroy us.

However, I'm not opposed to it in principle, IF the delegates were men of impeccable principle themselves who also happened to hold the original Framers in the utmost reverence, AND who, btw, also happened to be TOWERING AND LEARNED GENIUSES themselves, like the original Framers were. For instance, I'd be interested in knowing what, if anything, the original Framers would do differently if they were alive today.

Just thought of a little thought experiment: Name 100 living men (or women) who you'd wholeheartedly trust to be a delegate to such a convention. I can think of very, very few. Certainly not even close to a hundred.

[Squantos]

Thats my problem too........sometimes I don't even "trust" the person looking back at me in the mirror to do the right thing ! Much less a stranger.........Lots at stake and it's gonna take more trust than I have to give .....if it was my decision to make .

Stay Safe !

[Squantos]

BTTT

[meadsjn]

The original US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are relatively easy to read and understand, especially when compared to some of the modern legalese. What would the founders do with a 13,000 page legislative bill? They would probably send it directly to the wood stove.

I have been baffled for years by the inability of politicians (of both parties), bureaucrats, educators, et.al., to understand the simple wording of the first ten amendments. I definitely would not trust any of them to rewrite any portion of the Constitution.

For those who wish to rewrite the Constitution, perhaps the old dunkin' stool routine would be a good qualifier. If they survive 12 minutes underwater, they obviously must be a witch, and therefore must hang. If they drown, well, we'll just have to wait until someone else wants to apply for the job.

[backhoe]

I have been baffled for years by the inability of politicians (of both parties), bureaucrats, educators, et.al., to understand the simple wording of the first ten amendments. I definitely would not trust any of them to rewrite any portion of the Constitution.

Amen.

[FixitGuy]

The damn liberals have worked around and subverted most of the Bill of Rights as it IS!

I shudder to think of how our country would look if they had a chance to rewrite them!

Ever Vigilant....

[Joe Brower]

A-yep, I agree 100%. "Living Constitution" = "Dead Letter".

In the meantime, the left continues to use clauses like "interstate commerce" to mean "regulate everything", and "public welfare" to mean "anything goes".

Over a hundred years of erosion. It's looking pretty tattered at this juncture.

[CanisMajor2002]

If the legislature and the judiciary can't follow the Constitution as is, they sure as hell won't follow it when we make it longer and more complex.

We have to nail the Dems on their judicial obstruction. We have to make the case that the Leftists (they are NOT liberals in the classic sense of the word) sell government protection without accountability. They want us to trust that some governmental body knows more about what our lives need than we do.