Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
I'd chip in to buy them all a beer.
The problem I see with that approach is that the politicos know THEY would control the constitutional convention - and therefore control its product.
Obambi, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, et al. would be salivating and palpitating in ecstacy at the thought of rewriting the constitution in their own image.
Well, wake up, smell the coffee....it's happening through liberal judges daily - and an over reaching Congress, President and Federal Reserve. The constitution is suffering a death by a thousand nicks each day. God help us when the libs get their solid 5th vote on the USSC.
A Constitutional Convention need not open up the whole constitution - and even if it went overboard, it would still have to be approved by the states. A Constitutional Convention, whose proponents could articulate relatively narrow goals (spending, prevention of a legislating judiciary), could be kept within reasonable bounds.
Further, there are inherent checks on such a convention. In order to get 2/3 of the states to agree to such a convention, the goal would have to be narrowly defined and adhered to as well - since 3/4 of the states must approve before it goes into effect. So your fears are overblown, since the checks and balances on opening and approving such a convention would tend to make any changes conservative (small "c") in nature in relation to the constitution as currently written.
Given the alternative of a slowly mutating constitution, re-interpreted by each new generation of legislating liberal judges, etc; I opt to take my chances on a Constitutional Convention that could add some additional checks and balances to protect us from these sorts of abuses.
You really don't understand this at all. I'm not debating the secession issue's legality. For the sake of argument, I'm accepting your assertion that secession is illegal under the Constitution. My argument is what difference would that make if the federal government is no longer abiding by the Constitution, having imported a new constituency for itself from foreign lands who have no regard for that document.
In the case of Tibet and the Colonies, both were examples where the people rebelling had no say in the government that was controlling them.
Increasingly this is going to be the case in places like Europe and the United States. How can any nation escape the EU tyranny? Leftists have adopted a tactic of replacing the populations of their territories with foreigners, and they've criminalized opposition to this. What do the remaining non-Muslims in Europe do when Muslims are the majority? What should a non-Muslim region in Europe do when Sharia is declared?
And in both cases, I believe the rebellions were justified. But just because they were justified doesn't guarantee their success. It'd be nice if it did.
You do know that our rebellion was accompanied by secession, don't you?
Deemed oppressive by who? What standard would you use?
All of these standards are subjective and even personal in individual cases. Was the British Crown the most hideously repressive regime in history? That's doubtful, but our forefathers had had their fill of it and illegally rebelled and seceded from it. If you can't foresee a possibility that some years down the road people might wish to secede from the government in Washington, then I'd suggest you look at what Obama is doing to us.
Only one is.
You wrote that in response to my assertion that it was just as illegal to rebel and overthrow the government as it is to secede from it. So please enlighten us as to why secession is illegal but overthrowing the government isn't.
According to who?
According to whom was the British Crown oppressive? You act as if unanimous consent is required to secede, including consent from the people we're trying to secede from. If that was the standard the Jews would still be in Egypt and the Pharaohs would still be ruling Egypt. Do you seriously wish to contend that we're not losing control of our Constitutional system in this country, when over a hundred cities are sanctuaries for people who have illegally crossed our borders, and when our political class wishes to give these intruders the vote and demonizes anyone who objects?
If you toss out the law and the Constituiton then what do you have left?
Are you really so blind that you can't see what's being done to our nation? Do you truly believe the system that's evolving here is in compliance with the rule of law and constitutional governance as our founders envisioned it?
Then your whole arguement is wrong because I have never once said that secession is illegal under the Constitution.
You do know that our rebellion was accompanied by secession, don't you?
No, I don't. Our rebellion was accompanied by independence once we won.
All of these standards are subjective and even personal in individual cases. Was the British Crown the most hideously repressive regime in history? That's doubtful, but our forefathers had had their fill of it and illegally rebelled and seceded from it.
One thing that cannot be argues is that the colonists did not have any say in their government. They had no representation in Parliament and no voice in their own affairs. The desire for a people to have a say in the government that is controlling their lives is natural, and rebellion in the face of a system that denies them that is certainly justified.
If you can't foresee a possibility that some years down the road people might wish to secede from the government in Washington, then I'd suggest you look at what Obama is doing to us.
Down the road? Heck, there are people here who would rebel today. And if that is their choice then they should do it. That doesn't mean I think their actions are right or that they'll win.
You wrote that in response to my assertion that it was just as illegal to rebel and overthrow the government as it is to secede from it. So please enlighten us as to why secession is illegal but overthrowing the government isn't.
First you would have to point out where I said secession is illegal. I've outlined several times the conditions under which I think it can be achieved.
You act as if unanimous consent is required to secede, including consent from the people we're trying to secede from.
And why not? Don't they have any interests that deserve to be protected? Shouldn't their side of the issue be heard as well? Why do all the Constitutional rights lie with those who are leaving the Constituiton to begin with, and none of those protections are available to those who are staying?
I’ve been arguing secession for several years now. The Democratic party was deliberately trying to legislate a military defeat because they didn’t like Bush, and their supporters were openly jubilant about every soldier’s death. It is not worth debating these people. Secession now!!
Okay, you got me on a technicality. You said unilateral secession was illegal under the Constitution. Regions can secede with permission. But that doesn't change the issue. The concern on this forum is that a federal government operating outside the bounds of its constitutional authority, and dependent on tax dollars squeezed from the people who want to secede, and locked in power by voters who are bought off using those tax dollars, will never allow those people to leave. So what then?
No, I don't. Our rebellion was accompanied by independence once we won.
I guess the British Crown was just imagining things when it laid claim to this territory to begin with. Not to mention that Dixie's rebellion would have been accompanied by independence had they won, so what's the difference? For that matter, if a section of the country secedes in 2032 to escape the leftist presidency of our first lesbian socialist president Irena Gutierrez-Ludwig, the same thing would be true.
One thing that cannot be argues is that the colonists did not have any say in their government. They had no representation in Parliament and no voice in their own affairs. The desire for a people to have a say in the government that is controlling their lives is natural, and rebellion in the face of a system that denies them that is certainly justified.
So would you support such a rebellion (you seem to have a psychological block against calling it secession, even though that's what it is) if 60% of the population is sponging off the tax dollars of 40%, and the government voted into power by that 60% freely ignores the Constitution, having packed the courts with its cronies. Technically, the 40% still have the vote, but every day thousands more migrants flow across the border, invited by the government, and join the 60%, with the result that the fix is in.
You seem very uncomfortable discussing this, and I understand that. I wish this had all never happened, but this is the direction we set out on in the 1960s. We were assured this wouldn't be the result and were lulled into complacency. Now that it is the result, we're told that it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about the multicultural, redistributionist, open borders, tolerant-of-the-other regime we have. Likewise, the EU was only going to be a way to ease the mess caused by so many different currencies and trade regulations, and it's ending up obliterating the national cultures of these once proud individual nations.
So what is a non-Muslim pocket of Europe to do when they are outnumbered?
Down the road? Heck, there are people here who would rebel today. And if that is their choice then they should do it. That doesn't mean I think their actions are right or that they'll win.
See above.
First you would have to point out where I said secession is illegal. I've outlined several times the conditions under which I think it can be achieved.
See above.
And why not? Don't they have any interests that deserve to be protected? Shouldn't their side of the issue be heard as well? Why do all the Constitutional rights lie with those who are leaving the Constituiton to begin with, and none of those protections are available to those who are staying?
Of course, but at some point people simply cannot live under a lawless regime. Our Founding Fathers felt that way. You act as if the trendline in our present day America and in Europe is just fine and dandy. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. The Constitution is intact, the government isn't growing more intrusive and powerful. It's just your imagination. The EU is all about peace and love and freedom, and so is Obama, so get with the program and stop worrying about taxes and Muslim terrorism and speech codes and open borders. Don't worry, be happy!
I would submit that at some point in the future this land is going to balkanize. If you think our nation will still be intact in the year 2076, our tri-centennial, then I'd like to hear your prediction of what the government ruling our fifty states will look like.
From Viktor Sovorov’s book Inside the Soviet Army:
...”The Soviet Communist dictatorship, like any other system, seeks to preserve its own existence. To do this it is forced to stamp out any spark of dissidence which appears, either on its own territory or beyond its borders. A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the world, with a curatin, whether this is made of iron, bamboo, or some other material.
...”Marx was right: the two systems cannot co-exist. And no matter how peace-loving Communists may be, they come unfailingly to the conclusion that world revolution is inescapable. They must either annihilate capitalism or be put to death by their own people”
Get people off of welfare, make everyone responsible for their own welfare and leave charity up to the people, it worked in the past and can work again.
The key to stopping any insidious take over, such as we have gone through over the past 50 years or so, is education, and proper education, not indoctrination.
Biblical principles there...
Col 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Rev 2:5
Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
2 Thes 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “Anyone who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
The Feds are meaner and even better armed than they were in 1861-1865.
You don't. You go the other way instead, and hold a constitutional convention to expel the New England States by amending the Constitution.
Back on your medz, laughing boy, before you get all depressed again.
Nope. The framers REJECTED a motion to grant the military to power to prevent secession of a state. Can you cite a clause granting the federal government the power to prevent secession?
There's a 1795 Supreme Court case that said a state could secede unilaterally.
The cases were trumped up - White, Chiles and Hardenburg had numerous cases before the courts. IIRC, Freeper Nolu Chan proved a few years ago that the cases where shams.
btt
But it does give the government the power to suppress rebellion.
Can you cite a clause granting the federal government the power to prevent secession?
Article I, Section 10 and Aricle IV, Section 3.
Well that makes absolutely no sense at all.
Well that makes absolutely no sense at all.
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.