Posted on 02/04/2014 3:08:58 PM PST by cotton1706
Since you replied to my post why not address the content of that post?
Which is little different than the Convention called by Congress on February 21, 1787 (obviously not an art. V convention as that did not yet exist) which specified that states were to choose delegates for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. Those delegates threw out the Articles of Confederation.The point of that post is that the 1787 Convention was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, a limited call just as the current call is intended for limited purposes.
Boilerplate doesn't address the point.
Well then why not enlighten me instead of hurling your nastiness?
This amendment was a simple repeal of the national experiment, proved to be unwise. A constitutional convention is the dream-come-true for those who wish limitations be removed from government powers. You may notice, those who cheer for the constitutional convention have yet to declare what proposals they endorse. Restore the Republic? Yes, that would best be accomplished by repeal of the Seventeenth (direct election of senators), not by a wholesale rewrite.
“Yes, that would best be accomplished by repeal of the Seventeenth (direct election of senators), not by a wholesale rewrite.”
Yes, but how do you get that to happen without going through the congress (the senate would never vote on it and it would fail). The answer is a convention to propose amendments to the states.
And proposals have been put forward. Have you read Mark Levin’s book?
My Senator on that list
The burden is on you to explain and defend your ignorant statements about the FairTax Rebate because you first raised it up. I merely said you were ignorant which is a fact.
The congressional resolve was 100% irrelevant, of no force whatsoever. Delegates were responsible to their states, not congress.
The modern purpose of the irrelevant resolve is to cast specious, ignorant doubt on the legitimacy of the subsequent constitution. Almost every opponent of Article V at FR trots out this strawman garbage.
I stated the prebate was a gimmick. That’s my opinion. I’ve you want to persuade me do so. Insulting me is dissuasive.
For Ray76: If, as you say, the federal convention so egregiously overstepped its bounds, why did congress pass the draft constitution on to the states?
So then defend your statement that the Rebate is a gimmick.
Only morons make statements without backup.
And it’s not nastiness or insult, it is ‘instruction’.
So I will wait for your essay which I sense will not be forthcoming because you don’t have anything. And should you surprise me, I stand ready to rip to shreds the argument because I have seen it all.
Grow up.
Thank you for the correction. I’ve updated my prose to reflect what you told me.
The first two words in Article V are, “The Congress” which is empowered, either to propose amendments, or call a convention upon demand by the states. There is no getting around congressional involvement, and they have resources available to bewilder (think; an army of lawyers, and money flowing in a torrent). If a convention is called, Congress will have its way.
“Mark Levin’s book?”
No, I haven't read it, but did see the interview on C-SPAN’s Book TV two or three weeks ago; a very good man. Have you read “Homage to Catalonia” by George Orwell? As a younger man, he went off to “fight against fascism” in the Spanish Civil War. If you'd like a view of hardball politics (meaning brutal and dangerous), check it out.
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.