Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius
“If one disagrees, they’re gonna be working the other way ... it goes with disagreement.”
So you are saying that if you disagreed with the war in Afghanistan you would join up with the Taliban?
There was much disagreement among the patriots about what to do. Some wanted to go to war with Britain and other did not. What they did not do however is join the British army and start shooting minutemen.
I am truly worried about there being no place for normal human beings also. As soon as it is possible scientists will make monsters and human machine hybrids. For no other reason than that they can.
Have a good weekend FReeper.
It the only way besides secession. The Art V convention is the way to recapture the power. Any other one that doesn't see that is ignorant.
Any Freeper against an Article V convention should get the zot. If you don’t get it then you shouldn’t be here. It’s called FREE REPUBLIC.
This is not a CC it is an Art V convention. If there was a threat of losing the 2nd amendment with the requirement of 37 states to approve then we are not risking anything, the country is gone.
The “Republican” label is meaningless
Your timidity and ignorance aside the proposal is for an Art V convention.
Let’s just jump to CW2 and skip the formalities.
Ok if not ink on the paper then blood on the streets. I am ok either way.
You obviously don’t understand the political process in the USA ... LOL ...
NO ... one would lobby your Comgressman to vote to remove our troops, if that was your position, and you might organize meetings to enlist more political support, and you would organize protests and other such things ... you know ... stuff that you’ve heard that FReepers do ... :-) ...
It amazing how the quality of understanding has gone down on Free Republic in the last ten years or so ...
Any Freeper against an Article V convention should get the zot. If you don’t get it then you shouldn’t be here. It’s called FREE REPUBLIC.
I’m not against it. I just don’t trust our current representatives. I’m against THEM doing it.
"A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, Justice Antonin Scalia recently said, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”
--------------------------------------------------
"the proposal is for an Art V convention"
Not sure what this comment meant...are you implying that is somehow different than the title of this thread "Constitutional Convention" or the comment about a "Constitutional Convention" I agreed with?
Many freepers and others worry about the abuses that could happen. It doesn't make them ignorant or timid. In fact, the "rules" that some take comfort in to prevent possible abuses can AND HAVE been rewritten:
"A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s proposals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and propose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."
The title is wrong.
So you are saying an Article 5 convention is something different from a constitutional convention?
You are correct. To a point. And I will let the back-handed disdainfulness slide. Though I don't condone it, you have forgotten the final option. And I think you know what I 'speak' of.
Any other one who doesn't see that is fooling themselves.
Yes! I would agree with Scalia about a Constitutional Convention. A Convention of the States is different.
No I guess I don’t. Those Hillsdale online Constitution & History classes must be a scam. What a waste of time that was! Here I thought I was educating myself on the political process. Thank God I have you Star Traveler to educate me.
I’ll just do nothing and wait for the second coming.
You got all that because I said I wouldn’t join up with the Taliban?! ... LOL ...
Nope. Wrong again. I got all that from reading your comments which quickly degenerated into insulting and belittling people who do not agree with you to shut them up.
Not only do I understand how politics work but my jacka** meter is one of the best. LOL LOL LOL!
No, it goes to “lead, follow, or get out of the way.” There’s no leadership on the part of Schaffly or the JBS, just obstruction and personal deprecation, in other words, sabotage.
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.