Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: new President NEW CONSTITUTIONAL Convention?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    i ask a week ago would you fight for your 2nd amendment rights. Now that "O" has won , I think he has the support of a democratic majority to have a "NEW" Constitutional convention. The PURPOSE is to rid America of the 2nd amendment and strengthen abortion . CHANGE WE CAN SEE!! What are you going to do?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Where's your link to this story?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Forget the link! Referring to the "Big R" is generally a no-no and really shouldn't be tolerated on public forums, at least for the time being.

    Remember ladies and gentlemen, we live in times where being a True American and admitting that your a Patriot will definitely get you on a terrorist watch list without your knowledge.

    "R" speak should be kept in private circles.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    DON'T GIVE THOSE ANTIS ANY IDEAS.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Please be careful slinging info about a Constitutional Convention.

    I think it wasJustice Burger who said there is no way to muzzle a Constitutional Convention.

    Think very carefully what a serious call for a ConCon means.

    It means the caller has declared he erased his agreement with the Constitution. In that the Constitution only exists as the combined agreement of the people, by calling for a new Constitution, the caller says he doesn't agree to it anymore. He has literally reverted to a state of nature.

    Once the Constitution is off the table, by arrangement for a ConCon, everything else is on the table, (presumably excluding violence.)

    The last ConConstarted as a convention to improve the Articles of Confederation. Totally without legal authority, the convention went off on a tangent and proposed the Constitution, morphing into a full-blown ConCon. In secret. Its delegates--the ones who didn't quit in protest at the usurpation of authority--then sold it to the States. There is evidence a number of the delegates to the convention to improve the Articles of Confederation knew in advance and planned to suborn it into a ConCon.

    Given the circumstances that can surround any ConCon, not just in the US, but anywhere, its not a casual subject.

    It may not even be a declared ConCon. The last one in this country wasn't. It may start out as a trade summit. Clearing up trade issues was one of the big reasons for theconvention to improve the Articles of Confederation. A North American Trade Union summit, or some such,would be decent cover to geta ConCon off the ground.

    There were lots of Federalists to support the Constitution during the ratification phase. They didn't just materialize out of thin air the day the convention finished drafting the Constitution.I'm guessing there was already a fair amount of people already critical of the Articles of Confederation, and a fair amount of support from the right people,before the ConCon ever met. Meaning that I'm guessing there was already an undercurrent or overcurrent in the press and public opinion. I'm guessing any ConCon-ists would start by trying to mold public opinion that the Constitution had flaws, had been outgrown, wasn't right anymore, etc. At least get the currents going before trying to pull it off; but they wouldn't have to. Just get enough powerful people, enough influential peopleto support it and they could get an initially secretive ConCon going. Or maybe just use the existing socialist currents to get public opinion going.

    In any event, its a huge matter. Please cite sources and be thoughtful about what information you pass along. Its only one step lesssignificant than a violent approach to changing government.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    There are Constitutional Conventions (such as Philly in 1787), but then there's the Convention as defined in Article V of the Constitution:

    ...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ...
    The legislatures of the states have never called one (but have threatened), but they could and it wouldn't be an illegal or necessarily radical thing. I'm not sure it would be easier to appeal to the states than go directly through Congress anyway. The only reason the Convention clause was put in was if Congress overstepped their power.

    Either way, looking at states that elected "O", he doesn't have the 2/3 necessary for a Convention and certainly not the 3/4 for ratification.


  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No. 33 of the requisite 34 had passed resolution applications for an Article V Convention to overturn the sequlae to Baker v. Carr that has very much led to our democra(p)cy. Democracy is truly the rule of fools by fools.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    No. 33 of the requisite 34 had passed resolution applications for an Article V Convention to overturn the sequlae to Baker v. Carr that has very much led to our democra(p)cy. Democracy is truly the rule of fools by fools.
    Wrong, Dougie. As H.L. Mencken said; "Democracy is the philosophy that holds that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I'm all for dissolving the union. We need to go back to individual states not being tied down by a monster federal government. One of the biggest mistakes the founders ever made.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    coachl wrote:
    The PURPOSE is to rid America of the 2nd amendment and strengthen abortion .

    And you base this bold statement on what? Stop slinging crap and back up these off-the-wall, tinfoil hat remarks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I base my statement on listening to "O" talk his socialist agenda. I have eyes that seen him speak and ears that heard what his views were . So how far can a Convention be away from "CHANGING" our 200 year history? You sir must be drinking the KOOL-AID if you can't understand what he has stated about the original subject!




  12. #12
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Ignore Styles, Coach. He is a snot-nosed kid who has not learned to respect his elders, so let him sit at the children's table (topics about cleaning solvents and such) until he has learned his manners. Most of us here are fed up with him so I am not surprised to see him jump on a new guy. The rest of us don't bother with his young a** anymore so just let it lay. Respond and he will just keep it up and take up valuable space with his know-it-all blathering. We all know Styles is infuriating, but if he is shunned by all he will soon go away. Babies want attention, etc....... so let the troll starve.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    tito887 wrote:
    I'm all for dissolving the union. We need to go back to individual states not being tied down by a monster federal government. One of the biggest mistakes the founders ever made.
    The Founders didn't make the mistake. The mistake was letting the 9th and 10th Amendments fall by the wayside because of the financial troubles of the 1930s and Roosevelt's "New Deal". Those two Amendments, however, are NOT DEAD they are STILL the Law of the Land. Somehow a Congressional review of the entire gvernment needs to be mandated, and every single law and regulation should be either justified verbatim by the article and section of the Constitution that authorizes it or else be scrapped. The same should be applied to all new legislation, and a finding that the law or regulation does not comply with the section of the Constitution cited as authorizing it should be accompanied by an order overturning it and complete restoration of all losses suffered by anyone via enforcement thereof be ordered.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    You DO realize, Alex, that what you are proposing would take At Least 100 years....
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Yep. It would keep Congress good and busy. Meanwhile we could go about our biz. Give the troublemakers something to ocupy themselves with, see?? Oh, it is a beautiful fantasy and I am not so stupid as to concieve of it as anything else. John Lennon imafgined a lot of unrealistic stuff too. Still, I can dream; and dare I say, HOPE.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    You DO realize, Alex, that what you are proposing would take At Least 100 years....
    I think that is the point.


  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    coachl wrote:
    I base my statement on listening to "O" talk his socialist agenda. I have eyes that seen him speak and ears that heard what his views were . So how far can a Convention be away from "CHANGING" our 200 year history? You sir must be drinking the KOOL-AID if you can't understand what he has stated about the original subject!



    So you based it on opinion, which is completely irrelevant, yet you stated it like it was fact. Gotcha


    The goal of the New Constitutional Convention Initiative is to accomplish these three outcomes:

    1. Outline the ongoing assaults on the Constitution
    2. An educational component / civics lesson to clarify the intent of the framers and provide a foundation for understanding the ongoing assaults on the Constitution
    3. Discuss in detail what can be done collectively and individually to restore crucial constitutional principles
    4. Provide a venue which will lead to a coordinated and sustained national effort to renew the Constitution and restore accountability in government


    Do I think it's a good idea to have a new convention? No. Do I think it will ever happen? No. Do I think you're doing typical OC.org, let's blow this thing out of proportion by speaking opinion as fact? Absolutely.



    Also, don't mind the old man. He thinks "respecting your elders"means agreeing with them. He doesn't like it when I try to bring opinion and rhetoric back to fact. Using logic and intelligence in argument makes me a "smart ass." "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up." -Alexcabbie

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    You DO realize, Alex, that what you are proposing would take At Least 100 years....
    I suppose we ought to get started then, eh?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    1. Repeal the 16th amendment

    2. Repeal the 17th amendment

    3. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act

    4. Pass a 'Right to Privacy' amendment

    5. Enlarge the House of Representatives at least 5 fold

    6. Simplify the process of running for office

    7. Only allow those eligible to vote for a candidate to donate to a candidate

    For starters...

    Carry on

  20. #20
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    1

  21. #21
    Regular Member MeBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Right Here, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    257

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    1. Repeal the 16th amendment

    2. Repeal the 17th amendment

    3. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act

    4. Pass a 'Right to Privacy' amendment

    5. Enlarge the House of Representatives at least 5 fold

    6. Simplify the process of running for office

    7. Only allow those eligible to vote for a candidate to donate to a candidate

    For starters...

    Carry on
    8. Don't allow ANY laywers in Congress :celebrate

    9. Make Congress a part-time job again like it was during the founder's days. :celebrate

  22. #22
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Keep 'em coming, folks! These coments are EXACTLY what the First Amendment was designed to make possible (and what the Second Amendment was designed to protect). There has been much talk about the new Administration planning to squelch dissent by among other things re-instituting the "Fairness Doctrne". They may even try to interfere with the "Blogosphere" of which this forum is a part. Just in case this happens, remember that Xerox machines exist. By God, I for one will write stuff, copy it and insert it into news-rack copies of the Washington Post in the middle of the night if it comes to that. WE WILL NEVER BE SILENCED. Tyrant wannabes take note.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Could I ask why repeal the 17th amendment and enlarge the House five fold? Unless you live in California I seeno advantage to either of these.

    Repeal of the 17th directly conflicts with your wanting to make it easier to run for office.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Enforce the 10th Amendment. That simply takes care of a lot of the issues. Enforce Article IV.

    RepealAmendment XVI.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Could I ask why repeal the 17th amendment and enlarge the House five fold? Unless you live in California I seeno advantage to either of these.

    Repeal of the 17th directly conflicts with your wanting to make it easier to run for office.
    Repeal of the 17th Amendment would make every State election a de facto Federal election and would result in Senators who would be beholden to the People and not their own pompous asses.

    A five-fold increase of the House would mean that instead of a diverse and Gerrymandered district of residents who have practically no common cause, one who ran for the House would be addressing the concerns of citizens who belong to between one and three local civic associations. Would this lead to an increase in House bickering? Yep. And that's the whole point. Personally Iwould love to tune into C-Span to watch the fist-fights. No matter who got the crap beat outta them, they would most likely deserve it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •