Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Constitutional Convention Being Called Right Now!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    On the pretense of making this country safe from terrorists there is a proposal afoot by the "Constitutional Rights Foundation" tomake what I view to be some very dangerous changes to our Constitution. First of these is some tinkering with Article V, which is the means of introducing and adopting amendments. The other relates to some more specific provisions for dealing with terrorism, including doing away with Articles IV, V, VI and VIII in cases of captured terrorism suspects. While I personally feel that we need to do something differently to deal with this problem, gutting the Constitution is not the answer. There is also Section 3 of the so-called "Safe America" amendment which proposes a total ban on handguns. They have inserted this in the amendment without any mention of changes to the present Second Amendment which is clearly violated by their Section 3. It is noteworthy that there is no exception for law enforcement, an omission that may eventually cause the provision to fail.

    The author is critical of Article V in that it makes no provision for actions by a constitutional convention. The simple rebuttal to that is that once the Constitution was drafted and adopted, the framers saw no further need for a convention. Ergo, why write anything about it?

    Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.


    This is some extremely dangerous stuff. If you note, this guy Andrew Costly (or is it costly Andrew?) is addressing his thesis to high school kids, as if to brainwash the next generation with negative propaganda against the very foundation of our Republic. The organization proposing this stuff has lobbied Congress to adopt it, so far without success, but they claim to be close. This is something that could get put over on us without a great deal of national debate. We need to expose it for what it is, and get the discussion started. Our republic depends on it.

    The entire text of the document is below. The author gratuitously solicits comments by the link to his email address at the bottom of the page.



    Title - Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention
    By - Andrew Costly
    Primary Subject - Social Studies
    Secondary Subjects -
    Grade Level - 9-12
    Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention?
    by Constitutional Rights Foundation (
    www.crf-usa.org)

    Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for adding Amendments. Congress introduces amendments by one method; the states initiate them under the other.

    The only method ever used is the congressional method. It lets Congress pass constitutional amendments by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or special state conventions, as Congress determines. Over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress since 1789. Only 33 have been approved. Of these, 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.

    The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.

    Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention.

    Since the 1960s, state legislatures have submitted petitions for constitutional conventions when Congress refused to pass controversial amendments. Three of these amendments would have allowed prayers in the schools, prohibited busing for racial balance, and permitted the states to make abortions illegal. In each of these cases, however, supporters fell short of getting the 34 states needed for calling a constitutional convention.

    Most recently, there has been a major movement to pass a federal balanced budget amendment. Unable to get action in Congress, supporters again turned to the convention method of amendment. To date, those behind the balanced budget amendment have convinced 32 states to submit convention petitions to Congress. Backers of the amendment need only two more states to compel Congress to call a convention.

    Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

    Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

    Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

    Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in "participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster."

    Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side.

    For Discussion and Writing

    Which amendment method do you think is the best? Why?

    What are some potential dangers in calling a new constitutional convention?

    Should the delegates of a future convention called to consider a certain amendment have the right to propose other constitutional amendments? Why or why not?

    Do we need a new constitutional convention? Why or why not? If so, what amendments should be considered by it?

    A C T I V I T Y

    The "Safe America" Amendment

    It is sometime in the near future, and several incidents of terrorism have rocked America. The most recent took place at National Airport in Washington, D.C. Six young men suddenly opened fire with automatic weapons at crowds of summer vacationers in front of the airline check-in counters. Within seconds the terminal was filled with bodies. Twelve people were killed, including a 6-month-old infant. Thirty others were wounded.

    Two days later one of the terrorists called a Washington, D.C., talk-radio program. He identified himself as belonging to the "Blood for Blood Movement." He said, "America is the source of evil in the world. Americans must pay with their own blood." The radio interview went on for 45 minutes. The next day many newspapers published parts, or in some cases, all of the interview.

    Terrorist acts like the one at National Airport have taken place in restaurants, churches, ball parks, movie theaters, and even at an elementary school. The strategy of the terrorist groups seems to be to attack ordinary innocent Americans. A wide variety of terrorist organizations have openly used the press and broadcast media to take credit for many bombings and murders. Perhaps most frightening of all, an individual carrying parts of a miniaturized nuclear explosive device was recently intercepted while trying to enter the country.

    Many efforts have been made to tighten security against terrorism in the United States. While the actual death toll and the chance of being injured in an attack remains small, Americans have become increasingly frightened. Opinion polls call for tougher action. Critics claim that media coverage has blown the situation out of proportion. Others are not so sure.

    An organization called "People for a Safe America" has attempted to get Congress to pass the following amendment to the Constitution:

    "Safe America" Amendment

    Section 1
    The citizens of the United States shall enjoy the right of safety from terrorist attack.

    Section 2
    To enforce this article, Congress shall have the power to establish special military courts solely for the prosecution of persons accused of terrorist acts. Such courts shall not be required to observe the provisions contained in Amendments IV, V, VI and VIII of this Constitution.

    Section 3
    To further enforce this article, Congress shall have the power to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of all handguns and concealable weapons within the territorial boundaries of the United States.


    Section 4
    To further enforce this article, Congress shall have the power to pass legislation prohibiting the publication or broadcast of interviews with terrorists or propaganda materials supplied by them.

    * * * * * *

    More than 50 percent of the members in each house of Congress voted for the amendment. Still the votes fell short of the two-thirds majority required by Article V of the Constitution.

    A new movement then attempted to get state legislatures to petition Congress for a constitutional convention to consider the "Safe America" Amendment. This effort succeeded. The first constitutional convention in more than 200 years is about to begin.

    In this activity, class members will play the role of delegates at a constitutional convention called by Congress to consider the "Safe America" Amendment. Below are the rules and agenda adopted by the convention.

    Rules

    By a simple majority vote, the delegates will choose one person to be president of the convention. The president will conduct all proceedings according to the agenda and will make all necessary rulings. The president will not vote on any matter.

    Each delegate will serve on a debate committee for or against the proposed amendment. Each committee will consist of at least three persons and convene for at least 15 minutes to consider its arguments. Each member of the committee is responsible for contributing at least one argument.

    After a motion, second, and discussion, the delegates may, by a simple majority vote, change the wording of the proposed amendment.

    The final vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will require a two-thirds vote of all delegates present.
    Agenda

    The president of the convention will read the proposed amendment.

    The president will recognize debate committees in favor of the proposed amendment to present arguments.

    Delegates may question or rebut the debate committees.

    The president will recognize debate committees opposed to the proposed amendment to present arguments.

    Delegates may question or rebut the debate committees.

    The president will call on two debate committees to present closing arguments for and against the amendment.

    Delegates may introduce changes in the wording of the proposed amendment.

    The president will call for a final vote on the proposed amendment.
    Debriefing Questions

    If ratified, what effect would the "Safe America" Amendment have on the rights of individuals in America?

    What was the quality of the argument raised for or against the amendment? What were the most important arguments? What important arguments were missed?

    Based on your experience, do you think a constitutional convention is a good way to amend the Constitution?


    E-Mail Andrew Costly!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Yes, the Second Amendment, and all the others, are about to be put up for grabs.

    32 states out of the required 34 have voted in favor of a Constitutional Convention, obstensibly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    But once the Convention is called, there are no restrictions as to what's on the table.

    Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen.

    There are two Congressmen cited in this article to contact to attempt to stop this from happening.

    If you have never contacted a politician in your life, NOW is the time to do it!!!


    http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I read the linked webpage.

    I wonder where we can get more info.
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    32 states out of the required 34 have voted in favor of a Constitutional Convention, obstensibly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment.

    But once the Convention is called, there are no restrictions as to what's on the table.

    Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen.

    There are two Congressmen cited in this article to contact to attempt to stop this from happening.

    If you have never contacted a politician in your life, NOW is the time to do it!!!


    http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat
    You don't get it. Once the convention is called ALL bets are off. A convention can throw out the entire constitution. This is not just about TSA.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    I followed the link and read what was there. There was nothing that I saw that even remotely looked like something that resembled a fascimile of an initation of verification of what was being alleged.

    In other words - all tinfoil-hat rambling.

    Will anyone please show me where any state has actually voted on a motion to hold a constitutional convention. After that, show me, please, where all the other states have done that. It is possible that I just missed that bit of news.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat
    You don't get it. Once the convention is called ALL bets are off. A convention can throw out the entire constitution. This is not just about TSA.

    Regards

    Or can't we get a stronger consitution? 3/4 of the states would still have to ratify any new consutition, correct?

    The government doesn't follow the current constitution now, so what good is it? The current constituion either allows, or has done nothing to stop the current infractions on our freedom.Maybe a new constitution with some teeth for penalty would be a good thing.

    I don't yet understand why this is so scary. But my mind can be changed.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...p;pageId=83364



    slightly more legitimate than rense.com, not by much. More details, frightening at that though.

    Unfortunately, not alot of main stream media has picked up the story. Though people have apparently gone before Ohio and have stopped the effort going forward at least temporarily....interesting reads though



  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat
    You don't get it. Once the convention is called ALL bets are off. A convention can throw out the entire constitution. This is not just about TSA.

    Regards

    Or can't we get a stronger consitution? 3/4 of the states would still have to ratify any new consutition, correct?

    The government doesn't follow the current constitution now, so what good is it? The current constituion either allows, or has done nothing to stop the current infractions on our freedom.Maybe a new constitution with some teeth for penalty would be a good thing.

    I don't yet understand why this is so scary. But my mind can be changed.
    OMG.

    You certainly cannot believe that there are people that would be involved in such a process that are of the quality of those who wrote the current constitution. If you do you are not focused on the issue.

    We are NOT going to get a better Constitution with more rights guaranteed from people 6 generations removed from the people who actually fought off the tyrant in the late 1700's. Very few people today have any idea what it is like to live under a different system of government. More to the point, most people today in this country think the government is the solution to their problems, and they want MORE of it not LESS.


    Do you really think the likes of Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, Jimmy Carter, or the Governor of Illinois could possibly produce a better constitution than we have now? Don't for a moment think these would not be a Representative sample of the people selected to attend the convention. Oh yea! Attendees are SELECTED not elected by the people. Are you smelling any coffee yet?

    I agree that enforcement of the constitution is wanting. That can be fixed in ways that do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Like how about an amendment that tightens up enforcement. At least that keeps the most amazing document every produced in the history of human governance largelyintact.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Nicely said, as always Hawk.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    IANAL of course, but it seems to me that the most important thing that would happen if we were to adopt a new Constitution, or major portions thereof would be the sudden irrelevance of over 200 years of case law "interpreting" the current document.

    Could you imagine the significance of starting over from scratch with just the actual text of the Constitution itself? No prior case law would apply, but perhaps just the Federalist Papers to provide real context and intent. Ha, if we could do that now while keeping our original Constitution, it would be a vast improvement to our current situation!

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat
    You don't get it. Once the convention is called ALL bets are off. A convention can throw out the entire constitution. This is not just about TSA.

    Regards

    Or can't we get a stronger consitution? 3/4 of the states would still have to ratify any new consutition, correct?

    The government doesn't follow the current constitution now, so what good is it? The current constituion either allows, or has done nothing to stop the current infractions on our freedom.Maybe a new constitution with some teeth for penalty would be a good thing.

    I don't yet understand why this is so scary. But my mind can be changed.
    Look what sits in both houses of congress. That should be enough to scare the heck out of anyone.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Would you mind posting a link to something that actually verifies that one state legislature has actually passed a bill calling for a constitutional convention? After you get that posted, please help me find the other 31 that have supposedly also passed the required legislation.

    Somehow I either missed the news story, lack appropriate google-fu, never got copied on the memo, or a combination of all of the above, because I cannot find anything but a bunch of tinfoil-hatted folks saying it's so.

    Thanks for the assist.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gotm4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

    They need to have a balanced budget amendment and one dictating all bills cannot have any riders attached.

    It would fix our country in a heart beat
    You don't get it. Once the convention is called ALL bets are off. A convention can throw out the entire constitution. This is not just about TSA.

    Regards

    Or can't we get a stronger consitution? 3/4 of the states would still have to ratify any new consutition, correct?

    The government doesn't follow the current constitution now, so what good is it? The current constituion either allows, or has done nothing to stop the current infractions on our freedom.Maybe a new constitution with some teeth for penalty would be a good thing.

    I don't yet understand why this is so scary. But my mind can be changed.
    It's scary because then ALL rights are up for grabs.
    armorer & notary public for VA Arms Co FFL/SOT
    https://www.facebook.com/virginiaarmscompany

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    OMG.

    You certainly cannot believe that there are people that would be involved in such a process that are of the quality of those who wrote the current constitution. If you do you are not focused on the issue.

    We are NOT going to get a better Constitution with more rights guaranteed from people 6 generations removed from the people who actually fought off the tyrant in the late 1700's. Very few people today have any idea what it is like to live under a different system of government. More to the point, most people today in this country think the government is the solution to their problems, and they want MORE of it not LESS.
    So what does it matter than? We have people in power now that we wouldn't trust to draft a new constitution. They are the people who are currently tasked with making our laws, and upholding them, and they don't follow the constitution anyway. So it seems like nothing new to me. What would a new constitution do if they don't follow the one we have now? So they would make the war on drugs "constitutional" in the their new laws. Big deal, they are already fighting the drug war illegally. Maybe they would write an organization to manage and licenseradio broadcasters and drug companies in. Opps, they already illegal do that with the FCC and the FDA among others. Maybe they would make gun laws legal, ohwell, we already have gun laws.

    The constitution doesn't seem to have protected the rights it claims to anyway, so I guess I still don't see the seriousness of the issue. The constitution really is just a piece of paper, because "we the people" have done nothing against all the encroachment against it, to the point where I fail to see how it is even relevant.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    gotm4 wrote:

    It's scary because then ALL rights are up for grabs.
    ALL my rights are not only up for grabs, but they have been seized already.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...p;pageId=83364



    slightly more legitimate than rense.com, not by much. More details, frightening at that though.

    Unfortunately, not alot of main stream media has picked up the story. Though people have apparently gone before Ohio and have stopped the effort going forward at least temporarily....interesting reads though

    From there I get a link to GA's sex offender registry and NC's basic .gov stuff, which does not yield up anything that says 1, let alone 32, states have issued calls for a constitutional convention.

    Where is that verification? Beuler? Beuler? Anybody?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    gotm4 wrote:

    It's scary because then ALL rights are up for grabs.
    ALL my rights are not only up for grabs, but they have been seized already.

    Your are either arguing just to argue, very stupid, or incapable of understand this issue. Have you EVER read ANYTHING that describes what can happen at a constitutional convention? Read what you just wrote and tell me you honestly believe you have it bad in this country under this Constitution.

    Even the John Birch Society Understands this one. They are rightfully afraid of it too.

    If you really think it does not matter ... Imagine just the removal of the bill of rights. Your property may be taken without ANY process let alone due process. You are told what church to attend, and what God you will follow. You are NOT allowed to meet your friends after work, that is illegal assembly and it is subversive. Forums like this would have no legal basis to exist. You can be shot on the spot for demonstrating on a public street. You have no right to even criticize the government let alone petition for grievances. You may be held in jail indefinitely without charges, without the right to contact anyone, without bail or court process. You may be tortured for confessions, and there is no punishment outside the grasp of law that might be applied to you. If youare arrested you must prove you are innocent. You have no right to even see let alone confront your accusers.

    Under such a system ALL power rests in the government. Once the constitution is gone this could become a monarchy, or a military state. You would not be allowed to travel even from county to county without government permission. You have to work and livewhere you are told, not where you choose. It goes on and on.

    A lot of people like you keep saying this is the extremist view. I can assure you it is not. Every reasonable generation since the 1790's has feared a Constitutional convention, because all in all we have it pretty god here. I for one do not want to throw that away. There are already mechanisms in place to effect the kinds of enforcement you ask for. There is 1) existing law, 2) the legislature, 3) your favorite the constitutional convention, 4) that firearm that brought you to this forum.

    Use the first and the second, like we do now and there is progress in a give and take over time. Use the third just because you are impatient with 1&2, and I can assure you you will have to use the fourth in the end. It will be very messy, and it will NOT produce the results you desire.

    Regards

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Article. V. - Amendment

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
    If you think 3/4 of the states would sign on to anything remotely bad, think again. That's 13 states required to keep it from passing.

    For instance, if the only states that refused to sign were Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Alaska, it would not be ratified. In this latest election 22 states went for McCain despite the abundance of 'hope'...

    You're safe for awhile.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    ...SNIP
    From there I get a link to GA's sex offender registry and NC's basic .gov stuff, which does not yield up anything that says 1, let alone 32, states have issued calls for a constitutional convention.

    Where is that verification? Beuler? Beuler? Anybody?

    stay safe.

    skidmark

    Skid-

    You have to go to the state legislature site for each state to find it. I don't have time and it is really the responsibility of the OP.

    But the short of it is that there have been a lot of states that have voted in favor of a Constitutional convention. However, it is not like an amendment that circulates around and you can track like you might think. Each state acts independently on their own time schedule. Some of the states that voted in favor, did so a long time ago. The vote does not expire unless an expiration date in in the initiative. So some of the count voted for this many decades ago.

    Regards

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I was thinking about this while driving to work this morning.

    I don't think there is any chance a significant change will be made to the stats quo. When we say that the Constitution is the "foundation" of this country, that is not only a cute phrase, but it is also quite literally true. Almost every business entity in this country bases the way they function on the current set of laws, which are in some way or another, either directly or indirectly tied back to the Constitution.

    To significantly alter that foundation upon which our economy rests would bring us to utter chaos and economic uncertainty and probably depression the likes of which cannot even be imagined.

    In previous times of world history when significant changes in government have happened, the economy was much more centered on the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing. We live in a service based world these days, with those basic three items almost an afterthought.

    Just one example, Intellectual Property. Did this concept even exist in 1791? Yet try to even estimate how much of our current economy is based on this idea. It's a different world now, and ours is inextricably tied to the Constitution, as it is.

    JMHO... and IANAHT (History Teacher)

    TFred


  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    I followed the link and read what was there.* There was nothing that I saw that even remotely looked like something that resembled a fascimile of an initation of verification of what was being alleged.

    In other words - all tinfoil-hat rambling.

    Will anyone please show me where any state has actually voted on a motion to hold a constitutional convention.* After that, show me, please, where all the other states have done that.* It is possible that I just missed that bit of news.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Skidmark has it. Until someone can meet his requests, I fully expect to see no further "Constitutional Convention" threads. Then again, I fully expect to have my expectations shattered. :?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Skid is right

    There aren't any states with legislatures in session (that I know of) - so how can they have magically passed the calls for a constitutional convention?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:

    Your are either arguing just to argue, very stupid, or incapable of understand this issue. Have you EVER read ANYTHING that describes what can happen at a constitutional convention? Read what you just wrote and tell me you honestly believe you have it bad in this country under this Constitution.
    I can assure you I am none of those things. However, I still don't get your point, and I don't think you get mine. The current constitution does NOTHING to stop the politicians if they want to do something. They can already do whatever they want under the current constitution, so what you are proposing doesn't seem to be anything new.

    We may lose the second ammendment? We already have. Felons can't own guns, I don't see an exception in the second ammendment that says "shall not be infringed (unless you were once convicted of a felony, even if you have served your time and are now an upstanding member of society)". Or maybe the second ammendment where I can bear arms? Nope, I can't do that at a variety of places either.It is already pretty clear to me if enough politicans want to take everyones guns, they can do it. Lower the bar for a felony far enough, and suddenly we are all unable to own guns. And they did it legally too. Make the standards for guns so that more and more models are "assault weapons" and no one can own guns. Ban importation of more and more types of firearms, then close gun shops for minor paperwork screwups.

    As far as I am concerned, all of his is unconstitutional, and yet most of it is in place TODAY.

    I could go own about a variety of other topics that are unconstitutional. So tell me, why should I care about them changing one piece of paper they will ignore, for a different piece of paper they will ignore?



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
  •