Constitutional Convention Being Called Right Now!!!

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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. :?

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

Click to expand...

Here's where Ohio's vote was shut down:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/constitution-and-libertarian-parties-of-ohio-among-those-working-to-defeat-a-bill-calling-for-us-constitutional-convention/

Here's a list of states that have a standing call for a Constitution Convention:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

Here's a reference from Ohio's website that contains the language of the resolution that was defeated:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, hereby applies to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing to the states for ratification, an amendment to the United States Constitution containing the following provisions:

Click to expand...

I also hope that this is BS, but this link to Ohio's legislative website shows this resolution dated last week.

This is also on FreeRepublic.com, with a link to this article on it:

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4326/Brannon-Howse/By-Tom-DeWeese

Is it possible that this is just a rumor that has perpetuated across the web, or that such a vote has stayed below the radar?


eta: Virginia called for a Constitutional Convention last January, ostensibly to fix illegal immigration. This was referred to the Committee on Rules.

02/13/08 Senate: Left in Rules

Click to expand...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ131

Again, once a Convention is called, everything is on the table.

Please tell me that this is nothing, and that I'm just perpetuating rumors. I would like nothing better, and would be glad to cease and desist.

imported post

mkl wrote:

<snip>

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)".
<snip>

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. The exception to the 2nd Amendment is in the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The 5th Amendment clearly allows for a legal mechanism to deprive individual liberties. Now, as to the subject of that due process being corrupted by both well and ill-meaning individuals, there is room for an extensive amount of debate. However, it seems clear to me that the government does have the authority to deprive a felon of rights under the law.

Just my thoughts.

--RedKnightt--

Zombie Squad has it right: “We hold fast to the belief that if you are prepared for a scenario where the walking corpses of your family and neighbors are trying to eat you alive, you will be prepared for almost anything.”

imported post

Red Knight has it right

Do any of you guys read before you post? The legislatures do not have to be in session. A state could have passed legislation calling for a convention decades ago and it still counts. THIS IS NOT LIKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT CIRCULATES AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN TRACK IN THE REGULAR WAY. You have to look at each state and see what if any action they may have on the books in this area. The "tin-heads" that Skid refers to are some of the kinds of groups that track this stuff.

Mkl-

I do in fact get your point, but you are just flat wrong. Have you read any case law in this area? I can't imagine that you have.

Taking just a single item from your post. Felons have historically lost their Rights as a matter of common law that predates the constitution. The constitution did nothing to alter that condition. Not only can felons not have guns, but (what a surprise) we can put them in jail for very long periods of time and it does NOT violate their rights. We can also not let them vote. WHY? Because they lose their rights when they are convicted. Remember that part that says "No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process"? Well what they are talking about is what is required under the constitution to take away a persons rights. So removal of individual rights is anticipated and sanctioned by the bill of rights.

"Due Process" Is an interesting concept because that is how you lose your rights is through due process. Guess what? Constitutional conventions are due process. The big difference is that the constitution does not apply to a convention like it does to every day due process. They make up the rules as they go along.

But you know, convicted felons losing their rights is an apples and oranges comparison in this discussion. Unless you are arguing that the constitution somehow does not allow us to punish felons.

So back to your point. The reason the constitution is not enforced, is because it is inconvenient and expensive to do so. When was the last time you sued the government? I have done it twice and I won both times, but it was not cheap and it took lots of personal time. The point is that until you have spent the time to actually try to use the system to create an enforcement action, don't tell me that it cannot be done because I know better. People are just too lazy and selfish to do it. The government must be held in check by an alert and active citizenry or it will get out of control. People cannot depend on the idea that others will do this enforcement for them, they MUST do it themselves.

Regards

imported post

Here's where Ohio's vote was shut down:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/constitution-and-libertarian-parties-of-ohio-among-those-working-to-defeat-a-bill-calling-for-us-constitutional-convention/

Here's a list of states that have a standing call for a Constitution Convention:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

Here's a reference from Ohio's website that contains the language of the resolution that was defeated:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, hereby applies to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing to the states for ratification, an amendment to the United States Constitution containing the following provisions:

Click to expand...

I also hope that this is BS, but this link to Ohio's legislative website shows this resolution dated last week.

This is also on FreeRepublic.com, with a link to this article on it:

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/4326/Brannon-Howse/By-Tom-DeWeese

Is it possible that this is just a rumor that has perpetuated across the web, or that such a vote has stayed below the radar?


eta: Virginia called for a Constitutional Convention last January, ostensibly to fix illegal immigration. This was referred to the Committee on Rules.

02/13/08 Senate: Left in Rules

Click to expand...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ131

Again, once a Convention is called, everything is on the table.

I do not know if the call for a Convention must be made by all states concurrently, or if the calls accumulate over a period of time.

Please tell me that this is nothing, and that I'm just perpetuating rumors. I would like nothing better, and would be glad to cease and desist.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Red Knight has it right

Do any of you guys read before you post? The legislatures do not have to be in session. A state could have passed legislation calling for a convention decades ago and it still counts. THIS IS NOT LIKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT CIRCULATES AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN TRACK IN THE REGULAR WAY. You have to look at each state and see what if any action they may have on the books in this area. The "tin-heads" that Skid refers to are some of the kinds of groups that track this stuff.

Click to expand...

cite?

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

..parts quotes below...

Click to expand...

"Felons have historically lost their Rights as a matter of common law that predates the constitution. The constitution did nothing to alter that condition. Not only can felons not have guns, but (what a surprise) we can put them in jail for very long periods of time and it does NOT violate their rights."



From what I know, the Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 was the law that barred felons in America frombuying guns.

But regardless, it would be completely legal for the politicians to just make speeding a felony, or anything else, and then poof, legally we have lost our gun rights. And you would go right along with it saying "that's what thelaw says".I do not believe that. What islegal is not what is right.If the constitution doesn't protect the right to bear arms with a statement like "shall not be infringed" then I don't care if it goes away. What is the worst they can do with a new constitution? If they want to take your gun rights THEY WILL. Constitution or no constitution. Again the current constitution either allows, or has done nothing to stop all of the abuses today.

"The point is that until you have spent the time to actually try to use the system to create an enforcement action, don't tell me that it cannot be done because I know better"

So I have to try and use the corrupt system, to fix the corrupt system? The corrupt people who would make this new constitution that you think would strip my rights, are the ones that I have to try and get to uphold the current constitution? Does this sound crazy to anyone else?

I admit I am a bit crankier today than I am most of the time, when I would tend to argue the positive parts of the constitution, and I admit I would prefer for present day politicans to not mess with the constitution. But I really do wonder if it even matters. They don't follow this constiution. They won't follow the new one. If they want to do something, they will do it. Why? Because we let them. And we have no actual legal recourse for the most part. Most people want the government to run their lives. Even people on this board, and other places, who understand gun rights, don't care about other rights. People want liberty for themselves, but not for their neighbor.

I really don't know if a new constitution would matter that much to me. And I haven't heard anything in this discussion that changes that so far.

imported post

Here's an artilce from World Net Daily, basically quotes an article by Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Institute.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

His articles are by paid subscription, so I cannot access this one.

The good news is that this is not a current effort on the parts of the states to call a Convention.

The bad news is that there is concern that states who voted for a Convention back in the 1980s for a Convention to geta balanced budget amendment wish to rescind their votes, but apparently there is no provision for doing so.

So what we are probaly looking at (IMHO) is a legal battle when another 2 states decide to call for a convention and test to see if the cummulative votes--no matter how old--still stand.

Sorry, this is not a current fire, as I presented it to be. At least I don't think it is.

But with BHO and the current Congress, it will be interesting to see what happens if/when another 2 states can be called upon to vote on this.

imported post

Dupe/Deleted.

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

Please tell me that this is nothing, and that I'm just perpetuating rumors. I would like nothing better, and would be glad to cease and desist.

Click to expand...

Same here. :uhoh:

imported post

So, no state has actually passed a Constitutional Convention Amendment?

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Red Knight has it right

Do any of you guys read before you post? The legislatures do not have to be in session. A state could have passed legislation calling for a convention decades ago and it still counts. THIS IS NOT LIKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT CIRCULATES AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN TRACK IN THE REGULAR WAY. You have to look at each state and see what if any action they may have on the books in this area. The "tin-heads" that Skid refers to are some of the kinds of groups that track this stuff.

Click to expand...

cite?

Click to expand...

Us Constitution Article V (Emphasis added)

"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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Notice there is no time frame specified during which this must be accomplished. Nor is there a requirement that all the states agree all at once or that their legislatures be in session at the time the congress recognizes the 2/3 count has been reached. The only unifying requirement is the ratification of the final document resulting from the convention. But history has shown that there is no unification of action required there either nor is there a time limit on that process.

The states can meet at a time convenient to themselves severally, and vote for a convention. But the point is that it is done by each legislature apart from all the others and the vote is tallied over time. If it gets to the place where 2/3 of the states have agreed to convene, then it happens.

Please read our governing documents before addingto this argument.

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

hsmith wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Red Knight has it right

Do any of you guys read before you post? The legislatures do not have to be in session. A state could have passed legislation calling for a convention decades ago and it still counts. THIS IS NOT LIKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT CIRCULATES AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN TRACK IN THE REGULAR WAY. You have to look at each state and see what if any action they may have on the books in this area. The "tin-heads" that Skid refers to are some of the kinds of groups that track this stuff.

Click to expand...

cite?

Click to expand...

Us Constitution Article V (Emphasis added)

"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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Notice there is no time frame specified during which this must be accomplished. Nor is there a requirement that all the states agree all at once or that their legislatures be in session at the time the congress recognizes the 2/3 count has been reached. The states can meet at a time convenient to themselves severally, and vote for a convention. But the point is that it is done by each legislature apart from all the others and the vote is tallied over time. If it gets to the place where 2/3 of the states have agreed to convene, then it happens.

Please read our governing documents before addingto this argument.

Regards

Click to expand...

Well, since you prefer to be an ass to everyone in this thread instead of acting polite , I'll just watch from the sidelines.

imported post

hsmith wrote:

...snip

Click to expand...

Well, since you prefer to be an ass to everyone in this thread instead of acting polite , I'll just watch from the sidelines.

Click to expand...

After all this stuff is right there in the constitution and you ask for a cite? Come on. If you want to discuss something lets do it, but do it from and informed position.

Regards

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Well, since you prefer to be an ass to everyone in this thread instead of acting polite , I'll just watch from the sidelines.

Click to expand...

Seconded.

imported post

I heard SC passed it twice Doug but that info was from a site that was probably pro-anti.

I could be totally wrong but I get the feeling this whole Con-Con is a con to focus attention from something else.



Again, I could be and probably am wrong.

Hopefully someone who is actually in the know will speak. How come we never hear of a con-con anywhere in the mainstream news? Sure the mainstream news sucks but this kind of thing would fall right in line with the sucking.