Obama Destroys The Image Of Government

There are any number of reasons why people might say they approve of Obama’s job performance that don’t include actual performance. There are a lot of Democrats who will say they approve of Obama no matter how much he’s disappointed them. There are blacks who will say they approve for no other reason than they feel they have to. The flip side is also true, there are any number of Republicans who will disapprove of Obama even if they really don’t have a problem with what he’s done. This is true of every President, a substantial number of people in his party approve no matter what and a substantial number of people in the other party disapprove no matter what.

A better indication of people’s disapproval of the President is their response to the question do you think the country is headed in the right or wrong direction? Wrong direction has been in the 60’s for years now. That suggests people don’t like the direction Obama is taking the country, even hardcore liberal Democrats.

"Invoking Article V is extremely dangerous for the cause of liberty. I wouldn’t trust that progressives would be prevented from taking over a Constitutional Convention."

Each state would send delegates to the convention. How are progressives going to take over when they are significantly outnumbered. Second the convention is not dangerous even if they DID somehow manage to take it over. The conventions only purpose is to PROPOSE amendments and changes that then must be ratified by three fourths of the states. So do you really think the left has any chance whatsoever of getting liberty crushing amendments passed by thirty eight states? Obviously the left does not have a chance when it's put to the vote of the people in each state.

The left has always feared constitution amendments because they have never had the numbers to stop it. Have you ever thought about why a balanced budget amendment has never made it out of the congress to get voted on by the people? The answer again is obvious, because it would pass and the government would be forced to stop deficit spending. So what does the federal government do? It blocks the amendment so the people have no chance to vote. An article V convention takes the power away from the feds.

Lastly, the framers put in article V as a means to RESTORE liberty in the case where the government has become corrupt and refuses to limit itself. Do you think they were wrong?

"An article V convention IS secession and forming a new Republic. No amount of safegaurds can possibly prevent this. Regardless of charters and promises conventioneers will have absolute authority to completely rewrite the Constitution. Do you honestly believe Marxists will not be in charge of this process?"

You might want to do some basic study of the Constitution in this area. Your post makes it clear that you have no knowledge of this process whatsoever.

"Something I don’t understand: if the regime won’t ban travel to and from West Africa, why don’t airlines just stop providing service? "

I'm really surprised at this as well. My guess is they are afraid of looking racist and so on. I do think if this continues the Airlines will do exactly that anyway as soon as one person in the US gets infected from someone brought here by a Commercial flight and the infected person files suit against the airline.

In a nutshell I believe the Airlines would be held legally liable for continuing to run flights from west Africa if other Americans get infected. They are now fully aware they are putting American lives at risk by continuing to bring people here from these regions. Airlines are not forced to run these flights, they do this for profit as a business. At this point to continue is just asking to end up in court.

There is substantial controversy about an article V convention.
Once the convention is in session the convention may ignore external authority. Only the goodwill of the members and of their elected chair preclude this eventuality.
Article V is technically subsumed under the Constitution. The reality, however, is that it is a constitutional convention. It is not at all inconceivable that a cabal of progressives could coopt the convention and steamroll it into a general rewrite of the constitution. Nothing, really, exists to preclude this possibility.
A Constitutional convention is just that. It is wide open for abuse.

"here is substantial controversy about an article V convention? Once the convention is in session the convention may ignore external authority. Only the goodwill of the members and of their elected chair preclude this eventuality. Article V is technically subsumed under the Constitution. The reality, however, is that it is a constitutional convention. It is not at all inconceivable that a cabal of progressives could coopt the convention and steamroll it into a general rewrite of the constitution. Nothing, really, exists to preclude this possibility. A Constitutional convention is just that. It is wide open for abuse."

You still do not understand that while the highly unlikely take over scenario is possible it won't matter because this supposed rewrite would only be a proposal. The convention only PROPOSES amendments and changes that then need to be ratified by the vote of the people of thirty eight states.

You do understand we don't have to call a Convention of States to change the constitution. The congress can propose amendments at ANY time. Again these changes would need to be ratified by thirty eight states. If you think thirty eight states would ratify left wing socialist government than the democrats would have already proposed amendments when they had full control and put it to a vote of the people. So why didn't they get rid of the second amendment when they had the chance? Because they could get nowhere near thirty eight states to vote for it and they would look like fools.

The left/progressives/socialists/communists can NEVER win with a straight up vote. They must use what they have now and that's a corrupt cabal of judges, entrenched career politicians, bureaucrats and loopholes they have punched in the Constitution. It's time to shut them down.

You are attempting to argue that the framers of our Constitution were wrong when they added the option for the states to propose amendments and changes to the constitution as well as congress. That's a pretty tough uphill argument to support.

I believe the framers were right and it's time to use the Constitution itself to restore liberty just as they intended.

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.