Posted on 09/29/2016 2:03:49 AM PDT by Jacquerie
You’re a real azz. You criticize Levin and Cruz for not being real conservatives yet supported Trump, probably from the get-go. You yourself couldn’t possibly be a true conservative. Anyway, with Cruz out I now support Trump, because Hillary would be a total catastrophe.
I bet that hurts. Need a band-aid for your boo-boo?
And yes, Hillary is a disaster and I would vote for Cruz over Hillary too.
The word “conservative” means bupkis to me after it has drooled off of the lips of creeps like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, MfConnel, Bhoener, the pukes at NRO, and McLame.
What have they conserved? What’s ground have they held, what victory have they had in nearly 30 years? To me conservative just means complaining loud enough and putting on
the brakes on until you get paid to go away and leaving Americans to the wolves. Your band of “Merry Conservatives” turned on the grass-roots Tea Party like rabid dogs using
every leftist attack In the playbook to put them in their place.
Well said, sir.
The "conservative movement" has been revealed as a handful of phony and uninterested radio hosts and columnists that have no political power and don't really care about the country.
I'm a bit familiar with Levin's "Liberty Amendments" and Glen Beck's proposed amendments that will fix America.
If implemented, they would absolutely work.
All these Constitutional changes will get passed by the American Congress sometime around the era when we have a cure for cancer and have developed interstellar space travel. Maybe.
In the REAL world, the Republican party can't even get a budget passed in the last decade and can't even keep men in dresses out of little girls' bathrooms.
These "Conservatives" continue to bloviate about a pipe dream fantasy of sweeping Constitutional changes in American government when the fabric of American society is crumbling around us and we can't even effectively fight back against transvestites.
So I'm a bit skeptical about all this.
The vitriol at FR has become ridiculous.
Yes, much of the wisdom of the ages is within The Federalist.
Is there an art.V bump list that you know of?
Well, yes. Freeper Publius and I keep it. Like so many other topics, it has fallen off in interest during this inane election season. Shall we add you to the list?
Regardless if Hillary becomes president or not she would have no say so on any Article V COS. It is called by 2/3 of the states and amendments are proposed. Those that receive enough votes then move on through the regular amendment process with each amendment requiring that be approved by the state legislature or state convention and if 3/4 of the states pass them they are ratified and become part of the constitution.
The President veto power cannot be used to stop an amendment.
You’re on the bump list now.
I agree that she would have no legal say in the issue. But I can see her using all sorts of tricks and pressure to prevent the necessary 2/3 of the states from meeting. Bribes, threats, promises...anything is possible with her.
Hey governor, nice little army base you've got there in your state. Be a shame if it got closed.
Publics just did thank you very much.
Question: Are Levin’s so-called “liberty amendments” a good idea?
I vaguely remember running into their text on the internet (or maybe a library book) — but it seemed to me like the answer was “no” precisely because they were “written by lawyers, for lawyers” and one of the best parts of our Constitution is that it was written for the common man to understand.
Even more than 200 years later it is, for the most part, quite understandable; Levin’s proposed amendments seemed like psudeo-intellectual “legalese” rather than something meant to be understood, compared and contrasted to the simplicity of, say, the Seventh Amendment: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Do you have the texts, or links?
As I recall Levin's amendments were "legalese" and therefore unsuitable for being an amendment.
The Amendment Booklet by OneWingedShark is much more understandable. Here's a recent comment from facebook:
A gold standard, 10% maximum tax rate, the ability to civilly nullify taxes, no subsidies, no federal education standards, a self-appointable "grand" jury, impotent courts, etc. The distrust of any government at all laid out in this document is extreme and practically palpable.
The Antifederalst too.
Do you have the texts, or links?
No. A few years ago, I bought one of Glen Beck's audio books, and I've heard Levin talking about it over the years.
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.