Posted on 07/11/2013 6:10:36 AM PDT by JOHN W K
Given the society and people in power we have today, any constitutional convention would enshrine the further enslavement of the american people to a ruling class.
A second Constitutional Convention would be a disaster for all the reasons you mentioned. There are no Madisons or Washingtons or Franklins in the U.S. today.
Perhaps, but this may be the only chance to enshrine some vestigages of the original document in perpetuity without an insurrection.
No. This generation is degenerate in essential elements from the top of society down. There would be no chance at all for vestiges to be considered. Instead you would open the door for all kinds of bad actions.
People make laws, when a society is as utterly corrupt as ours, the only solution is to educate and plan for the next generation.
There is a fine line between being cautious or just plain cowardly. I'm with Levin, if for the sole purpose of repealing the 16th and perhaps the 17th, if that doesn't overly complicate the process. Let's do it while we still can, for we are already headed to a place far worse than many can imagine.
Been saying this since I've been here...
No, WRONG! He is calling for a “Convention to consider amendments”. That is distinctly different than a “Constitutional Convention”.
Put them in the same, hot room for 87 days in the summer and make them wear the same clothes.
I applaud Levin for shining a spotlight on this provision in our Constitution. Shame on me for reading over it.
Yes, our federal government needs to be repaired. At the very least I would state that infinite money and infinite debt allows infinite government. So when we are pondering ways to amend the Constitution, let us find a way to severely restrain the federal government’s ability to create infinite fiscal resources and to force it to live within our means of paying.
If we allow government to spend more than we can afford, we are only buying our own serfdom because government can only levy taxes, debt or inflation upon us to pay for the benefits we vote for ourselves.
Mark should know better...Constitutional conventions can be dangerous if liberals infiltrate them. They could conceivably scrap the whole thing, as happened in 1787 when the Founders (quite illegally) scrapped the Articles of Confederation and started over.
A Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments would still need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. They could propose making it our official religion to worship the three armed man in the moon, and the states would still need to ratify it. Generally, the state legislatures in this country skew much more conservative than the representation in Washington, DC.
Can we wait until after the revolution and the blood is cleaned from the swords?
It seems that one without the other is pretty much an exercise om futility.
A second Constitutional Convention would be a colossal error.
The Constitution, created during what was supposed to be a shoring up of the Articles of Convention, was a miraculous series of compromises by factions with differing self interests. God's hand was on that first convention and brought forth the greatest political document the world had ever seen (next to the Bible itself).
It was understood, even at that time, that the convergence of so many elements needed to create such a document would most likely not pass this way again. The gathering together of those men with their degree of knowledge, understanding, virtue, and ardor for a good and free republic was not to be repeated. Any attempt to do so was understood to have gravely jeopardized this Constitution given the warring factions that existed. The warring factions today are worse than ever.
Men today are not of the same caliber, by and large, as the stature of our Founders, who had a depth of knowledge and education few have today - they knew Blackstone and Aquinas and the Bible and were very familiar with Roman and Judeo-Christian law and ethics, some in Latin as well as English, and knew the Bible.
Besides all that, the issue is not a flaw in the Constitution - the issue is a major flaw in man, who seems unable to hold on to his God-given liberty very long. The Constitution is not perfect but acknowledges that too with provision for amending it according to the will of the people and the states.
I am absolutely opposed to a Constitutional Convention, which will do nothing but eliminate important, valid provisions of the current document, while adding all sorts of rights-cancelling new ones.
What emerges from such a convention will look more like the South African constitution than what we have now.
Proper netiquette states that you should ping the person you are talking about.
5.56mm
I fully agree. If they could burn the current Constitution and write a new liberal, leftist, communist, socialist, homo Constitution, they’d do it.
Levin made of point of saying it IS NOT a 2nd Constitutional Convention...
“..you’ll hear critics say, “We don’t need a Constitutional Convention! We’ll never get anyone better than the Framers!”
And they’re right! This isn’t a Constitutional Convention.
This is a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.”
A Constitutional Convention would be controlled by liberals empowered by the liberal media.
He had to have been drinking, having a psychotic break, or sold his soul to the devil.
Article. V.
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.
So, 2/3 of the states call for an amendment-proposing convention, and congress gets to decide if the vote on those "proposed amendments" is from 3/4 of the state legislatures or from conventions in 3/4 of the states.
And how many delegates are at that original proposing convention, how are they chosen, and how do they vote?
I know....a "gang of 8".
And a voting convention in each state has delegates chosen how, how many, who, how do they vote?
Who gets to answer all these questions?
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.