Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Levin `s Cryptic Reference to 30 U.S. Governors (Con-Con ! ? )
November 08 2012 | Me Again

Posted on 11/08/2012 9:58:12 AM PST by Para-Ord.45

So, listening to The Great One, Mark Levin last night in regards to the election. He stated his ideas haven`t quite congealed yet but would comment sometime in the future while mentioning the GOP now had 30 Governors across the nation.

Upon hearing this I could come to no other conclusion as to what he was refering to:

"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, ..."

But the process requires that the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Was Mark Levin thinking this? If so, is he at wits end as to how rescue what`s left of the Constitutional Republic?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 11/08/2012 9:58:14 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Interesting...so the house & senate really can be avoided if we get the states to act?


2 posted on 11/08/2012 10:02:00 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2956370/posts?page=108#108

Good points all. Clearly the GOP model has failed and its adherents seem poised to acknowledge final failure. Time to consider new models and paths to success.

What is of interest and of substantial potential power in a new model is drawn from your statement:

“Fortunately we still hold the House and something like 3/4 of the State legislatures. And those facts will become far more important as the Obama downward spiral continues on toward next summer.”

If somehow the Red States comprising 3/4 of the total could start a State Convention movement, then the process of such a movement could bypass both Senate and the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

As an example, look at the number of states pushing for Voter ID and having it moved through the courts with subsequent wins or imminent wins.

The same could happen with issues such as gay marriage, tax reform, education, energy etc. all brought under an umbrella of a States Convention process. The breadth of such a process would be too diffuse and difficult for the MSM to fight as they would need to define, caricature and demonize thousands of targets in geographical regions where they are not welcome.

The Founders left us the States Convention route as a last resort to withstand tyranny.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) could be a vehicle to organize a States Convention movement. The fact that leftist groups hate it is a good sign that its leadership is conservative.

Here’s a couple of leftist orgs and their take on ALEC:

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10887/cmd-special-report-alecs-funding-and-spending

The chief complaint of a States Convention movement arises from fear that leftists can seize control of it and fundamentally change the Constitution. But a States Convention process to power requires 2/3s of state to pass proposals and 3/4s to implement passed proposals into the Constitution. So there is a strong barrier that the left would need to overcome in order to control power from statehouses.

The left has seized *federal* power from urban centers of population to steer a state to its US Senator picks as well as urban mayorships to service union demands, primarily government unions including public teacher groups. This is the source of their strength. Such a network of urban power strongholds was referred by Obama’s handlers in 2008 as the “Urban Archipelago” that can ignore Statehouses because power at the statehouse level is lacking.

But statehouses tied together and unified can trump the Urban Archipelago.

Statehouse power stems from people that inhabit the land outside the urban strongholds, the “Country Class” and this ‘country power’ when mobilized and impassioned yields power in the US House of Representatives as exists now.

In such areas there exists a diffuse republic in the form of distributed districts that lend considerable opportunity to steer state power. The Left has abandoned this route to power because the centralization of federal power has rendered Statehouses weak and ineffectual, but only because they are not organized together.

What is needed is a groundswell of solidarity to empower leaders of a State Convention movement to unite, organize and train cadres of people to effect Statehouse power.

It comes down to solidarity and the ability to organize and maintain it.


3 posted on 11/08/2012 10:02:45 AM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

IIRC, 34 states are required to make up 2/3 of the states.

A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.

Delete the 2nd amendment?

New amendment enshrining socialised medicine as a “right” (or anything else, for that matter)?

4th amendment needs to go?

Abolish the 10th amendment?

All could happen in a Con-Con.


4 posted on 11/08/2012 10:03:51 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to make Obama a minor footnote in the pages of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I’m not following you. Please explain more. 2/3 or congress Vs. 2/3 of State Governors? We need 33 governors obviously. But doesn’t Congress have to initiate the process in the Senate with 2/3 majority? Per the constitution, the Senators represent the states while the Reps represent the people.


5 posted on 11/08/2012 10:03:59 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
He may have just been referring to the fact that because we have a large majority of Governorships we have a unique opportunity to stand against the Federal Gov't on things like Obamacare, Federalism, etc.

Grassroots in action.

6 posted on 11/08/2012 10:06:39 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
A Constitutional Convention would be a big mistake.

The Alinskyites would hijack it.

They would like nothing better.

7 posted on 11/08/2012 10:06:59 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

That is what I thought.

What we will hear is we cant have con-con because you don’t know what they will come out with in the end. I call BS on that argument.

What ever they come out with have to be ratified or else it will die. In fact, the ratification our Constitution there were 78 Amendments offered by the State conventions.

I would like to see the repealing of the 17th out the gate. Harry Reid should represent the State of AZ interest. I think you would find him behave very differently if he had to be appointed by his state legislature after some of the garbage he has forced down their throats.


8 posted on 11/08/2012 10:08:16 AM PST by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

This would be a disastrous move.


9 posted on 11/08/2012 10:08:38 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.

Delete the 2nd amendment?

New amendment enshrining socialised medicine as a “right” (or anything else, for that matter)?

4th amendment needs to go?

Abolish the 10th amendment?

All could happen in a Con-Con.


The 2nd Amedment is wounded.
The 4th Amendment only seems to apply to abortion rights.
The 10th Amendment has been turned inside out, as has pretty much the whole Constitution.

I'm far from a southerner, but at this stage, I can only say a right to secession is necessary, because too much of this country is lefty in its orientation.

At some point, the risks of a Con-Con are less than the risk of another generation of lefty worms and termites eating away at the entire fabric of society.

I think we are close enough to that point.
10 posted on 11/08/2012 10:12:45 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
-- But doesn't Congress have to initiate the process in the Senate with 2/3 majority? --
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 ...
The United States Constitution
11 posted on 11/08/2012 10:13:06 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

’ Hostage’ posted an explanation that sums it up.

2/3 of the States can call for a ConCon and need 3/4 of State Legislatures for ratification, Washington not required in any way shape or form.

In this scenario they could define “Commerce” specifically to mean what the Founders meant, Free Trade between States. Repeal the income tax, remove all unconstitutional socialist spending. Define enumerated rights to spell it out what the federal govt. can do ,all else they could not, etc.

A possible way, but unlikely to end-run around Congress the White House and USSC and hit the reset button for a Constitutional Republic


12 posted on 11/08/2012 10:13:17 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I agree, it is a very dangerous idea. Our Congress is no longer populated by virtuous men like those that wrote the Constitution. The best we can hope for the next four years is gridlock.


13 posted on 11/08/2012 10:14:10 AM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

be careful what you ask for...
and if the republicans cannot beat the worst president in history, what makes you think that they can magically control a constitutional convention? the libs will OWN it. and then you can kiss just about every amendment in the bill of rights goodbye, especially the second.

bad idea,. really, really bad idea


14 posted on 11/08/2012 10:14:23 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

There isn’t going to be a constitutional convention. People on both sides have been trying to get one forever and there just aren’t the votes for it.

Besides, we may have 30 governors - but we don’t have 30 truly conservative governors that are in any mood to fight the current system.

The majority of the public wants to keep the freebies coming and that isn’t going to change until the economy collapses. It will at some point and then there will be a chance to rebuild things and change the constitution. At that time hopefully we will more clearly write any opportunity for socialism out of the Federal Government. That will require clarifying the “general welfare” clause and other areas the left uses to ram through their agenda. Thing is, the ability of the powers that be to kick the can down the road is incredible. While slowly imploding, the whole house of cards may not fall for many years to come.


15 posted on 11/08/2012 10:15:01 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Not all states agree though. What Texas and Alabama would like to do vs what, say, New Jersey might want to do are entirely different things.


16 posted on 11/08/2012 10:15:05 AM PST by Crimson Elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

@Yashcheritsiy “A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.”

I disagree. They can do whatever they wish at the convention. It would need to be then ratified by 2/3 of the the states legislatures to be approved. Also, the state delegations can amend what comes out of the con-con.

Progressives have argued against con-con since 1913 because they realize the garbage Wilson got ratified would be pulled out.

Think about what state would ratify a Constitution without the 2nd Amendment. As the 10th Amendment goes they would strengthen it by repealing the 17th Amendment.


17 posted on 11/08/2012 10:16:16 AM PST by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I don’t think Levin was hinting at that. He would have just come out and said it. I think he was reminding everyone that the GOP brand isn’t the problem.


18 posted on 11/08/2012 10:16:21 AM PST by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
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;

19 posted on 11/08/2012 10:16:38 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

This would be an astoundingly bad idea. If opened, there are no limits, everything is on the table. Don’t fall for the “limited” con-con.
If we are not winning elections, how could we EVER carry the day at a constitutional convention?

A constitution written today would incorporate Soviet concepts like “right to a job”, UN concepts “Rights of children”, EU concepts like “right to free speech as long as it is not hurtful, or insulting”.
There would be no second amendment as we know it. They might give lip service to classic upland bird hunting and say we can use guns via the National Guard, but the hated 2nd would be gone for individuals. There would be no ethos of defending against a tyrannical government.

10th amendment reserving rghts to the state unless specifically given to the feds? Gone.
Right to peaceably assemble? freedom of religion? Yeah,,right.

This nigtmare is best left alone. There is no shortcut. We have to win elections, and live up to the original. We have to roll back the usurpations that have already occurred. That is the only path.

There is no magic path where we can do an end run and create a new set of rules, suddenly enshrining what we cannot win in elections and in congress. And if we did, the same political realities would destroy it just the same as before.


20 posted on 11/08/2012 10:17:11 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

To achieve 3/4s of states to implement proposals of a Con-Con, that would take 38 states.

Do you think there are 38 states that will delete the 2nd Amendment? Delete the 4th Amendment? Make new socialism amendments?

If you think that could happen, then why has the Left not taken that route before? Seems it would be faster for them to get what they want that way.

I think you are fanning flames of fear towards conservatives when in fact it is Leftists that should fear a Con-Con.

A Con-Con is strict and difficult. Americans can have their Republic back if they use what the Constitution leaves for them to utilize.


21 posted on 11/08/2012 10:18:02 AM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

This is not correct. A Con-Con must be called with a specific goal or bill. A Con-Con isn’t called and mustered just to “talk.” A Con-Con is called with specific documents on the table for a vote. They have to get the plurality of governors to vote.

The worst that would happen is that poison pills are placed in the amendments and are thus voted down. No Con-Con would be called to rescind the 2nd Amendment or any of the things you suggest.


22 posted on 11/08/2012 10:18:38 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
At some point, the risks of a Con-Con are less than the risk of another generation of lefty worms and termites eating away at the entire fabric of society.

Win.

23 posted on 11/08/2012 10:19:20 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

How would Alinskyites hijack a conservative grassroots movement that is taken through state legislatures?

Can you explain that? I don’t think you can.

And if they can, then why have they not done so?

Your thesis is flawed on its face.


24 posted on 11/08/2012 10:20:32 AM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Now proposing amendments like balanced budget, like ending the Fed, an amendment making it illegal to sign a treaty that gives any foreign entity force of law over US citizens, like overturning Obamcare and clarifying the commerce clause. That would be workable.

But no con con. Another reason, how about the two term limit for President suddenly being removed and we get Obama for 3 or 4 terms like FDR?


25 posted on 11/08/2012 10:23:25 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
A Constitutional Convention is not "a conservative grassroots movement that is taken through state legislatures."

A Constitutional Convention is a Wild West crapshoot.

You seriously believe you can hold a Constitutional Convention and prohibit certain US citizens from participating?

26 posted on 11/08/2012 10:23:39 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

an anchor baby no-citizenship amendment would also be good. But not as a con con, just as single amendments.


27 posted on 11/08/2012 10:25:57 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3
In fact, the ratification our Constitution there were 78 Amendments offered by the State conventions.

In fact, there is no evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was ever ratified, yet we have the income tax anyway.

Mess with the Constitution at your peril. You don't own process. The Alinskyites do.

28 posted on 11/08/2012 10:26:28 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

It certainly is easier to tell a thieving, indebted, tyrannical central government where to go...and if 3/4 of the states choose to do so..they most certainly can.

The Federal Leviathan’s response of course will be to basically swing wide open the Southern border.


29 posted on 11/08/2012 10:26:39 AM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

If a Con-Con is such a bad idea, why did the Founders write it into the Constitution?


30 posted on 11/08/2012 10:27:40 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Good post. Heartening.


31 posted on 11/08/2012 10:27:56 AM PST by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“Per the constitution, the Senators represent the states while the Reps represent the people”, not after the 17th Amendment was passed.


32 posted on 11/08/2012 10:28:24 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
If so, is he at wits end as to how rescue what`s left of the Constitutional Republic?

Aren't we all?

33 posted on 11/08/2012 10:29:29 AM PST by pgkdan (We are witnessing the modern sack of Rome. The barbarians have taken over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

State legislatures are now in the hands of conservative grassroots. A Constitutional Convention can be called by the same grassroots organizers through their state legislatures. state legislatures can memorialize the Con-Con and compel Congress to call for a Con-Con.

Try not to obfuscate the issue here.

Answer the question posed to you without flying into hysterics.

How are 38 states going to be hijacked by the Alyinskyites?

Let the question be repeated and stick to it:

How are 38 states going to be hijacked by the Alyinskyites?


34 posted on 11/08/2012 10:29:42 AM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
an anchor baby no-citizenship amendment would also be good. But not as a con con, just as single amendments.

Now if you can just get 2/3 of Congress to go along...

35 posted on 11/08/2012 10:31:24 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

If you listen to Mark Levin, you must have also heard him explain how a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare, and something which should be avoided at all costs.

He explained how it would allow the America haters to tinker under the hood and gut the Constitution completely, rewriting it to suit themselves. In other words, it’s a leftist dream-come-true. Bye-bye America.

Heed the Great One, and shelve any idea that resembles this one. Please.


36 posted on 11/08/2012 10:33:15 AM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (We don't have an Obama problem. We have an America problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

This might be what he’s thinking:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html

QUOTE: “Some fear that any amendments convention might exceed the limited purpose for which it was called. Under the Constitution, however, any amendments proposed by a convention would still need to obtain the approval of three-quarters of all the states.”

MORE DETAILS ON THE BILL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett

“QUOTE: details of the BILL:

The amendments, summarized by number below, would:
1.Disallow federal income taxes (i.e., repeal Sixteenth Amendment), as well as gift, estate, and consumption taxes; allow FairTax; require a 3/5 supermajority to raise or set new taxes
2.Set limits on the Interstate Commerce Clause
3.Disallow unfunded mandates, and conditions on funding.
4.Close a constitutional loophole that allows treaties to override established limits on power
5.Extend free speech consideration to campaign contributions, and to cover any medium of communication (including the Internet)
6.Allow a resolution of three-quarters of the states to rescind any federal law or regulation.
7.Establish Term Limits for Senators and Representatives.
8.Provide the President with a line-item veto to balance the budget on any year in which it is unbalanced.
9.Reinforce the Ninth Amendment by specifying additional rights and by providing a process for any person to prove the existence of an unenumerated right.
10.Restrict judicial activism by mandating an originalist method of interpretation.

THIS IS BRILLIANT.


37 posted on 11/08/2012 10:35:42 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Exceedingly dangerous!


38 posted on 11/08/2012 10:37:38 AM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
“Per the constitution, the Senators represent the states while the Reps represent the people”, not after the 17th Amendment was passed.

The fundemental definition didn't change. The intent was subverted by the 17th Amenedment. So, I agree, you are correct in application. The state legislatures no longer pick their senators. The 17th made the people pick them and thus function about the same as house reps except with much less accountability.

There is no doubt that if Senators had to answer to Governors and could be replaced by state legislatures, they would behave and legislate much differently.

The 17th Amendment may actually be the most damaging thing we have ever done in that it moved power from the states to the Fed by accidentally removing the Senators accountability. Term limits wouldn't be discussed if Senators had to deal with Governors.

39 posted on 11/08/2012 10:39:19 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

@E. Pluribus Unum “Mess with the Constitution at your peril. You don’t own process. The Alinskyites do.”

The Alinskyites have owned the process since 1913. They scare everyone from doing anything like a con-con by saying exactly what you are arguing.

Exactly who owns this process? At what point do we stop siting by while our freedoms boil away in the pot every 2 years? Do you see the GOP restoring the Constitution? Did we make headway this week?

It was the States that stepped up and saved us from the Articles of Confederation and perhaps it needs to be the States that step up once again? We have waited over 100 years for leaders in our Federal Government to fix these problems. It is only getting worse. They have no motivation to fix the problems. It is to their advantage to stay with what we have.


40 posted on 11/08/2012 10:39:27 AM PST by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

“A Con-Con must be called with a specific goal or bill. A Con-Con isn’t called and mustered just to “talk.” A Con-Con is called with specific documents on the table for a vote.”

Article V does NOT say that.

or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall CALL A CONVENTION for PROPOSING AMENDMENTS
(clearly meaning, we call/start/summon a convention, and amendments may be proposed when it convenes,,,almost precisely, to talk and argue, and negotiate. Just like the original. It is a convention precisely FOR proposing there is nothng saying it is limited to one topic, or that you even have to HAVE a topic. It just says “call a convention”),
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


41 posted on 11/08/2012 10:39:27 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Once a constitutional convention is begun there are no limitation except what the representatives of the conventions imagination limits. This is a suicidal idea. The U.S.Constitution is not the problem. It is our best hope, our only hope on this earthly plane, to reconstruct a civil society and a nation of laws, not men. Once Pandoras box is open Conservatives, by their nature, would be deferential while the liberal mind is militant and would codifiy it militancy. It would become the French Revolution. It is a very, very bad idea.


42 posted on 11/08/2012 10:40:27 AM PST by Texas Songwriter (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

You can “Thank” Woodrow Wilson for the 17th.


43 posted on 11/08/2012 10:40:50 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Well ok then. If it’s a “leftist dream-come-true”, then why haven’t they done it already?

I’ll tell you why. Because they can’t. The conservative grassroots are outside their urban stongholds. And the conservative grassroots control the state legislatures.

So why haven’t the Leftists taken control of state legislatures en masse? Answer: Because there is no present power in them.

But if they are united, then the State legislatures have a lot of power.

Falling back on state legislatures seems primitive but it’s a powerful solution.

Much the same way that broadcasters abandoned radio 20 years ago and conservatives bought up the cheap abandoned radio broadcast assets.

And now conservative talk radio is a force. Leftists have tried and will try to supplant or shut down conservative talk radio but they have failed.

The same will happen when conservatives take power over the federal government by exerting change through state legislatures.


44 posted on 11/08/2012 10:41:16 AM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Those who oppose it forget that we have almost nothing to lose: our chances are next to none otherwise. The republic will come to an end with certainty if we just try to sit things out. Obama will appoint judges that will support his re-writing laws through fiat (his own 3rd term, total weapons ban, mandatory public service for all healthcare providers, you name it...)
He already has nearly enough with the defection of Roberts, one more and it’s over. It’s better to take risks while there is a chance.


45 posted on 11/08/2012 10:43:17 AM PST by Moisey88 (Deja vu all over again: Back in USSR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

DemonRATS do not abide by the Constitution anyway. Strike while we have the States behind us. Obama and the commies have the upper hand. The ONLY way is to amend the Constitution while Scalia and Thomas are still there.

When Obama appoints his Justices, kiss the Constitution goodye anyway. A wise Latina will be eating your lunch—and some stupid ones too.
QUOTE [Wikipedia, Barnett]
The John Birch Society has criticized the idea of calling for a constitutional convention, calling it a “dangerous temptation” and a “threat to our Constitution.”[17][18] Barnett has countered that historically, whenever the states have called for a Constitutional Convention, Congress has responded by proposing the amendments themselves. He also notes that even in the case of a constitutional convention, the proposed amendments still need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.[14]


46 posted on 11/08/2012 10:44:35 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Repeal the income tax? You gotta be kidding. The state legislatures have their mouths wrapped around the tits of the Federal government. They’d run dry without the federal income tax, fees based on the commerce clause, etc.


47 posted on 11/08/2012 10:44:45 AM PST by gotribe (He's a mack-daddy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV415yit7Zg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Argue with Mark Levin, not me. He’s the Constitutional expert, unless you want to question his creds.


48 posted on 11/08/2012 10:45:16 AM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (We don't have an Obama problem. We have an America problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

MADISON: "Now how did this loophole get in there?...oops!

49 posted on 11/08/2012 10:46:14 AM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
I'm far from a southerner, but at this stage, I can only say a right to secession is necessary, because too much of this country is lefty in its orientation.

Another thing that might help is setting up an amendment that makes all taxes on income implement a fixed rate, no exceptions or exemptions or credits or rebates.

Perhaps another amendment that prohibits the Federal government from collecting taxes directly from the citizen but forces federal taxes to be placed in escrow held by the states (that way states can unilaterally deny fed-gov funding).

50 posted on 11/08/2012 10:47:52 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson