Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Harvard Elite Writing New Constitution- with the Tea Party
Townhall.com ^ | October 9, 2011 | Ralph Benko

Posted on 10/09/2011 7:20:14 AM PDT by Kaslin

Last week the unthinkable happened.  While you were distracted by the banal and only marginally important presidential primaries, the lion, Harvard Law School, publicly lay down with the lamb, the Tea Party Patriots.  The long-term political implications are, potentially, far more potent than a mere presidency.

The SuperElite and the SuperPopulists convened at Harvard for a “Conference for a Constitutional Convention.”  It was co-hosted by Lawrence Lessig, from Harvard, and by Mark Meckler, co-founder of the 850,000 member Tea Party Patriots.

Lessig is a leading figure on the social democratic left, the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard Law School. Elena Kagan (then Harvard Law School Dean, now U.S. Supreme Court Justice) once said, “Larry Lessig is one of the most brilliant and important legal scholars of our time…. His work has recast the very terms of discussion and debate in multiple areas of law, ranging from intellectual property to constitutional theory. His new focus on questions of governance and corruption will be similarly transformative.”

Lessig is also the author of canonical and subversive books on subjects as diverse as the Internet and copyright law.  His most recent — and most subversive — work: Republic, Lost.  Most scholars could (and do) retire on the job with much lesser accomplishments than this, happily disappearing into the status quo.  So what the hell is this one up to, enduring a lot of hostility for showing respect to a vilified ideological opponent?

Meckler’s biography is more laconic than Lessig’s:  “originally from southern California graduating from McGeorge Law School… credits his father with having passed to him a patriotic foundation and ‘cowboy ethics.’”  But his role, as co-founder and one of the national coordinators of the Tea Party Patriots, the largest and most authentic of the Tea Party groups, is all the credential he needs to stand in equal dignity with Lessig.   Similar to Meckler’s is the dignity of the Tea Party Patriots’ resident constitutional expert, Bill Norton, who also spoke at Harvard — as a citizen scholar.

Lessig and the Tea Party, and its guiding spirits, are populists.  Populism was forever redefined by Jeffrey Bell (a business partner of this columnist) as optimism about people’s ability to manage their own affairs better than an elite can manage them for them.  Populism is neither left nor right wing.  Populists of all stripes share in common a conviction in “power to the people,” a belief that in a republic “citizen” is the noblest office.  And while Lessig and Meckler may disagree about just about every ideological issue, their respect for the wisdom and dignity of the citizens unites them in a realm far more important than the ideological.

They came together to explore a mechanism by which America’s government can be changed by, of, and for the people.  Jefferson was unequivocally right when he wrote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So.  Are there insufferable evils?

Let’s start with the federal government spending over a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in.  This provoked the Tea Party.  Many of us both on the right and in the populist rank and file consider the ballooning national debt to be an insufferable evil.

Congress persistently is refusing to stop spending money it does not have.  Sen. Curtis Olafson, a state senator from North Dakota, has a solution.  He’s gotten the ball rolling with support in 6 to 12 states for an Article V constitutional convention to prevent raising of the debt limit without state approval. He serves as national spokesperson for the National Debt Relief Amendment.

The left seems, mainly, outraged by the decision of Citizens United allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in independent expenditures as is their clear First Amendment right. Lessig is a somewhat lonely figure on the left in not promoting a proto-fascist solution, censorship, to the problems being caused by “so damn much money” in politics.  The core of Lessig’s approach is that of making available optional (rather than coercive) public financing of congressional elections.  This is not radically dissimilar to the system in place for matching funds for presidential primaries and, while unequivocally “Progressive,” falls far short of Leninism (much to the dismay of the Communist Party USA, which attended the conference to denounce Lessig and push for a new, communist, constitution for North America).

Lessig is heartsick about how campaign contributions have come so to dominate the attention of candidates and members of Congress that it makes problems insoluble and is sinking America as a republic.  Lessig is evenhanded in pointing out the distortions.  He shows how political contributions clearly interfere with the free market process — contributions buying sugar tariffs leading to all kinds of degradations of the free market.  Then he shows how campaign money destroys left wing priorities, mangling, perhaps terminally, the drive to get to sustainable universal health insurance.  The current financing system also feeds popular cynicism, undermining our overall political health.

The corrupting effect of money in politics is more populist than left wing.  The dean of the Article V convention movement, former Michigan Chief Judge Thomas Brennan, no left winger, attended the conference and blogged:

Money that flows like raw sewage from K Street to the Capital. Money that corrupts. Money that influences. Money that changes our nation from a democratic republic to a sinister oligarchy of career politicians, corporate fat cats, ward healing bosses, and the lobbyists who tie them all together.

The last thing the incumbents in Congress will do is to change the rules in a way that might level the playing field between themselves and challengers, leading to an almost 100% reelection rate even though Congress, as a body, suffers from a pathetic 11% approval rating.  Therefore, Lessig is proposing to call an Article V convention to end run the Congress.  So is Olafson in his effort to take away Congress’s credit cards.

To get there they need 34 states. There are pockets of strong resistance to such a convention, most notably the John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly, and … Laurence Tribe, surely a strange bedfellows coalition if ever there was one.   On the other hand, the most respected state-based policy institute in America, the Goldwater Institute, has fielded Nick Dranias, who there holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government, to make an ironclad case that such an Article V call can be useful while constrained.

Yes, Meckler was there in his personal, rather than in an institutional, capacity, did not speak for the Tea Party Patriots, and did not endorse Lessig’s campaign finance reform.  No, Lessig did not endorse Sen. Olafson’s debt ceiling limit.  All beside the point.  For the first time in modern history the populist left and populist right came together to endorse, and seek a way to operationalize, a transcendent belief in citizens over  government.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/09/2011 7:20:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A ConCon would be a fatal mistake. No matter how it started, it would be hijacked by union thugs and and socialists. At the end, we would have a “constitution” like that of the old USSR, complete with a “right to a job” and the “fair” distribution of wealth.


2 posted on 10/09/2011 7:24:20 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I have a problem with this...don’t know who this Tea Party person is or who he represents. It’s not the Tea Party I know.


3 posted on 10/09/2011 7:27:31 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
if you cannot control your Govt via our currently elected representatives, what makes you think you can control who get's elected to a Constitutional Convention?

This is a remarkably bad idea.

4 posted on 10/09/2011 7:27:42 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let’s start with the federal government spending over a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in. This provoked the Tea Party.

I thought it was racism...?


5 posted on 10/09/2011 7:28:46 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

That is what the left accused the Tea Party of


6 posted on 10/09/2011 7:35:43 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I am going to repeat my post from another thread.

The TEA Party is being set up to be the fallguy for the violence that is coming.

If FREEPERS don't know who this is or what groups are ‘representing’ the TEA Party...it is propaganda. Pure evil propaganda.

ALL real Tea Party Patriots need to start taking steps to properly identify themselves. My God, I can't believe this is happening really. Of course there is the flipside to identifying ourselves which as this devolves...DHS will have a hey day.

7 posted on 10/09/2011 7:35:48 AM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Travis McGee

Did not read the article. Posting from having read the headline. Wondering why anyone would think the original Constitution could be improved upon? Maybe there should be an amendment here or there, every once in a great while, but why scrap the original and expect a new and improved document? (imho) it would not be possible (a new and improved document) and any ConCon would be just as a ConCon implies, a ConCon.


8 posted on 10/09/2011 7:36:25 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen. --> AmeriCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m against any new Constitutional Amendments because the prospect of getting bad ones is real.


9 posted on 10/09/2011 7:38:57 AM PDT by Dr. White
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

and thus one of the problems for liberals with the Tea Party. There is now command structure no National Leader of the movement to attack. So anyone can declare themselves a Tea Partier.....this can also be used against us. Uber libs are going to start identifying themselves as Tea Party leaders and saying Racist things and generally betrataying all Tea Party ideals! Working with Progressives to rework the Constitution is a HORRIBLE idea...Remember they believe that the Constitution is a document of Negative Rights. Stay vigilant the left will go to any length to retain power in 2012 and beyond!!!


10 posted on 10/09/2011 7:42:17 AM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I never voted for Mark Meckler to speak for me. Seems he thinks pretty high of himself.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/Mark-Meckler-Must-Step-Down-from-Tea-Party-Patriots/151707534870003


11 posted on 10/09/2011 7:48:55 AM PDT by Wilderness Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. White

It is a fact that the liberals don’t like the constitution. that is why they want to rewrite it. Many of them have never read the contitution


12 posted on 10/09/2011 7:49:55 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Amendment 1: The right of the people to be secure in their feelings and not have their emotional well being questioned shall not be infringed.


13 posted on 10/09/2011 7:50:18 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. White

It is a fact that the liberals don’t like the constitution. that is why they want to rewrite it. Many of them have never read the constitution


14 posted on 10/09/2011 7:50:18 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I don't see how a ConCon could be limited to a few specific issues. Once this convention starts, it could rewrite everything.


15 posted on 10/09/2011 7:51:40 AM PDT by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Your post makes a valid point. The TEA has been demonized constantly and should violence breakout, the TEA being demonized further is a part of the goal which will be the objectives and goals stated and blamed upon those who claim to not be in the 1 percent or 99 percent. One goal or objective (imho) will be to destroy the TEA as quickly as possible and to represent to the public for the purposes of security Americans must remove individualism and behave as a collective. This is being portrayed as choose a side time. I choose to stand outside, in the cold, and against the wind. Should I have to stand against the onset of violence, I shall stand there till I am forced to return fire after having been fired upon. Till that time, I shall vote. Should violence become the way of the land, I shall stand with my family, children, and grandchildren, and will kneel to pray more often.

Violence is always a bad idea. An equally bad idea would be a Constitutional Convention.

16 posted on 10/09/2011 7:53:38 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen. --> AmeriCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Populism was forever redefined by Jeffrey Bell (a business partner of this columnist) as optimism about people’s ability to manage their own affairs better than an elite can manage them for them. Populism is neither left nor right wing. Populists of all stripes share in common a conviction in “power to the people,” a belief that in a republic “citizen” is the noblest office. And while Lessig and Meckler may disagree about just about every ideological issue, their respect for the wisdom and dignity of the citizens unites them in a realm far more important than the ideological.

"Populism" is in many cases just another word for mobocracy. Much of the structure of our republic is designed to reign in the darker impulses of populist movements.

17 posted on 10/09/2011 7:54:57 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Of the declared candidates: (1) Perry, (2) Cain. I'll happily vote for either if he's the nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

This is why I supported a unified Tea Party as opposed to a vague tea party collective with no structure or accountability. Anyone can call themselves a tea partier and at the same time support the destruction of the Constitution.


18 posted on 10/09/2011 7:57:51 AM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Populist”? That’s a big warning signal to me. We are a constitutional Republic, founded on the recognition of the sovereignty of the individual, and dedicated to the rule of law. Not populism, which in action, is more appropriately equated with democracy and rule of the majority.


19 posted on 10/09/2011 7:58:44 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Meckler? Never heard of him and sure as hell didn’t vote for him.

Party who lay down with Harvard dogs wake up with pee in Tea Cup.


20 posted on 10/09/2011 8:01:21 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magooey
I don't see how a ConCon could be limited to a few specific issues.

It can't. What comes out might not in any way resemble the current Constitution.

Which is why, especially now, a Constitutional Convention would be incredibly dangerous to the Republic.

21 posted on 10/09/2011 8:01:28 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Yes, what he said.


22 posted on 10/09/2011 8:01:28 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
A ConCon would be a fatal mistake.

I agree with you completely. The dangers of such an undertaking in the present circumstances cannot be overestimated.

In truth, we do not need to recreate our Constitution: we need to abide by it.

23 posted on 10/09/2011 8:01:49 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Garbage in, garbage out.

Clearly both of them have missed the essence of the problem, which is that the federal government has strayed from its legitimate purpose of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Coercing people into being subjected to ‘universal health care’ is not at all the business of the federal government. Looting the wealth of half of the citizens in order to hand out freebies to the other half is not at all the business of the federal government.

It’s crystal clear to many of us. Guess that you need to be a Harvard professor or a self-annointed tea party leader to be so easily confused...


24 posted on 10/09/2011 8:08:57 AM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

Amen.


25 posted on 10/09/2011 8:14:57 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We don't need a new constitution.

We just need to abide by the original intent of the one we've got.

Meaning the federal government gets gutted back to its original enumerated powers.

26 posted on 10/09/2011 8:17:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As others have intimated.....WHAT is WRONG with the CONSTITUTION WE HAVE?????
27 posted on 10/09/2011 8:25:42 AM PDT by goodnesswins (My Kid/Grandkids are NOT your ATM, liberals! (Sarah Palin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This stinks so bad I can smell it here from OZ - beware Soclialists bearing gifts!


28 posted on 10/09/2011 8:25:49 AM PDT by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
A ConCon would be a fatal mistake. No matter how it started, it would be hijacked by union thugs and and socialists. At the end, we would have a “constitution” like that of the old USSR, complete with a “right to a job” and the “fair” distribution of wealth.

We have nothing to fear from a "hijacked convention". Whatever comes out of the convention must still be ratified by the states.

Bring on ConCon!

29 posted on 10/09/2011 8:28:30 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We don't need a new Constitution. We have one that is perfect...and is not being followed.
30 posted on 10/09/2011 8:37:58 AM PDT by ponygirl (People are calling our President the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers; that's not allowed is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
I stopped reading the article here:

Elena Kagan (then Harvard Law School Dean, now U.S. Supreme Court Justice) once said, “Larry Lessig is one of the most brilliant and important legal scholars of our time…. His work has recast the very terms of discussion and debate in multiple areas of law, ranging from intellectual property to constitutional theory. His new focus on questions of governance and corruption will be similarly transformative.”

The Liberals are trying to control the masses through propaganda and staged "bipartisanship."

A TRUE TEA Party Conservative would eschew the idea of a ConCon. Enforce it the way it is, and a lot of our problems go away overnight.

31 posted on 10/09/2011 8:42:07 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Harvard Elite Writing New Constitution- with the Tea Party

what, declaring it an enemy of the state?

32 posted on 10/09/2011 8:45:54 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof. ~ James Madison, quoting at length from Article V.

What makes you think that some socialist claptrap of a constitution would have the slightest chances of being ratified by three-quarters of the states? This argument is a straw man.

33 posted on 10/09/2011 8:46:50 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
There is no "Tea Party" for them to collaborate with.

There are only people they can pretend represent the "Tea Party."

34 posted on 10/09/2011 8:58:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79
What makes you think that some socialist claptrap of a constitution would have the slightest chances of being ratified by three-quarters of the states? This argument is a straw man.

Try that again. If they get the 38 to have a convention, what makes you think it won't? If 38 states think the current Constitution is unworkable, that's three fourths. Otherwise, Amend the one we have--and FOLLOW IT!

Like one obamaidiot told me as he bragged about voting for Obama, "We needed change".

There are still a significant number of people who still don't get it, and well over three fourths who don't have a clue about "freedom".

35 posted on 10/09/2011 9:09:04 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EBH

How many “Tea Parties” are there?


36 posted on 10/09/2011 9:10:29 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

God guided the hands and thoughts of the Founders. Are there even men of their caliber around now? We need to follow the original not try to replace it.


37 posted on 10/09/2011 9:20:39 AM PDT by Himyar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

“A ConCon would be a fatal mistake.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Few are able to write a short, concise sentence, totally clear in meaning and allowing for no possibility of error. Congratulations, you did it. Anyone who disagrees simply does NOT understand the issue.


38 posted on 10/09/2011 9:33:37 AM PDT by RipSawyer ("IDIOCRACY" is a documentary of current conditions in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

William F. Buckley, Jr.

39 posted on 10/09/2011 9:36:37 AM PDT by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

There have been threads on this subject in the past and my quarrel with the idea of a convention is that we don’t abide by what we have now so why write something which will almost certainly not be as good as what we have and which won’t be followed anyway. Most of the proposed amendments amount to writing more constitutional law requiring that the existing constitution should be followed. It is like a physician writing a prescription calling for the patient to take the same medicine he has already prescribed but the patient refused to take it.

In my opinion the original constitution was imperfect as are all human efforts but it was written by some of the greatest thinkers of all time and there is little or no chance that we will improve on it greatly.


40 posted on 10/09/2011 9:43:24 AM PDT by RipSawyer ("IDIOCRACY" is a documentary of current conditions in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

ditto.

updating the u.s. constitution has been on the laundry list of to-do’s by leftists since i was in college.


41 posted on 10/09/2011 10:00:27 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I hope Meckler doesn 't get sucked in by this hoax. The tip-off to the fraudulent intent of the leftwing sociopath from Harvard is the focus on "all this money corrupting the political process."

If you want to keep money from corrupting the process, without terminating First Amendment rights, reduce government meddling and gratuitous regulations to the bare bones minimum necessary to maintain good civil order. If special interest money can't buy regulatory favors, including enabling legislation, it won't be there for long.

That is the key to solving the distortion caused by huge moneys, but I guarantee the Harvard leftwinger won't touch that idea with a ten foot pole.

42 posted on 10/09/2011 11:21:45 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79
Ratified by the states, in very hazily-defined state ratifying conventions, which could be ginned up over night by the same MoveOn crowd that ginned up the Con Con in the first place.

Sure, half of the country wouldn't accept its validity, and there would be a Civil War.

Actually, that's the plot of my third novel.

Here is a long excerpt, giving a fictional take on the dire aftermath of a runaway ConCon.

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/FESP.htm

43 posted on 10/09/2011 11:22:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

Thanks.


44 posted on 10/09/2011 11:23:23 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79
What makes you think that some socialist claptrap of a constitution would have the slightest chances of being ratified by three-quarters of the states? This argument is a straw man.

Oh, I dunno. Read Amendments XVI, XVII, and XVIII to see what claptrap has already been duly ratified during a "progressive era."

45 posted on 10/09/2011 11:30:34 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
There is a strong strain of class warfare on the right too, not just the left.

Obama took advantage of that sentiment in red states last election.

Be careful of any force which would cut off credit...thus ending the capitalist system. That includes class warfare on the right as well.

46 posted on 10/09/2011 11:49:12 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue
Yes, what he said.

Yeah, what I said, except with the substitution of "rein" for "reign". :-)

47 posted on 10/09/2011 1:00:14 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Of the declared candidates: (1) Perry, (2) Cain. I'll happily vote for either if he's the nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EBH
If FREEPERS don't know who this is or what groups are ‘representing’ the TEA Party...it is propaganda. Pure evil propaganda.

One problem I have with some of the Tea Party groups is that some were setup and controlled by libertarians and that is worrisome.
48 posted on 10/09/2011 1:02:38 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Unless there was a full coup I’m unaware of, this sounds like an academic exercise. Our current Constitution has an amendment process, there’s no need to rewrite anything.

Stupid story.


49 posted on 10/09/2011 1:05:14 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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