Harvard Elite Writing New Constitution- with the Tea Party

Townhall.com ^ | October 9, 2011 | Ralph Benko

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[SuzyQue]

Yes, what he said.

[andy58-in-nh]

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.

[Zeppo]

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...

[Travis McGee]

Amen.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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.

[goodnesswins]

As others have intimated.....WHAT is WRONG with the CONSTITUTION WE HAVE?????

[melsec]

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

[Spartan79]

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!

[ponygirl]

We don't need a new Constitution. We have one that is perfect...and is not being followed.

[rarestia]

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.

[the invisib1e hand]

Harvard Elite Writing New Constitution- with the Tea Party

what, declaring it an enemy of the state?

[Spartan79]

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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

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

[Smokin' Joe]

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".

[lonestar]

How many “Tea Parties” are there?

[Himyar]

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.

[RipSawyer]

“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.

[mewzilla]

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.

[RipSawyer]

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.