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

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Convention Question's

Posted on 01/12/2013 2:32:13 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave

Constitutional Convention Question's

Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:

Constitutional Convention Question's

Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?

What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past:Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“

Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.

A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.

Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.

I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.

Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.

Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.

You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."

Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????

Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."

Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"

Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.

What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.

An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

1 posted on 01/12/2013 2:32:23 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
I see no purpose in opening up a Constitutional Convention to debate the merits/demerits of anything. While the opening purpose could possibly be advertised to be limited-scope, there would be nothing stopping a preponderance of attendees to open up the slate to include a number of things.

We don't have to stop them at a CC from starting the process of doing away with the Second Amendment; they are already trying to do that without a CC. It takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment as well as 2/3 of Congress IIRC......they don't have that and won't get it from the states, anyway.

The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession.

2 posted on 01/12/2013 2:43:34 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
A con con would be the end of the USA as a free nation.

It is the underlying principles of our Constitution which make it valuable, and they are the same principles that liberals hate.

3 posted on 01/12/2013 2:47:34 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
...Question's

Death to all misplaced apostrophes!!

4 posted on 01/12/2013 3:14:30 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Fifty years ago...you would have been able to open up a Constitutional Convention and maybe accomplished two or three significant changes (within a four week period of discussion and debate).

Today? There were be over two hundred agenda items and the Constitutional Convention would go well past 200 days...with almost nothing accomplished. Special interest groups would control the media attention on this and leave everyone in a daze each evening as they spelled out the daily non-accomplishments in various minute-by-minute analysis. The political parties know this and simply wouldn’t waste the time to even such an event today.


5 posted on 01/12/2013 3:21:18 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

I dont know if youre wrong on your analysis, but youre sure wrong on your apostrophes.


6 posted on 01/12/2013 3:24:10 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

We’re talking about an Article V convention. Here are the rules:

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;


At this point,getting three fourths of state legislatures to agree on anything is impossible. We’re too far divided. Conservatives and patriots control about 30 states. We would need 8 more states to do something meaningful at CC.


7 posted on 01/12/2013 4:30:19 AM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Half of this country has ceased following the Consitution. More words on paper will not limit their actions.


8 posted on 01/12/2013 4:39:09 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession.

As a dedicated pacifist (an armed pacifist - I will have peace even if an armed thug attempts to disturb my peace), I strongly approve of your proposed final amendment. I cannot imagine anything that would more effectively minimize the danger of another civil war than to create a mechanism by which states can peaceably sever the bonds that unite us in law, although not in fact. The logistics of secession may be awkward, but they are not insurmountable. The difficulties are far less than those involved in being ruled by 51% of the country, when they are voting to ignore our God-given rights. Peaceful secession is probably the best possible outcome for the Texans, Idahoans, Southerners, Alaskans, and other Americans in free states. If any decent state seceded, I would leave my People's Republic immediately and move there - if they would take a productive foreigner.

9 posted on 01/12/2013 5:33:17 AM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

A big problem with any ConCon today is lack of virtue. The members of any ConCon would be much less homogenous than the one of the 1780’s. Back then, they were more or less on the same page, and for individual liberty and individual property rights. The ConCon that would materialize today would have significant numbers of advocates for things like Agenda-21, central planning, weakening the Constitution in EVERY way possible. There would be some men/woman of virtue for sure, but I do not believe that society today could even produce anything like the Declaration or Constitution, let alone improve on the it.


10 posted on 01/12/2013 5:45:41 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“...Question’s
Death to all misplaced apostrophes!!”

I think Life Imprisonment for all offenders would be enough.

I really wonder about the education of some people....


11 posted on 01/12/2013 5:57:31 AM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

“The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession. “

Odd that you should mention that. This is what I got back from that ever transparent site wh.gov—petitions, along with a missive about how educated our LIAR in Chief is about the Constitution.

Petition Response: Our States Remain United

By Jon Carson, Director of the Office of Public Engagement

Thank you for using the White House’s online petitions platform to participate in your government.

In a nation of 300 million people — each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs — democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that’s a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.

But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States “in order to form a more perfect union” through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot — a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, “in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.” In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that “[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”

Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people” — all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.

So let’s be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, “We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future.”


12 posted on 01/12/2013 6:14:44 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
Actually, this is for anyone interested.

It would be impossible to bind a CC to a particular agenda, just as it’s impossible for a prior Congress to thus bind a future.

Constitutional amendments however are a way forward. A repeal of the 16th ‘Amendment’, replacing it with a flat- rate income tax provision, with a second clause that also bans any federal sales tax, wouldn’t that be good?

Another amendment that specifies that only natural persons can have rights and obligations would also be useful. That could limit the ridiculous nonsense of courts pretending that corporations are persons.

Or how about yet another amendment that specifies that the annual gross profits of any collective entity (corporations etc.) doing business in the USA must be distributed to all their stakeholders and stockholders before the last day of January of each year? (Profits may be calculated and distributed according to any plan, so long as all such gross profits are distributed before that end-date.) Starve the monster, but feed the investors and employees. (No more corporate hoarding...)

13 posted on 01/12/2013 6:20:25 AM PST by EnigmaPrime (Starve the monster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nabber
I think Life Imprisonment for all offenders would be enough.

Oh, I mean no harm to the offenders. Just their misplaced apostrophes!!

LOL

14 posted on 01/12/2013 8:26:41 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

We’re all sitting here worrying about Obummer side-stepping the Constitution, yet again, with yet another of his hideous Executive Orders (this time over gun laws). We all know the Constitution is being dismissed by some as irrelevant, and some few commentators are even calling for its repeal.

With our foundational document under vicious attack from all sides, why are we afraid of a Constitutional Convention? The worst that could happen is to continue on the anti-Constitution path our government is on right now!

The way I understand Article V, the Framers gave us TWO options for amending the Constitution — WITH the approval of Congress, or WITHOUT it. If the Congress won’t make needed amendments (Term Limits springs instantly to mind) then the States may do so in spite of them. The ratification requirements are the same for either option — three-fourths of the states must approve the new amendment, whether by state Legislature or by state Convention.

And if the Convention proposes something terrible and stupid, and three-fourths of our sibling states ratify it, then hey ... we’ll all have to accept it. I’m sure a lot of people weren’t happy with Prohibition, but enough states were in support for that mistake to become law. We could give imperial powers to our chief executive, or ban all children, or forbid the burning of petroleum or mandate that all people must eat broccoli twice a day, if three-fourths of the states allow such amendments. That’s how our system works, but I’ve got enough faith in my fellow citizens not to worry about such foolishness.

Article V clearly allows us to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” and that pretty much limits its functions, IMHO. We would all be watching such a Convention pretty damn closely, so any attempt to “go off the tracks” would result in a howl so loud that even the selectively deaf MSM couldn’t hide the roar. (For our peace of mind, perhaps each state could provide a 100-member militia contingent to surround the meeting place ... with lots of rope ... just sayin’.)

Congress is useless. The current White House occupant is worse than useless.

The Several States need to fix this mess, and I think a Constitution Convention, with a firm agenda agreed upon in advance, is the best way to get something worthwhile done.


15 posted on 01/12/2013 8:46:35 AM PST by DNME (Without the Constitution, there is no legitimate U.S. government. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Actually, I don’t think that the WH response from some Obama lackey really says much at all about redress other than “we won, you get the hell over it” “If you don’t like it, win an election.”

I am still steadfast and immutable in my opposition to a CC because I know what it would become; just like what the media and polpundits are doing now with their gun-control agendas. I only quipped about the final amendment and “process for secession” as a last ditch hope, but with no real expectation of any reasonable fruition.

The text in the response about founders establishing a permanent this or that is patent BS. No matter how much the people that stole our government, this last election, would like to believe, the secession matter is not settled.

It was ‘settled’ by the victors in a Civil War, but not to satisfaction of and efficacy for all citizens. Winners get to do that. They can keep that status quo as long as they can hold it. Just like Ben Franklin’s remarks about us having a Republic, as long as we can hold onto it.

Our founding fathers seceded from England - it’s called freedom from tyranny and was only successful because of armed revolt. No one in their right mind could envision that a group of God-inspired men so committed would EVER agree with a permanent, non-redressable government. NO ONE -who is sane.

As for the BS comment about THE BARACK’s education on the Constitution, it is not borne of patriot reverence; it is borne from hatred and ancient warrior idioms regarding “knowing one’s enemy.”


16 posted on 01/12/2013 9:02:43 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nabber
To one & ALL of the "apostrophe(s)" or comma police.

I see that your one of the self serving "educated."

So "educated" that you could do a 27 page dissertation on the proper use of "hung" vs "hanged."

So while being so "educated" and failing to even offer maybe a short paragraph or 2 (two) on what you allege to be the proper use of an "apostrophe(s)" or is that a comma?

Your world of such self importance is equal only to some on the low life now found in both places the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate.

I believe, that I succeeded in showing that my thought's and concerns, regarding a CC (Constitutional Convention) are very valid, and with merit. You on the other hand, have proven that a "mind" is a terrible thing to waste. You feel that you know more than other's, but FAIL to share. You sanctimonious piece of *#-!/?

17 posted on 01/12/2013 11:27:20 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

Hey Jackwagon: the plural of “Question” is “Questions”, not “Question’s”. It’s such a basic mistake that it makes people question the rest of your point. I recommend that you don’t do that again.


18 posted on 01/14/2013 6:02:39 AM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nabber
Thank you Nabber, now I know that your part of the "SPELLING POLICE." And to save you and me some time & effort, I'll tell you in advance I can't diagram a sentence, and if before you hopped on your horse, you took the time to look @ the "Time of post{ing}" unlike you, I'm just a mere mortal.

So now having confessed, that I don't have your supernatural power's, and strength. Do take a long walk off a short pier.

19 posted on 01/23/2013 12:18:47 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

Idiot. I’m not in the Spelling Police, I’m in the Punctuation Police....

Your sentence should read: “... now I know that you’re part of the Spelling Police..”, not “..your part...”

Dunce.

Geez, what I have to put up with...


20 posted on 01/25/2013 1:10:02 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

Idiot. I’m not in the Spelling Police, I’m in the Punctuation Police....

Your sentence should read: “... now I know that you’re part of the Spelling Police..”, not “..your part...”

Dunce.

Geez, what I have to put up with...


21 posted on 01/25/2013 1:10:15 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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