Hope you feel better soon!
Posted on 03/28/2019 4:17:32 AM PDT by cotton1706
You’re wrong about the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to keep and bear arms in its 2008 Heller decision.
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned as soon as RBG or Breyer come off the Supreme Court.
The PROPOSED amendments that now have a chance of enough support are conservative and deal with peacetime balancing of the budget, term limits, recall of US Senators. There os no wiggle room in any of these proposed amendments for liberals to play games with word definitions. The conservative state legislators who are writing conforming language for the states are well aware of past abuses. There will be no twisting of meanings and intents. For example, there is no possibility to alter the meaning of a ‘three-term’ limitation for US Senators.
Let’s roll,
This process is moving too slowly.
> “You act like CA, NY and the entire east coast and pac NW do not exist.”
CA, NY, WA, and OR are not needed. ID is conservative and will sign on.
The process is not a population process, it is a state process; big difference. Liberals do not control enough states even by a long shot to have the power to amend the Constitution else they would have done it already. They don’t have the power, this is a vulnerability to them and they know it, hence why they constantly send shills out to fearmonger among conservatives. You are doing their bidding.
So there is precedent for a Constitutional Convention going beyond its limited original authority to propose, and get the states to adopt, a whole new Constitution. "It is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission."
Effectively, anything can happen at a Constitutional Convention. The states will then determine what parts of its proposals they adopt, if any.
It might help your case, even a little bit, to use the appropriate terminology.
A COS is an Amendments Convention. It’s sole purpose is to propose Constitutional amendments to the CURRENT Constitution.
A Constitutional Convention’s purpose might be to propose a brand new Constitution.
None of the COS-minded folks I’m aware of here at FR or elsewhere are considering anything like the latter Constitutional Convention.
You are so cute I could pat you on you naive little head.
When the CS is held it is to rewrite the entire constitution.
When the states with the financial centers and population do not get their way THEY WILL TAKE THEIR BALL AND GO HOME.
It wont even be a CW since the CS is to recreate the government itself.
I am not doing anyone’s bidding. I am pointing out the Real World to you Pollyannas.
If ANY convention called to amend or replace the Constitution choses to replace the whole thing, and 3/4 of the states ratify that, we get a replacement Constitution. That is what happened in 1787 and it can happen again. 3/4 of the states can do anything they want with the Constitution.
Lawyers and reality do not coincide. I was a civil litigator for forty years.
Yay!!!!
By your logic, a COS cannot do any harm.
Do these have to be completed in the same year? And do they have to be exact language?
Exact language? Should be close enough to count as the same intent.
How about you kiss my fundament?
And while you’re doing that, ESAD.
Too many equate a COS with Congress. Poor comparison.
The best comparison to a COS today is the Electoral college. Both are federal institutions.
The Articles of Confederation (AOC) were never intended to be permanent, never. History records the Founders saying the AOC needed to be revamped because the central government was too weak. This was known throughout the interim years 1781 through 1787.
As delegates were chosen there was a clear understanding that the 1787 convention was a Constitutional Convention and not merely a convention to propose amendments to the inadequate Articles of Confederation.
Delegates were instructed to bring their arguments for general changes as well as amendments.
The Bill of Rights is entirely a series of amendments to the new constitutional framework. But they were also brought to amend the AOC if necessary. The Bill of Rights was destined to be proposed regardless of the outcome of the 1787 convention. At the convention, the Bill of Rights was tightened up to address the emerging stronger central government document.
So delegates came with both amendments and arguments to strengthen central government but not all were on board with how a strong central government would be established and some were of the mind that if the power of a proposed central government was not checked nor balanced with the states, they would do nothing more than propose amendments to the AOC.
The outcome of the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a stronger centralized government but only on condition that states retained powers through the Senate and the People retained rights through a series of amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
In 1913 the 17th Amendment was in a series of the 16th, 17th, 18th Amendments. This was the beginning of the Progressive Era and all these amendments were highly controversial The 18th was so controversial and counterproductive that it was repealed with an amendment. The 17th on the other hand effectively extinguished state representation in Congress and the result after 100 years of its operation has been a massive concentration of power to the DC Swamp. But these were NOT conservative amendments, they were progressive. The DC Swamp will never propose amendments that give states and people back their representation and freedom. The Swamp will never willingly transfer power out to the states and the People.
The Founder Colonel George Mason of Virginia foresaw the Swamp emerging with a class of individuals thinking they were a landed gentry, a titled aristocracy. He saw it because it had already reared its head in Virginia and other colonies. So he insisted that state legislatures be written into the Article V process to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Today the amendments are in the hands of solidly conservative state legislators and progressives don’t like it with the same intensity they dislike the fact that President Trump has the power to appoint up to two more conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. As long as conservatives are in control, they should exercise their Article V powers because the DC Swamp will never clean itself up, never.
Progressives had their chance, they failed.
Conservatives are now in control.
This is the Conservative Era.
It is a convention of states, NOT a con-con.
The Badger Herald writer Matt O’Connor got it wrong.
So many ‘journalists’ these days are C students with mediocre minds. They hang out at cafes and pubs, banter about and bring street-level misunderstandings into the office and spew half-baked garbage onto the keyboard under the pressure of an editorial deadline.
And for poor Matt, his chosen vocation is dying.
Here’s where you need to read:
https://conventionofstates.com/category/objections
All need to get educated and aware. Read this and pass it on:
Hope you feel better soon!
I feel just fine. Go have a constitutional convention or something, asshole.
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.