Posted on 06/26/2015 2:15:23 PM PDT by cotton1706
What would U.S. law be like without the Bill of Rights? Had a convention of the states not taken place in 1789, the Bill of rights would not exist. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s latest controversial decision on the Affordable Care Act, such a convention is one goal small-government supporters hope to meet.
Radio host and author Mark Levin has repeatedly advocated for a convention of the states. Now Levin has an ally in former U.S. senator Dr. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., well known in the Senate and blogosphere as the author of an annual report on wasted federal tax dollars.
The call made its way into the grassroots, with activists on social media advocating for a convention. More than 40,000 people follow the Convention of States feed on Twitter. On Facebook, the COS page has 348,000 supporters. States may also be keen on the idea, with 36 state legislatures introducing resolutions to hold a convention.
Coburn penned an opinion column in the May issue of the Ripon Forum magazine (print) to explain why he believes every presidential candidate should be asked a question during the campaigns: Do you support the Convention of the States?
If enough states act, a convention would be one means for reformers to rein in the reach of the federal government. Because the U.S. Constitution provides a means to hold one, doing so could help return the country to its roots of limited federal powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
An Article 5 convention would not permit the writing of a new Constitution - it is only for the purpose of proposing amendments to the existing Constitution. Each of those amendments would still have to be ratified by 38 states.
You need to listen and learn a little before engaging whatever it is you have between your ears.
Start here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304160/posts
> “An Article 5 convention would not permit the writing of a new Constitution - it is only for the purpose of proposing amendments to the existing Constitution. Each of those amendments would still have to be ratified by 38 states.”
I have to give credit to CA Conservative, he got that spot on.
Can't wait til SCOTUS twists and perverts them to mean whatever THEY want them to mean!
Sad that you feel a need to jump to insults. But nothing in the link (to your own vanity post, btw) addresses or negates my basic point in any way.
Not this sh*t again. YES! Let the Marxists re-write the Constitution. I would foresee a slew of proposed amendments coming out of a convention, just like 12 issued from the First Congress. Just like then, whichever of them can muster ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures become part of the Constitution, like 10 of the 12 became the Bill of Rights. If 3/4 of the states want Marxist amendments, I’m cool with that, but I don’t think that would happen. I mean really, all three branches rewrite the Constitution to fit their leftist and corporatist whims already, so what are you afraid of?
About the only good I can see coming out of these outrageous rulings is more support for Article V. Jefferson himself was worried about the Court of Supreme Whim . It's about time something was done to make sure that corrupted court no longer has the final word. To those who say "The Constitution is already good, just follow it", I say it's not the same as it was in 1789. It's been amended many times since and many of those additions have been toxic. Time to undue the damage.
Ideally one or at most two amendments should cover the whole problem.LOL! If you want someone to jump on board with that, you might want to identify what "the whole problem" is.
-PJ
Name a people from any time in history who convened to enslave themselves.
You don’t have a point. You have a recipe for disaster, a game plan for losing.
There’s no way you would read through that link so fast.
The electorate is not as important in the Article V process as are the elected state legislators; they call the shots.
Right now the leaders of the Article V movement are drafting procedures and amendments for legislators to review and support so that they don’t all show up for a meeting and engage in chaos. The Article V meeting aka Convention of States will be orderly and focused. They are not going to engage in a plethora of amendments period. They are going to officially record their votes to propose the pre-approved amendments and then it goes off to ratification.
One of the criterion for amendments is to select ones that cover the most ground.
Your idea of groups and groups of amendments is a non-starter - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
There are so many factual inaccuracies in this article that I question whether it should have been posted ta all.
-PJ
Do you expect it to formally grant the lawmaking, treaty making, spending powers that congress has unconstitutionally punted to El Presidente?
Is it twistable?
-PJ
Republicans in 2014???
An Article 5 convention would not permit the writing of a new Constitution - it is only for the purpose of proposing amendments to the existing Constitution.Yea, that's how it get's rewritten. For example the 18th was repealed (rewritten) by the 21st.
They could propose new amendments to clarify the language of the first and or the 2nd.. I dare say that WILL be on the agenda of some.
If I can't point to the utter BS they have used TWICE to twist obolacare, then I'm afraid you aren't interested in true debate. Gruber himself said that states that didn't create exchanges wouldn't qualify for subsidies, the law itself is pretty damn clear, and others said it too (Kathleen Superdumba$$, IIRC).
The point is, I don't know how they will, but they will, just as they continue to do with obolacare and deviant marriage. It WILL happen. Common sense backs the historical data up.
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.