Posted on 04/26/2011 8:02:25 AM PDT by David DeGerolamo
Oh for pete’s sake mr blogpimp. The court is merely waiting for the circuit courts to bubble it up. It’s not the end of the world.
The federal government has been using that clause to regulate every last thing. And that's not what the founders intended.
Of course, there would be danger in calling a Convention. Who knows what else my come out of it. But with the feds so all-powerfil now, it might be worth the risk.
You have posted your blog in the wrong forum. This is the news/activism forum.
You need to post your blog posts in the Bloggers forums. TO do otherwise is poor form and annoys a LOT of good FReepers, as you are finding out.
Thank you.
Oh, no danger at all! After all the work to try to push back on the liberal tide of "it's a living document," by all means! Let's call a convention to rewrite the whole damn thing with good "modern" ideas "more representative" and "relevant" to modern society. Human rights for all, and free housing and healthcare is surely a human right, right? Gaia would get human rights. Corporations and profit would probably be ruled unconstitutional subsequent to a rewrite.
A Constitutional convention in 1876 might have made sense, or maybe even 1986...but today? Dumbest idea ever.
I would normally agree with you except for two points:
1. Major corporations are now paying billions of dollars into prepaying this system which does impact our economy.
2. If there was ever a time for the Supreme Court to be proactive, this is it. Legislation that is unconstitutional ,exempts certain companies from participating and mandates that people purchase insurance at the risk of fines or jail is something that should have already been adjudicated.
Not only are you “pimping” your blog, your article is flat out wrong. Yeah, really makes me want to visit your blog if the rest of your stuff is this inaccurate. All they did was decline to fast track the case.
It all depends on who is doing the re-writing! If we can get a solid majority of conservatives in the statehouses, it is an option worth considering, IMHO.
You talk of “all the work to try to push back the liberal tide.” Sure, we have won some victories. But all the while the federal government has gotten stronger and more intrusive. So in the long run, what have we gained?
See my reply to Sam Paine
If I wanted to pimp my blog, I would have put an excerpt.
I guess you told us.
IBTZ Blog Pimp!
Abso-friggin-lutley not.
Nice. First reply said exactly what I was thinking as I read the headline.
Conventions cannot ratify amendments. They can only propose them. So regardless of what comes out of a Convention, it is still not certain an amendment would be ratified. Considering the GOP dominance of state legislatures (and Dems at the state level can be more conservative in many states), having something really bad added to the Constitution would not be easy. our Founders were very wise in how they set things 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.