Posted on 02/11/2004 6:44:13 AM PST by Valin
We will be heard.
And we’re even beginning the process of looking at one final option.
It hasn’t been used in 215 years. Until now, it wasn’t necessary.
It’s buried in the Constitution’s Article Five, which authorizes the people to convene a Constitutional Convention . . . and seize freedom again.
So, if there is no other way, we will demand a Constitutional Convention.
I have serious reservations about a Constitutional Convention. Anything can be done, any liberty guaranteed under the Constituton - or the whole Constitution itself - can be gutted or eliminated. Does anyone really trust a bunch of politicians to keep the 2nd Amendment, or to strengthen it? Not me.
Oh, and what if the Con Con option fails, and nowhere near 33 states ratify the resolution? At that point, what's Wayne going to say?
...the time has come to look at every option. We will be heard.
It hasn’t been used in 229 years.
Until now, it wasn’t necessary.
It’s buried in the Constitution’s Amendment #2, which protects the means of the people to seize freedom again.
So, if there is no other way...
No. Article 5 says that if 2/3 of the state legislatures apply for a Con Con, then it comes into existence. The DC folks have nothing whatsoever to do with the process. In fact, in the Con Con, they aren't there - it is just the delegations chosen by the state legislatures. If 3/4 of them ratify the changes, then the Constitution is changed - period, without a single vote or debate in Congress.
The last bastion of freedom in this country is the gun so if the fed gov ignores or over rides the demands of the citizens in a CC supported by 33 states, is the will there to force the issue?
33 states is 66%, not quite the 2/3 needed. My earlier reference to it echoed La Pierre's - he said that when 33 states call for a Con Con, then Congress will act to do whatever it is that caused 33 state legislatures to vote that way. Congress would act then because it would HAVE to or face being made irrelevant.
As to "forcing the issue," I don't think that if 34 states called for a Con Con that there would even BE an issue - it would just take place. The Fed.gov would face an immediate revolution (I could see most/all of the 34+ governors calling out their respective National Guards, for example) if it tried to stop it, and I don't think that most leaders in the military would give a second thought to the idea of obeying such orders. Any that did would likely get fragged.
Uh, I wasn't recommending the course of action that you seem to think that I was. I was merely speculating about the contents of Wayne's next speech IF the course of action he specified above failed to achieve the desired results.
IOW, you are just supposed to shutupandtakeit. Well, I swored to "support and defend" and I will do that and I won't shut up.
IOW, you are just supposed to shutupandtakeit. Well, I swored to "support and defend" and I will do that and I won't shut up.
IOW, you are just supposed to shutupandtakeit. Well, I swore to "support and defend" and I will do that and I won't shut up.
Exactly my point in Post #3. I'm not in favor of a C-C; in my bones, I see a real push to eliminate firearms ownership entirely, by tying it to something like hunting or sport at the Constitutional level, and also by giving Congress the right to "reasonably regulate" it. We'd then see exactly why the FF's put the 2nd into the BOR in the first place.
And the 1912 example is not reassuring. The resulting 17th amendment basically took away all the direct voice the states had in the Federal Congress, coupled with the 16th amendment, it greatly expanded federal power, leading directly, although through the "new deal", to the out of control behemouth we have in DC today.
This article brought to mind an article that Michael Kelly wrote a couple of years ago that I have saved on my hard drive in which he wrote:
The good news about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which passed the Senate this week by a vote of 59-41, is that it is at its heart such an insane measure that it will never be the law of the land. The courts will gut McCain-Feingold from stem to stern, and hurrah for that …. The court will -- any court would -- view McCain-Feingold for what it is: an insupportable, blatantly unconstitutional assault on the rights to speak and associate freely.
Kelly, as usual, was right about the bill …. but, in this case, he overestimated the integrity of the court. I sent him a brief note after reading his column, telling him that I didn’t have as much faith in the court as he did, but that I hoped and prayed that his optimism was justified, because this bill represented a major assault on the First Amendment. He wrote back, and said that we could compare notes, and one of us could issue an ‘I told you so,’ once the court rendered its eventual decision. (Michael Kelly was the first American journalist to be killed in Iraq in April of last year. He didn’t live to see the Supreme Court hand down their judicial abomination.)
In the article above, LaPierre (whom I also admire) hit the nail square on the head in this observation:
By every measure, the debate over lawful gun ownership should be over. But the liberals, like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, still want your guns. The United Nations wants to take away your guns..
Most of us here on this forum know that gun control laws have nothing to do with the desire to deter crime. They have nothing to do with the desire to save us all (the children, especially) from trigger-happy gun owners who are irresponsible in the use or storage of their firearms.
The purpose of gun control laws (in the smaller scheme) is to disarm the populace, so that (in the larger scheme) the boundaries of sovereign nations can be erased, and the elite who best know how, and if, we all should live, can create their long sought after utopia. The Founders wrote volumes on the requisite safety represented by an armed populace, and the dangers inherent in a government that does not want its people to be armed.
The McCain-Feingold bill spits on the most important amendment of the Constitution. Somehow I can’t help but wonder how Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and O’Connor would have voted in Dred Scott. Let’s just hope that McCain Feingold someday suffers the same fate.
I applaud almost everything that LaPierre expresses here, with one exception. I don’t share his call to convene a Constitutional convention. Theoretically, a Constitutional convention is desirable in that it allows the states to presumably attempt to hold congress accountable for its atrocities against the Constitution, and to strengthen the states’ authority under the (ever more ignored) Tenth Amendment.
All that sounds well and good, especially in the current political climate. But historical precedence indicates otherwise. The 1912 call for a convention, which came so close to garnering the required number of states, resulted in the atrocity known as the 17th Amendment. The historical reasons for pushes to convene a convention have generally been good ones, philosophically, although not necessarily focused on issues that should trigger an amendment (prohibiting bussing for racial balance, restoring prayer in school, permitting the states to have laws making abortion illegal, balancing the federal budget). But I have always been afraid that calling a Constitutional convention would amount to placing the Constitution (the most magnificent blueprint ever devised for the governance of man) back on the drawing board and opening it up for revision by modern-day special interest groups that have no conception of the magnificence of the Founders’ vision, and little interest in the general concept of what’s best for America.
I am also fearful of that because Article V does not in any way delineate what a constitutional convention may or may not do, a convention could be called in order to address the passage of one potentially good amendment, and it could be waylaid, forcing the delegates to consider any number of other amendments (waylaying is one of the favorite pastimes of leftist activists, so, considering the left’s penchant for Constitutional distortion, I have an almost paranoid aversion to the unlocking of a Constitutional Pandora’s box). As good as a Constitutional convention sounds on paper, and as noble as the Founders’ motives were in penning Article V, I’m not in favor of allowing the leftist camel’s nose into that particular sacred tent. Not yet, at least.
Our Supreme Court (or at least a majority of the nine justices) committed a grave crime against the Constitution with their recent reliance on international laws and standards in handing down decisions (something the Founders would have considered inconceivable, considering their inordinate emphasis on America’s national sovereignty). And, in McCain Feingold, the Court’s arrogant unwillingness to revere the First Amendment of the document they are charged to uphold is serving as the most obvious example of not only the tyranny, but the malevolence, of our judicial system .... on all levels.
~ joanie
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.