Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention?

LessonPlanPage.com ^ | 1/25/2006 | Andrew Costly

[tpaine]

Millions of your peers agree, once a law is on the books it's 'the law', regardless of Constitutionality.

So it goes on the road to serfdom. -- Fortunately, the majorities will does not rule in our free republic.

[ml/nj]

Yep, sure is. d'Toqueville wrote in the mid-19th Century. We are now in the latter half of the first decade of the 21st Century. Just in case it slipped your notice, there have been vast changes throughout the world in between his time and ours. Also just in case it slipped your notice, human events move forward into the future. Until someone invents a workable time machine, going backwards is not possible. We must live in the here and now, and work toward the future.

Did you write this, or are you quoting Hillary?

It sounds to me as if you believe in the "Living Constitution," as opposed to the one that James Madison fathered. I don't. All you folks who want to change the Constitution because times have changed might try amending it. But the shift in power from the States to the massive bureaucracy in Washington has nothing to to with time. It has only to do with power.

Maybe I'm just lost but I'm getting the sense that maybe FR is morphing into DU.

ML/NJ

[Centurion2000]

Excellent sub-article Billybob. Learned quite a bit from it. thanks.

[bcsco]

"Millions of your peers agree, once a law is on the books it's 'the law', regardless of Constitutionality."

Exactly where did I state a law couldn't be changed or repealed? I don't believe I did.

What I did state is that repealing improper or unconstitutional law is the responsibility of every American and we must 'redress our grievances'. That means we must take it upon ourselves to insure the Constitution is upheld.

In keeping with this, if the majority's will does not rule in our free Republic, a good deal of the fault lies with the majority. Read 'silent majority' into this; that's a great part of our problem.

In any event, it's obvious we have some disagreement on this issue. I suggest we let it go at that.

[MileHi]

I'm not talking about any major changes but some minor changes (congress may not consider it minor! LOL)

Then you need an amendment. A CC puts the whole enchilada up for grabs.

[tpaine]

bcsco wrote:

"-- we must take it upon ourselves to insure the Constitution is upheld. --"

Exactly my original point to you. -- we must insist that the Constitutions 2nd is strictly upheld.

In any event, it's obvious we have some disagreement on this issue. I suggest we let it go at that.

Sorry, but I can't agree that "-- state registration and licensing --" laws are necessary.

[Wolfstar]

It sounds to me as if you believe in the "Living Constitution"

You are confusing -- or perhaps deliberately igonring -- the difference between the Constitution and the different eras in which d'Toqueville lived and we now live.

As for the Constitution, I in no way see it in the Leftist sense as a "living document." I do not want to change the Constitution because times have changed.

But the shift in power from the States to the massive bureaucracy in Washington has nothing to to with time. It has only to do with power.

I agree with you to a considerable degree on this point, and would only say that the political currents in different eras in which various federal power grabs occurred made those power grabs possible. In order to go back to even a semblance of the Constitutional Republic as it existed before the Civil War, we would have to begin by restoring the appropriate relationship between the states and the federal government, eliminating the income tax, and eliminating direct election of U.S. senators. We also need to get the courts to retore the proper meaning of the commerce clause. That's just for starters.

If you know how to do it, let me know. Otherwise, we have no choice but to deal with the situation as we find it in our own time. Dreaming mistily of an era that is not going to ever come again is pointless.

[Wolfstar]

The Supreme Court has ruled, and the sheeple have accepted the notion, that the Senatorial model is unconsitutional. (It violates "one man, one vote" which is mysterioulsy missing in my copy of the COnstitution.)

I still don't know what you're talking about here. Instead of resorting to snarky responses, educate me.