Posted on 12/18/2008 10:57:02 AM PST by patriotgal1787
Calling a Con Con is not only wholly unnecessary to the purpose of a balanced federal budget, but will unquestionably result in an outcome as unimaginable to most Americans as it will be lethal to our nation.
The American Policy Center became the Con Con proponents' worst nightmare with Wednesday's Sledgehammer. But they will now be expecting our next salvo, so it is imperative we redouble and greatly expand our efforts to again carry the day. Please do all you can to help us in this most important fight. The United States stands at the edge of a great, dark abyss. It's impossible to gauge its width or depth, or even to identify all the mortal threats to our nation which surely lie within it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanpolicy.org ...
I thought it was “COMICON”. I already bought my Spock costume.
Which group is pushing the state legislatures to vote for a con con?
We don’t need no stinking constitutional convention!
These so-called Republicans ned to have their heads examined.
What do you think a constitutional convention will result in?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Mob rule.
The majority DemocRATS will take it over and re-write the entire Constitution to their liking, and the masses will go along: “We want Change!”
One area to go, because it is no longer “practical” in our post-modern society: the 2nd Amendment.
We’ll do it “for the childurn.”
How about the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
What about the “right” to universal healthcare?
Or the “right” to vote for “undocumented” workers and felons in prison?
How about the “rights” of less fortunate nations to support by “the biggest consuming nation” by supporting world peace-making organizations like the UN?
__________________________________
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
— John Adams
“Every step...towards...democracy is an advance towards destruction...Liberty has never yet lasted long in a democracy; nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” (1801)
— Fisher Ames (1758-1808; Congressman from Massachusetts)
“If the question of constitutionality of a certain governmental action is at stake, it is not incumbent upon the citizen to say to the government, “Where in the Constitution does it say this can’t be done? The responsibility is on the federal official to show where in the Constitution it says it can be done.Unless that power has been delegated to the federal government somewhere in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power.”
— John Eidsmoe
I have said I do not dread industrial corporations as instruments of power to destroy this country, because there are a thousand agencies which can regulate, restrain and control them; but there is a corporation we may all dread. That corporation is the federal government. From the aggressions of this corporation, there can be no safety, if it is allowed to go beyond the well defined limits of it’s powers. I dread nothing so much as the exercise of ungranted and doubtful powers by the government. It is, in my opinion, the danger of dangers to the future of this country. Let us be sure to keep it always within it’s limits. If this great, ambitious, ever growing corporation becomes oppressive, who shall check it? If it becomes too wayward, who shall control it? If it becomes unjust, who shall trust it?
As sentinels of the country’s watchtower, Senators, I beseech you to watch and guard with sleepless dread, that corporation which can make all property and rights, all states and people, all liberty and hope it’s plaything in an hour, and it’s victims forever.”
— Senator Benjamin H. Hill
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds.”
— Samuel Adams
“Can we restore the Constitution and recover our freedom? I have no doubt that we can. Like all great reforms, it will take an intelligent, determined effort by many people. I don’t want to sow false optimism.
But the time is ripe for a constitutional counterrevolution. Discontent with the ruling system, as the 1992 Perot vote showed, is deep and widespread among several classes of people: Christians, conservatives, gun owners, taxpayers, and simple believers in honest government all have their reasons. The rulers lack legitimacy and don’t believe in their own power strongly enough to defend it.
The beauty of it is that the people don’t have to invent a new system of government in order to get rid of this one. They only have to restore the one described in the Constitution, the system our government already professes to be upholding. Taken seriously, the Constitution would pose a serious threat to our form of government.
And for just that reason, the ruling parties will be finished as soon as the American people rediscover and awaken their dormant Constitution.”
— Joe Sobran
“The kind of government that is strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything that you have.”
— Ronald Reagan
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship”
— Sir Alexander Tytler
Who’s behind this movement? De Weese talks about it in the interview. Not releasing any names yet. but they think they know, and when they find out they’ll publish the names.
This is the fifth (or sixth or whetever) article about a "constitutional convention" written by a well meaning, but uninformed, person who knows little about Article V or the 1992 law that regulates a Convention for Proposing Amendments under Article V.
FReepers need to get a grip. Read "A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution", which was vetted by our own Congressman Billybob, a constitutional lawyer, to make sure I got my facts right.
The 1992 law doesnt have precedence over the constitution.
Has it ever survived a court challenge? I dont remember any con con being convened and challenged.
When has a constitutional convention ever been convened? With nothing in the original constitution being taken as it was originally intended, why such confidence that a convention doesnt allow them to rewrite anything they please?
The idea of anything goes in a con con dovetails in very neatly with the widely adhered to concept of a “living constitution”. Our pres elect has even said it must always reflect our current thinking, current ideas.
Its very naive to think you can open a con con, and limit it to anything. Its never been tried, and being wrong is lethal to the USA and probably starts an actual civil war.
Any republican pushing for a con con needs a head examination. If they want balanced budget, they need to pass a law or a normal amendment.
Also,,look up irony in your dictionary. You are arguing that article V will somehow stop people who happily ignore every other section of it?
They will use a con con as a disguise of process to do whatever they want,, then rubber stamp it with a court that gave you Kelo, Roe, etc,,
And that,,,, will be that.
A con con is incredibly dangerous to freedom as we know it.
No, but Congress has the right to regulate the amendatory process and regulate a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The Constitution provides a bare bones blueprint, and Congress fills in the rest. This is all basic lawmaking.
Has it ever survived a court challenge?
In 2000, Walker v. US challenged much of the unwritten tradition and law surrounding a Convention for Proposing Amendments and was dismissed for lack of standing. (Walker was a regular citizen, not a state.)
I dont remember any con con being convened and challenged.
Because no single subject for a Convention for Proposing Amendments has ever gotten the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition for one. We've gotten close, but never reached that threshold. The legal principle of agency forbids a convention from going outside the purview of the authorizing language generated by the states. But of course, if you read the essay and the posts that are a part of that thread, you know this already.
Back in the Eighties, a number of states got upset about government spending and asked Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments to address a balanced budget amendment. This is the issue that may actually get a 34th state to force Congress to trigger a convention call. But a Convention for Proposing Amendments called to address a balanced budget amendment could not address any other subejct. This is the law.
Any delegate who attempted to go outside the purview of the Convention's authorizing language by introducing an amendment concerning an extraneous subject would be gaveled down by the presiding officer of the convention as being out of order. An appeal to the US Supreme Court by the offending delegate would see the presiding officer's decision confirmed.
When has a constitutional convention ever been convened?
The 1787 Constitutional Convention was convened under Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation and thus has no bearing on today's topic.
We haven't had a Convention for Proposing Amendments yet, but one day we probably will. The balance budget issue is gaining steam again. Some day a move by the federal government will so anger the states that they will petition for a Convention for Proposing Amendments to redress that grievance.
With nothing in the original constitution being taken as it was originally intended, why such confidence that a convention doesnt allow them to rewrite anything they please?
If, as you believe, the Constitution no longer has any meaning in a court of law, then it's over. It doesn't matter what is added to or subtracted from the Constitution because a court will do as it damn well pleases. We haven't reached that point, and I don't believe we will.
The idea of anything goes in a con con dovetails in very neatly with the widely adhered to concept of a “living constitution”. Our pres elect has even said it must always reflect our current thinking, current ideas.
Fine. If 34 states ask for a Convention for Proposing Amendments that is open to all possible amendments, then let's have one. Liberals will propose their wish list, and conservatives will propose their wish list. If amendment proposals gain enough traction to be reported to Congress by the Convention, fine. If at least 38 states ratify one or more of those amendment proposals and place it in the Constitution, fine.
However, this particular petition for a Convention for Proposing Amendments is dedicated to addressing the balanced budget issue. I have no problem with a national debate at a Convention concerning that one topic. I doubt anything would come out of it, but it would be good to clear the air.
Its very naive to think you can open a con con, and limit it to anything. Its never been tried, and being wrong is lethal to the USA and probably starts an actual civil war.
Congress has the right to regulate the amendatory process and has done so in the past when it placed 7 year limits on ratifications to individual amendments during the 20th Century. There is precedent here. The law limits a Convention to the purview of its authorizing langauge as generated by the states because the Convention is, by law, the agent of the states.
Any republican pushing for a con con needs a head examination. If they want balanced budget, they need to pass a law or a normal amendment.
Congress would never consent to a balanced budget law because it subtracts from the power of Congress. Only the states can make this stick, which is why the issue appears to be generating energy again.
Do I think it's a good idea? It probably won't produce a balanced budget amendment, which would make it a waste of time. However, once people see that a Convention is not a runaway affair, but one conducted under congressional control, people's attitudes will change, and the fear will dissipate.
The really important Convention for Proposing Amendments won't be the first one. That's just a groundbreaker. It's the second Convention that will be the means by which the states assert themselves.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
sooo...the ruling oligarchy has finally decided, after the Heller Supreme Court case this year, that they need to press ahead with a ConCon to eradicate the Second Ammendment....before proceeding the the “Final Solution” ?!!
...WITH the ...
bookmark for future read
At this time, with Obama and the Dems riding high, the economy sinking into a major depression and Obama planning to make if even worse, and people frightened out of their wits, the last thing we need is a constitutional convention.
NOT a good time for it.
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.
