Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Convention? Does present danger outweigh potential risks?
vanity | today | theBuckWheat

Posted on 03/22/2010 4:05:55 AM PDT by theBuckwheat

The number of states in various stages of passing laws to shield their citizens against ObmamanationCare (tm) now appears to exceed the number necessary to call a Constitutional Convention. Question for FR: are the present dangers to liberty sufficiently grave enough to risk the potential dangers of a Convention called to bring Leviathan to heel?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: constitution; liberty; socialism; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: EternalVigilance
I appreciate the scholarship, but I think I'll stick with the popular mythology for now. I'd attribute it to myself - I've been voicing the same sentiment rather frequently of late - but that'd just get me locked up and I'd rather have done something worth getting locked up for instead.


41 posted on 03/22/2010 5:42:15 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Hmmm, you're correct; I should have gone and asked poppa Obama for those things, eh? How else does one make needed changes in the Constitution (other than the unconsitutional, seize-power-and-call-it-a-day method the democrats seem to prefer)?


42 posted on 03/22/2010 5:43:43 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
We fought a civil war over this very issue. The side that insisted on states' rights lost. The side that demanded absolute obedience to an all powerful central government won. Where precisely does that leave us?

Lacking from your analysis is the fact that the side that demanded respect for the God-given and therefore unalienable rights to life and liberty won, and the side that demanded a "right" it didn't have, which was to deprive a certain class of persons of their unalienable rights, lost.

"States' rights" do not trump unalienable rights. They didn't in 1860, and they don't in 2010.

43 posted on 03/22/2010 5:47:09 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

I don’t see the Civil War as being about states rights or slavery, but I guess it’s all a matter of interpretation. I see it as being about arrogance regarding one side of a political argument and the political system serving itself which only exacerbated public discourse. They are similar causes, but from two mutually exclusive ingredients that produce a toxic mix when combined and shaken.

I don’t have the answers to the position in which we find ourselves or the best course of action to regain all that we have lost. I have an opinion that maybe the problems that occurred as a result of the Articles of Confederation, a sort of chaos as a result of freedom is better than chaos and slavery that comes with a more powerful central government. But I do not believe that any resoultion to the situation we are in will be easy regardless of who is sent to Congress. Freedom isn’t free.


44 posted on 03/22/2010 5:55:07 AM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

I agree...just too many nut jobs running around the body politic that you could never trust the outcome....would likely end up with Lani Guinier’s Racial Spoils Proportional Voting System and a Constitutional Right to Free College.


45 posted on 03/22/2010 6:02:13 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Remember, it is not who votes, it is who counts the votes...extend that over to what would happen with a convention.

I think the best course of action was well stated in a document written in 1776...this government is broken and needs to go.

Freedom and liberty take a back seat when demigods rule. The rules in this game have changed for those who chose to play by them in living a conservative thrifty moral life. The old rules have been replaced by those who want it for nothing and if that means using the government to get it from you, they will do it. For me, government is the extreme, not a means to fulfilling wants and desires at the expense of someone elses freedom. In a nutshell that is why the Zero is the antithesis of my view as he wants government to provide a system of change.

46 posted on 03/22/2010 6:02:22 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Remember, it is not who votes, it is who counts the votes...extend that over to what would happen with a convention.

I think the best course of action was well stated in a document written in 1776...this government is broken and needs to go.

Freedom and liberty take a back seat when demigods rule. The rules in this game have changed for those who chose to play by them in living a conservative thrifty moral life. The old rules have been replaced by those who want it for nothing and if that means using the government to get it from you, they will do it. For me, government is the extreme, not a means to fulfillingwants and desires at the expense of someoneelses freedom. In a nutshell that is why the Zero is the antithesis of my view as he wants government to provide a system of change.


47 posted on 03/22/2010 6:04:14 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
What a great idea!

Give Obama a chance to rewrite the US Constitution!

Brilliant!

48 posted on 03/22/2010 6:11:09 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
Hmmm, you're correct; I should have gone and asked poppa Obama for those things, eh? How else does one make needed changes in the Constitution (other than the unconsitutional, seize-power-and-call-it-a-day method the democrats seem to prefer)?

And what would you do if your Constitutional convention repeals the Second Amendment, adds a Constitutional requirement requiring government health care, and does away with presidential term limits?

49 posted on 03/22/2010 6:20:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I dunno, maybe I'll do the same thing I would do if it declared the Moon to be made of green cheese.


50 posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:56 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps

The South did have a similar point to that which the goverment is now asserting, and their point was a perversion of the idea of what is considered property and whom is entitled to the fruit thereof that was a direct contradiction to the principles of the founding. The issue we face is not whether it is right for one human being to enslave another this time around, but whether it is it right for the government to enslave its citizens and reward others for their labor. Instead of one human being enslaving another, it is the governemnt enslaving an entrire class of citizens for the sole purpose of providing for others who do not care to work for the reward.

As long as the argument is framed as a matter of difference of political opinion or all about abortion and the resistence is based on oratory there will be no change of heart. I have never heard anyone state ‘give me welfare or give me death’. Whatever there is to be gained will not be through argument or voting, but by what one is willing to sacrfice for what they hope to gain. Do we mean ‘No, we are not going to capitulate’, or do we mean ‘Hell, NO!’ and are willing to assert ourselves for our God given right to be left alone and to ensure that we are.


51 posted on 03/22/2010 7:32:34 AM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Lacking from your analysis is the fact that the side that demanded respect for the God-given and therefore unalienable rights to life and liberty won, and the side that demanded a "right" it didn't have, which was to deprive a certain class of persons of their unalienable rights, lost.

Popular nostrums aside, the Civil War was not about slavery.

52 posted on 03/22/2010 8:00:13 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
In my opinion, although the risks are high, the status quo is intolerable AND the regime is too powerful to overthrow by force.

So, yes, I favor 34 states calling a convention to amend the constitution to prohibit Obamacare.

53 posted on 03/22/2010 8:02:21 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Let tyrants shake their iron rod, and slavery clank her galling chains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps

Your thoughtfulness is appreciated. It may well be that we have never been a free nation, only desirous of such. The necessary evil of government has been a monster that has grown to gargantuan proportions and continues to grow.
Government has long been the enemy. Now it is fanged and bloodthirsty.


54 posted on 03/22/2010 8:05:32 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
the Civil War was not about slavery

Do you think states' rights trumps the unalienable rights to life and liberty of any or all persons?

55 posted on 03/22/2010 9:07:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Do you think states' rights trumps the unalienable rights to life and liberty of any or all persons?

Your washed brain is showing. Slavery was dying in the South before the war was fought. Lincoln had no intention of supporting emancipation. The Civil War was not, as a matter of fact, fought over slavery.

To answer your jaded question, I would never place the inalienable (not unalienable) rights to life and liberty above states rights. You, however, seem to clearly believe such rights are subservient to federal prerogatives, as was the case during the Civil War.

56 posted on 03/22/2010 10:10:48 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
You, however, seem to clearly believe such rights are subservient to federal prerogatives, as was the case during the Civil War.

That doesn't make any sense.

57 posted on 03/22/2010 10:15:41 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Slavery was dying in the South before the war was fought.

Baloney. The invention of the cotton gin made the slave trade infinitely more profitable.

58 posted on 03/22/2010 10:17:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The invention of the cotton gin made the slave trade infinitely more profitable.

Or less. The gin reduced labor by 100 fold.

59 posted on 03/22/2010 11:31:45 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

That’s not the way it worked.

Of course, we already knew you were more than a little light in the history department.


60 posted on 03/22/2010 12:47:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson