Posted on 03/22/2010 6:49:38 PM PDT by Irisshlass
No it’s not the essence of the problem.
The problem is you attach importance to convention delegates and their behavior.
What they do doesn’t matter unless what they do has the backing of 38 states. That’s the point.
So if you fear a free-for-all, then you must think 38 states are going to support the free-for-all amendments PROPOSED by the convention.
And therein lies your problem. You have fear that 38 states are going to rewrite the Constitution in a manner as to what? to shred it?
Do you think ACORN, SEIU and Chicago hooligans are going to infiltrate and strong arm 3,141 counties and county equivalents of 38 states where conservatives hold overwhelming numbers?
You must be very easy to intimidate.
Do you ever take a risk? Do you believe the government has no business in making the trains run on time? If you lived in 1776 would you be willing to fight the British Crown?
All you answers will be No with hesitance and indecision but ‘No’ when pressed.
You obviously will trust a body of 535 members in Congress before you trust a body of 535 delegates chosen from the grassroots. Sad that.
Have fun being a sit-down spectator while others do the work of which you will undeservedly benefit.
No it’s not the essence of the problem.
Well, that's what being discussed as the issue ... :-) and it sure seems like the essence of the problem to me... (and to those others who oppose this very thing).
It's kinda funny, hearing an "argument" from the side wanting to go forward with this, saying that this is not the "essence of the problem" -- when the ones who oppose it have brought up this very thing as the very objection itself... LOL ...
Yep, that's a sly tactic to shift the focus away from the very core issue of the problem with a Constitutional Convention -- especially when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, even says that this is the "very problem" itself.
It's also funny to hear how Congress has set it up so that it's not a problem -- when the very argument itself is that Congress would be ignored (and limitations such as this were ignored before).
Suuuure... that sounds like a real convincing argument.
Have fun being a sit-down spectator while others do the work of which you will undeservedly benefit.
Oh... don't worry, I'll be actively opposing this... :-)
I don’t get you and sorry if this gets personal. But someone very famous once told me that anything having to do with money is personal, and this has to do with money.
I don’t get you because you seem to think that a free-for-all is going to do what? What is it going to do? We don’t even know that such a thing will happen, a free-for-all, whatever that is, and yet you think it’s going to affect our lives? If you do, then you MUST mean that 38 states are going to go along with free-for-all amendments.
So please answer how a free-for-all (whatever that is) convention is going to translate into 38 states ratifying whatever free-for-all is handed to them.
Let me number the questions for you because people are reading and may want to know:
1. What is a free-for-all (however described) at a Constitutional Convention going to do to affect our lives?
2. How are free-for-all amendments going to translate into 38 states ratifying?
Constitutional Convention not as scary as you think thread ping.... get in here.. :-)
WELL I AGREE. I WAS SAYING AS MUCH THE OTHER DAY WHEN I GOT A MESSAGE ANYTIME I POST FOR THE LAST 3 DAYS SAYING .”thanks for you contribution we will post your comments once we check them” Or something to that effect.
Any Freepers ever have that happen to them?
A constitutional convention would open the democrates to re-writing it their way....I don’t like the idea at all. I need to look deeper on this but it seems it would open a hornets nest full of killer bees.
But the congress would be involved and how are you going to bring all the states into agreement on who overseas and does the legislation required.....and with congress batting their balls around how can you say this wouldn’t prove madness.......is it not that the constitution needs to stand as it is and the actions by congree in passing this as they did need to be challenged?
I haven’t read much about a constitutional convention but enough that it would seem to be a free for all....and even if not, I get a very bad feel about the idea of it.
How will 30 some states get in agreement? without a free for all?
But there are democrates who could easily be appointed as delegates depending on each state and how they view this....and we know how they play...Stupak comes to mind.
“...it also has to pass with the 2/3 of the House/Senate. Fat chance.”
Not necessary, if the states initiate the process. The states can go around the National Government, if 34 states call for it, and 38 ratify it, It’s a done deal.
Good start on the analysis. Thx.
Principle of agency crafted, codified and developed with participation of some of our very own freepers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823341/posts?page=4#4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823341/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=28#28
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=130#130
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=131#131
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=66#66
lmao.
I’ll catch up later.
preoccuppied with something.
Principle of agency crafted, codified and developed with participation of some of our very own freepers.
Well, I love FReepers, but I respect the opinion of the Chief Justice, Warren Burger, of the Supreme Court of the United States -- a whole heck of a lot more than fellow posters, doncha know... :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=106#106
And then, for the great assurance -- that this can be a limited procss ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477434/posts?page=137#137
Any Freepers ever have that happen to them?
No... but the Admin Moderator made me stand in the corner for three hours, one time... :-)
So please answer how a free-for-all (whatever that is) convention is going to translate into 38 states ratifying whatever free-for-all is handed to them.
I think to the people who understand this..., all I have to say is ... "Obama got elected."
They then know what that means for a Constitutional Convention... :-)
Constitutional Convention not as scary as you think thread ping.... get in here.. :-)
Not at all... let's just "roll the dice" and see who is right, on this thread...
Two guys are staring at each other across the table, and one says, "I'll see your wager -- that a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited -- and I put up the "Constitution of the United States" and call!"
LOL ...
Yeah, right... let's just gamble with our Constitution to see who is right... :-) No problem at all, it gets trashed if I'm right -- and -- it doesn't get trashed if the other guy is right. Can't think of a better way to do it.
Then you are ignorant of how it works. A presidential election and a convention are very different.
As you can’t see that, I will mark this post and link it when I see you on threads that discuss the amendment process.
A presidential election and a convention are very different.
The same people who reside in the United States, and elected Obama, are the same people who will be involved in the process when it comes down to what is acceptable to do and who (of the ordinary citizens) gets to take part in it and what the individual states do and/or accept, in which these same citizens reside.
As I said, to anyone who understands... that's all you need to know... "Obama got elected." :-)
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.