Posted on 03/22/2010 6:49:38 PM PDT by Irisshlass
38 States have legislation drawn up, a couple States have already passed it to block the forced healthcare upon their states. It takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional Ammendment. And it seems that this is the key to stop these socialist communists from taking over our country once and for all.
Obama was not confirmed by 3/4 of the legislatures of the States not was he approved by Presentments of 2/3 of them to get on the ballot.
Proposing Amendments to the Constitution is not an open election process where every Tom, Dick or Harry gets to come in, dead or not, illegal or not, and take a vote.
Don’t tell anyone but the Framers didn’t give ACORN any powers in the Constitution.
Worked well for us? Worked well, you’ve got to be kidding me.
Yes, I think the process has worked extremely well for us.
That's not saying anything about the content of the various amendments, but the process did exactly what it was supposed to do and the people either voted them down or approved them, through the ratification of the various states.
For example the 18th Amendment worked just fine, the way it was intended. And likewise, the 21st Amendment worked just as perfectly, in its process.
That's exactly how it was intended to work.
As far as what the people pass and don't pass... that's a completely different story.
I think what people here have a real gripe about is not the process that goes on, as it seems to work exactly as it was intended. The real gripe is with a very large segment of voters who don't think the same way as most here on Free Republic. That's the source of the problem, and not the "process".
And hence, that's why "Obama got elected"... you see...
I think the solution is not to monkey with the process... but rather, to get more conservative voters. But, that's a long process, as it's been a long process of getting to the point where we've got enough voters who would vote in a person like Obama. It's going to take a considerable amount of time to get back to a point where we have a sizable number of conservative voters to have the machinery of government working in all its "processes" in a "conservative manner".
I don’t have a problem with Congress putting forth Amendments to the Constitution for the various states to ratify. That’s fine with me... it’s worked just fine over the course of years from 1795 onward.
I just don’t want these Obama voters involved in a Constitutional Convention process. Aside from that, I have no problem with the Amendments to the Constitution as they have been done for all the Amendments, from the 11th through the 27th. And if a group wants to propose another Constitutional Amendment, that’s fine, too. I’ll consider that when the Congress puts it forth and when the states get to ratify it (or not),
So Okay, you understand that Obama won a majority of the Electoral College or if you want, you can think that the voters in each state that voted for Obama and caused the electors to cast their votes for Obama, you think all these people are going to ratify a constitutional amendment in 38 states? You must know that makes no sense.
So you think delegates elected for a convention, a convention that was called for by 34 states, you think these delegates are going to be in the majority for Obama, and because of that you think they are going to propose amendments that will be detrimental to the founding ideas of the United States. Is that fair? Yes?
Okay, let’s go with this as what you think.
I’ll ask you the question again, how are the pro-Obama amendments going to be ratified by 38 states? Do you think the Obama people can control 38 states?
One more question, do you think conservatives could get 13 states to stop the pro-Obama amendments?
Do you know how many states Obama won in 2008?
Let’s see you lay your analysis in a fashion that we can attribute credibility. IOW “same Americans that voted for Obama” is not an answer tot he 38 state question because it doesn’t add up.
Go ahead, give it a try. Or is it just a ‘feeling’ you are expressing?
I don’t have to “reach” for a process that has never been done, and that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, says would not be limited — when there is a perfectly good process that has worked for Constitutional Amendments since right after the formation of this country, from the 11th Amendment to the 27th Amendment.
Why am I going to go to something that has never been done, is said to not be limiting (by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) — when something else works?
It’s a simple matter for me (and also I think you’ll find that it’s a simple matter for a large majority of other citizens, too) — when you’ve got something that works just fine over the history of our country, you don’t go looking for some other way to do it, especially when no one can guarantee anything about it and there are warnings against it from authoritative people.
Not much analysis is needed here... not for me and not for a lot of other people.
I like the Constitution just the way it is, thank you... :-)
You were politely asked a question and decided to lecture on your dogma or whatever without answering the question.
Was the question too hard for you to understand?
Was the question too hard for you to understand?
Was my answer too difficult to understand?
You did not answer. You opined to a different direction. You avoided the questions.
Here’s are the questions again:
In a constitutional amendment ratification process,
do you think Obama’s people can control 38 states?
Do you think conservatives can control 13 states?
They came together at this juncture...it’s early yet...this was to protect the people (and the states coffers)from mandatory healthcare purchases.....and as I understand it a Gov. signiture not required....rather A.General. However, some Governor did state that if the A.G. and legislature wouldn’t.... he would......So you see it indeed has potential to get messy.
You did not answer. You opined to a different direction. You avoided the questions.
I guess you didn't understand the answer then... I don't bother contemplating how to use a process that is not used and that we are warned against, and as I've already said before, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, in saying that it cannot be limited -- when there is another process that works perfectly fine and we've used it since right after this country was formed, the Constitutional Amendment process from the 11th Amendment to the 27th Amendment.
Now, if you can't understand that answer, you're beyond my capabilities to help you.
I don't waste my time considering processes that I'll never use and/or that this country has never used and will never use.
I'll stick to our present Constitution, the way it is, and to the Amendment process the way we've used it.
And lets not forget they will surely press the “diversity” issue in selecting them....if they don’t then you’ll have public outcry.
The process may be different but the “pickings” for delegates and to chair a convention today could not come close to the men who forged the constitution.....
....”Too bad the Framers had more confidence in Americans 260+ years ago then Americans do today”....
But you see that is a huge part of the problem today...I don’t have much confidence in the American people as a whole...the diversity and culture in the US is not close to what it was then...now every nationality here demands same and seperate rights...their own representation and representaion in the gov. Trying to even begin to get delegates satisfactory to all will be a huge feat...if not impossible.
We are talking about repealing the 16th and 17th and deliberating any other amendments that would stop socialism such as an amendment to prohibit federally unfunded mandates.
As far as the caliber of the people at a convention, I would trust Joe the Plumber and other similar red-blooded Salt of the Earth conservative Americans much more than the morons under the political leadership of the worst president in American history Woodrow Wilson who in 1913 brought us the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act.
I would trust conservative grassroots Americans more than any democrat socialist in Congress today.
I would ask them to propose a repeal of the 16th immediately, to repeal the 17th and to consider other amendments that would cause the federal government to decentralize and remain that way under the new amendment.
Upon reform of the Federal Reserve Act I would ask for an amendment that would prohibit the United States from delegating its constitutional obligation to make, to control the amount of its currency, to regulate and make public the operations of concessions that operate the money supply of the United States tender.
All of these types of things are for the purpose of gaining an upper hand on those that would subvert the Constitution. It doesn't take a Madison, a Jefferson or others to amend the Constitution so that it works to preserve our freedoms.
Watch how I answer them; it's so easy:
In a constitutional amendment ratification process,
do you think Obama’s people can control 38 states?
Answer: NO!
Do you think conservatives can control 13 states?
Answer: YES!
See how easy that is? Does it waste time? Nah, not at all. Takes about 5 seconds.
You don't want to answer the questions? Ok just say so!
I believe you got the answer to the question in Post #190 ... but you seem to not understand the answer.
That might explain why you're having such a problem understanding the essence of the issue with a Constitutional Convention, especially as Chief Justice Warren Burger, of the Supreme Court of the United States -- states it.
I should have taken the hint in the first place that if you didn't get it from the Chief Justice of fhe Supreme Court, you weren't going to get it from me, either... LOL ...
We are talking about repealing the 16th and 17th and deliberating any other amendments that would stop socialism such as an amendment to prohibit federally unfunded mandates.
Let me show you how that works...
Take a look at the 18th Amendment -- then look at the 21st Amendment.
That's how it works... :-)
But you see that is a huge part of the problem today...I don’t have much confidence in the American people as a whole...the diversity and culture in the US is not close to what it was then...now every nationality here demands same and seperate rights...their own representation and representaion in the gov. Trying to even begin to get delegates satisfactory to all will be a huge feat...if not impossible.
Some FReeper don't "get it" and think that there is some magical guarantee that makes it so that the people of today will operate under standards that these FReepers think they will... LOL ...
Just take a look at Congress for that answer.... :-) It's worse with the "man on the street" these days...
And lets not forget they will surely press the “diversity” issue in selecting them....if they don’t then you’ll have public outcry.
Absolutely so..., the process for a Constitutional Convention would be a nightmare scenario, for sure... hoo-boy! I can't even imagine...
It's bad enough with elections for Congress and the President... I wouldn't even want to go to a Constitutional Convention with the kinds of people I see voting out there today... no way...
No that’s not how it w-o-r-k-s.
That’s how it w-o-r-k-e-d.
That’s how it worked for those amendments which were flawed because they did nothing to preserve freedom.
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.