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

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Pass a Constitutional Amendment!
The Constitutional | March 22, 2009 | My Keyboard

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 26thamendment; amendment; civilwar2; communism; constitution; fascism; impeachobama; nationalvoterid; obamacare; twentysixthamendment; voterid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-222 next last
To: caww; Hostage
You were saying ...

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.....

It's funny how those who want a Constitutional Convention say it's not about getting another Constitution -- but -- from the people I see who would be involved in that sort of thing (just look around you... LOL ...) -- there's a lot of them who would rewrite the Constitution in a New York minute....

And with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, saying that there would be no limitation that could stop delegates from doing that -- well... you get the picture...

I choose not to go the "nightmare route" with a Constitutional Convention -- and simply do the Constitutional Amendments the same way we've done them since right after the country was formed (with #11 through #27) -- a process that would work and has been shown to work.

201 posted on 03/23/2010 11:00:00 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Simple Yes or No questions and you refused to answer them.

You want to dance and avoid and change the subject yada yada yada....everyone can see what you’re doing!

Just answer them or say no I don’t want to!
1. Can Obama’s people control 38 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?
2. Can conservatives control 13 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?

Here’s a couple more that are very s-i-m-i-l-a-r and should take about 5 seconds to answer:
1. Can conservatives control 38 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?
2. Can Obama’s people control 13 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?


202 posted on 03/23/2010 11:02:39 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
You were saying ...

That’s how it w-o-r-k-e-d.

Well, the interesting thing is that I've got "how it worked" for 27 Amendments to the Constitution in the same manner all along...

And for what you're saying, you don't have "one" that "worked" ... LOL ... because it's not been done.

Sorry, I'll take "what worked" and go with it... :-)

203 posted on 03/23/2010 11:06:19 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Ok you can be flippant all you want.

How about answering the simple yes-or-no questions in post #202 that you have been asked politely so many times and that keep avoiding? How about it?

Takes a few seconds and you have already spent the evening on this thread so you can’t say it’s a waste of time.

1. Can Obama’s people control 38 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?

1. Can conservatives control 13 states in a ratification?
Yes or No?


204 posted on 03/23/2010 11:10:55 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
You were saying ...

You want to dance and avoid and change the subject yada yada yada....everyone can see what you’re doing!

Well, everyone but you can figure out the answer... LOL ...

I'll try to explain it once again, but as I said, I should have known that if you can't understand what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, says -- I doubt you can understand.

It starts with what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said (Post #106) ...

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."

Now, the real specific thing here is the following ...

Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda.

So, when someone says that they want to do a Constitutional Convention and they say that Congress has set limits on what can be done... I've just gotta laugh.

And if someone can't understand that... then they are not going to get very far with understanding me... I'm afraid.

That being the essence of the problem with a Constitutional Convention -- that's as good as I can do for you... doncha know...

205 posted on 03/23/2010 11:14:43 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

So you won’t give the simple yes or no answers.

Ok, you win. I’m not going to get a yes or no out of you on ratification, that’s for sure.


206 posted on 03/23/2010 11:18:54 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; caww
You were saying ...

How about answering the simple yes-or-no questions in post #202 that you have been asked politely so many times and that keep avoiding? How about it?

Well, I can't make up for the lack of understanding in some people... all I can do is explain it... and I have.

I'll refer you to a more recent post and perhaps that will help out... see Post #205 ...

And, as I said, if Chief Justice Warren Burger is too difficult to understand, I know you won't understand me, because I didn't explain it as well as he did... :-)

207 posted on 03/23/2010 11:19:35 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Hostage; caww
You were saying ...

Ok, you win. I’m not going to get a yes or no out of you on ratification, that’s for sure.

It's pretty simple to understand, actually... there is no way to guarantee that Congress can limit the actions of a Constitutional Convention or that they would even listen to Congress and what they said -- and once it's going and you don't like what they are doing -- it's too late to stop it.

That's as simple as it gets...

208 posted on 03/23/2010 11:23:13 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Another concern is do they think they won’t be challenged from the get go? Let alone once they begin...even when ammendments are in the process there are all kinds of challenges...in probition they wanted to set a deadline and the deadline was challenged clear to the supreme court!!!


209 posted on 03/23/2010 11:47:35 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

1. yes
1. no


210 posted on 03/23/2010 11:51:29 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: caww

And the deadline won.


211 posted on 03/23/2010 11:56:32 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: caww

Yeah, you’re right...


212 posted on 03/24/2010 12:05:27 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

You missed the point....they got hung up just establishing a deadline or not, which went clear to the supreme court for crying out loud.

Every seemingly issue one would make could follow suit as this did. And with the host of different people from different background cultures sitting on this can you imagine what would actually get accomplished...then we’d have Two areas of governanace backlogged and jammed up!


213 posted on 03/24/2010 12:05:48 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
They are comprised of members chosen by Congress to propose amendments with a time and budget limit.

That already has me worried.

214 posted on 03/24/2010 12:20:07 AM PDT by wastedyears (The essence of training is to allow error without consequence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: caww

Your answers are nonsense and would only be sensible to a leftist.

Obama’s people can control 38 states in ratification? They must be very very powerful.

That means the conservatives could only hold at most 12 states. Let’s see, McCain won 21 states in 2008 despite the fact that he was considered one of the least desired candidates by conservatives and is considered to have been the default candidate.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

In fact that’s 21 states that went GOP in a time when GW Bush was hated even by many conservatives and the Republicans were held responsible for all problems. But a presidential election may not be a good measure of what would happen in a ratification.

A better measure might be how many GOP governors and how many GOP counties. There are presently 24 GOP governors.

The most conservative states would be indicated as those with the largest percentage of red counties.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2008-election-county-by-county.png

These are the counties that would send delegates to a state convention.

The most conservative states are:

MT,ID,ND,AK,UT,AL,MS,LA,OK,TX,AR,SC,NC,TN,SD,NE,KS,VA.

That’s 18 states and that’s not all of the red States, just the most conservative.

So unless Obama has a plan to make Americans happy with him, and he has dismal approval ratings at this stage of his presidency, then it’s safe to day that 2010 is going to seem like a bloodbath compared to 2008.

Conservatives are going to get their chance for sure.

So your answers (1. Yes 2. No) are nonsensical unless Obama’s communist organizations can control 3000+ counties of which more than 80% are conservative or GOP.


215 posted on 03/24/2010 12:52:11 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Actually I was corrected by a fine Freeper on that. They are not chosen by Congress, they are chosen by the States.

I was told that was the only mistake I made in that post.


216 posted on 03/24/2010 12:53:47 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well if it was true, anyway, we would be totally screwed.


217 posted on 03/24/2010 8:32:25 AM PDT by wastedyears (The essence of training is to allow error without consequence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Bo doesn't care if the people like him or not...what he does have are people behind the scenes who work the states and you know this.

..this Healthcare just moved thru what no American wanted...and in the most disgusting way, did it not? Who would have thought possible?...American people said no...it Passed. So I have no problem believing this administration can and does reach the states....Rendell comes to mind...Casey comes to mind....Spector comes to mind..and this just in my state!

You can tout your percentages and numbers all you want but you are blind if you do not see the extent of these Progressives and their careful planning to control.

And let's not forget Bo is in office because people voted for him...and those who didn't vote for McCain. I hate the fact this happened but I do not underestimate the breadth of Bo's machine throughout the country.

No matter your arguments for a Constitutional Convention I would not support that at all and certainly not at this time with the democrats in power as they are...that would be catastrophic for our country. Your comment of "leftist" does not warrent a response under any circumstances and you know this.

218 posted on 03/24/2010 8:37:22 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: caww

That’s a defeatist attitude. It is also self-destructive.

Look at what you said, Obama and his people “behind the scenes” would presumably work to subvert the Constitution in a ratification process. And then you repeat what we all know in that Obama and his people just moved socialism into our United States in a big way against our will.

So you are either a) going to have get behind the states and counties where conservatives have power or, b) get behind the rot in Washington or, c) stand aside and watch socialism attempt to take over the United States.

I think your problem is you see conservatives as losers and you are spouting common knowledge as if you alone had some unique information about it. What you have just said is known by anyone that watches media. What you did not know is there a constitutional provision for falling back and using the grassroots of your family, friends and neighbors and YOU ARE AFRAID OF IT, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATED, and that is exactly the Chicago Way.

You have added no new knowledge to any of these threads other than to show what everyone already knows, to be hysterical and to reveal that you are possibly a lemming who will try to side in the end with the victors who if they be the socialists fascists will likely view you as a useful idiot and dispose of you once they have the power they seek, or put you in a lowly position that you will regret.

On the other hand when the conservatives take back the reins of government through constitutional powers, you will be remembered as hysterical and not helpful.

Even right now without a discussion of the advantages to conservatives of using their power in the countryside to call for a Constitutional Convention, there is a huge propaganda effort to demoralize conservatives by using case law to uphold the socialist legislation just passed. If the socialists prevail, conservatives are not going to buckle under and they are going to use what power they have wherever it resides, and right now they have it in spades at the grassroots and the Constitution calling for a convention to make amendments. And if that process is subverted, then there is revolution.

I am not afraid of Obama, his people, his bravado. I am afraid of people like you who are cowards. In short, Obama does not like me because I do not subscribe or follow him. He likes you because you are easy to intimidate, that’s what Obama and his people like, people that are easy to intimidate.


219 posted on 03/24/2010 9:09:24 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
You are barking up the wrong tree and once again showing your own arrogance....further discussion is senseless at this point...you want support for the Constitutional Convention and I'm not giving it to you. Your rant here evidences this....and your own “intimidation” tactics just spewed all over your post....

So go ahead and be upset that others as myself aren't buying into your headstrong determination for a Constitutional Convention. I am most pleased with the Constitution we have and the men who forged it....the battle is to maintain it and do more to enforce it when it's trampled on...states are doing so now and that too is enough for me........ Enough said between you and I...cooling jets a good thing now......

220 posted on 03/24/2010 9:52:12 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-222 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