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.
Personally, I would rather see a gathering of 100,000 armed Americans in Washington.
By the time a Constitutional Ammendment gets to DC on this, they will have voted out most or all of the communists.
All politics are local..that is where they start.
Snorip I agree
I have to research this, but what if it were possible to call a convention limited to proposing a revision to the Constitution? An amendment that would effectively repeal KenyanCare, but would keep the idiots from messing with anything else in the Constitution.
You may think that’s going to happen that way, but I don’t see it happening that way. We’ve never gotten rid of liberals... it just sways back and forth, with one side gaining an advantage and then the other side.
Having a Constitutional Convention with any liberals around would be a disaster, and there’s not been a time in the 20th Century (that’s last century) when we didn’t have liberals around.
What they have tried to up to now has not stopped them in destroying the Constitution. It has to be stopped by the states.
Not true. In 1992 Congress, after being surprised by the unexpected ratification of the 27th Amendment, finally got around to regulating the amendatory process with respect to housekeeping. It also took the 1965 American Bar Association report on a Convention for Proposing Amendments (the correct name) and codified it into law.
Read "A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution", which is a primer on how the 1992 law would work.
As I understand it, no matter what is said beforehand on any such “limitations” — there would be “no authority” in existence, which could limit the delegates to a Constitutional Convention from making whatever changes they wanted to. It would only be “self-limiting” and I wouldn’t trust them to be self-limiting.
Follow the link in Post #28, please.
more like obese chance of that. But if Michelle has her way it will slim down.
According to Article V “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” an amendment-proposing convention must be called. What if we could get a convention called and limit the proposed amendment to ONE?
Well, there’s no precedent, because it’s never been done before... :-)
38 states... if MA can elect Scott Brown.... Start by naming three states as hard-sells, and see what can be sold there. Then work backwards.
With the current political mood it would be rather difficult for Rats to pull 38 states.
Not going to happen. There has to be a better and more feasible way...
Yes, it’s a constitutional convention, and that’s the last thing we want.
Most Constitutional Scholars agree that the States calling the convention would have the power to limit the scope of the convention. This, if the states, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called must be limited in the way the states requested.
This needs to be run by a Constitutional Attorney like “The Great One”.
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.