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.
The Constitution is currently the law of the land, so it governs (and restricts certain actions) according to what it says. But, when you have a “Constitutional Convention”, it’s changing the document that governs what we do.
You don’t have delegates limited by a “Constitution” that they are there to change in the first place, doncha know...:-)
Those delegates are “at the top of the heap” at that point.
Check Post #66 which explains the principle of agency. It is that principle which rules and contrains a Convention for Proposing Amendments.
MacBeth said it almost perfectly because I think the Left would go into cardiac arrest if a convention were called. I think they know that it would be all over for them, game over.
We really do have the power but we have been constantly shuttered by fear of a convention spinning out of control when in fact that would never happen, never!
You might think your just adding an amendment, but once the process starts the entire constitution can be re-written under the same umbrella.
By Obama.
Under Obama there are 57 states. The bad news is we need 43 states to ratify. The worst news is that Yemen, UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Syria and Libya get a vote. At least we are conforming to the multilateral rules the Liberals want us to live by. Damn these next few years are going to suck.
If all 31 states who pick Bush over Kerry came along.. and PA, MI, NH as well...
then anything that could be supported in at least four of these states could pass: DE, WA, CO, VT, MN, MN, IL
This counts MA as being too liberal... but the Scott Brown factor makes me wonder... The full list of far too liberal:
MA, CA, WI, NH, ME, RI, NJ, CT, HI, NY, OR, MD
Anyway, I’d start with Colorado and Vermont. If those two can come on board, the amendment would have a chance.
Excuse me but you should study a bit before opining. Recall what Mark Twain said about a fool and his open mouth.
Nothing personal but really you don’t know what you are talking about. Read post #52, it will give a small small primer.
Delegates are nothing unless they control 38 states (3/4s of states). Now who controls more states, conservatives or liberals? Which do you trust with the Constitution? And which amendment types do you think are going to be ratified by 38 states?
38 STATES!!!! NOT DELEGATES!
Please stop. Post #52 read now please.
I laid out what would happen if a convention were called, specifically how I would run for convention delegate from the 1st District of Washington. (With 50 liberals running in this liberal district, if I were the only conservaive running, I would get to go.)
I don’t think the framers were dumb at all. They gave us the 10th Amendment. If that were enforced, we would have very few problems. What are you going to say with your Const. Convention: “We meant it the first time?” or “the Constitution means what it says, and nothing more?”
That is why they are taking the federal government to court.
The executive is not allowed to participate in a constitutional convention. And the bill does not go to the President for a signature.
South Carolina escalated to secession, which prompted Jackson to get the Force Bill through Congress, which authorized him to make war on South Carolina to retrieve it from a state of rebellion.
Nullification is deemed unconstitutional, a casualty of both Jackson and Lincoln. I doubt the Supreme Court would suddenly ditch 175 years of jurisprudence to allow a state to nullify.
Well done!
Start with Colorado and Vermont. If those two can come on board, the amendment would have a chance. That would be my litmus test, my canary in a coal mine.
They are taking them to court to fight them on the unfunded mandates and forcing individuals to buy health insurance. They are fighting this under the commerce clause.
If you understand the full import of socialism into the United States, you will know that the 16th and 17th amendments empower socialism in the United States. If you study their history, you will understand how they were snuck in with a high level of deceit.
The 16th authorized a tax code that started out as a flat tax of 7% on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. From this derived most New Deal socialist programs such as Social Security. And again these programs crept in barely noticed. Social Security started as a total (employee and employer) 1% of gross earnings.
The 17th disconnected the States from Washington and ever since it was ratified there have been non-stop mandates from the federal government to the states.
The 10th may indeed be useful in stopping Obama’s commie-care. And that is good and should not require a Convention.
The point of a Convention is that we as conservatives have the power, a huge advantage in the number of states we control. We can roll back and demolish the foundation of every socialist program since FDR. We can replace this awful socialism with much better powerful alternatives, for example the FairTax.
As of now, the conservatives have the power in the amendment process and the liberals fear it. Which are you?
Well, I’m afraid I don’t trust a mere opinion... here... :-)
I’ve read enough about this subject to know that it’s disputed and many say it would turn into a free-for-all...
And all the assurance in the world from those who have opinions otherwise, is not going to reassure me that those who say this is what will happen (a free-for-all) are wrong.
It’s all opinion, at this point, one way or the other — and I am not about to gamble the Constitution on mere opinions... (and no one has any guarantees, other than their mere words on paper).
I don’t mind working with a Constitutional Amendment, if Congress can put one forth. But, don’t talk to me about any kind of a “Constitutional Convention” in order to get an Amendment... I would never go for that.
Put up a Constitutional Amendment, by Congress, and then let’s go for it!
But, anyone who says let’s try a Constitutional Convention, then I’ll be one of those arguing strongly against it, no matter what someone says the subject is about.
You won’t know if a Convention for Proposing Amendments is safe until we have tried it, and it doesn’t turn into a circus. Once people see that it is not an engine of destruction but a means for the states to assert their will over Congress, the people will turn to it more often if Congress doesn’t take the hint.
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.