Posted on 03/23/2010 10:12:27 PM PDT by Lmo56
Does anyone think it is time to restore some sense of order to the United States ??? I do.
The two-party system has fostered a climate where legislators have become beholden to their party at the expense of those that they represent - their constituents.
The Constitution is a GREAT document, but it is not perfect. And there are some housekeeping chores that are needed to clean-up some deficiencies in the document. After all, it was written over 200 years ago - and the Founding Fathers could never have imagined the mess we are in now.
However, they did leave us with one thing - the Constitutional Convention. It rips the Constitution out of the hands of Congress and places with the States.
See this link:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133312/editorial/virginia-moving-to-a-new-constitutional-convention.html
I did not post it as the title of this thread, as the author is absolutely AGAINST the Constitutional Convention. He does, however, provide information on its current status.
As of this time, there are 22 states that have called for it, 18 that have never voted for it, and 10 who voted - but later rescinded it.
It only takes 34 states to FORCE Congress to call one. Of the 10 states that rescinded, I think that all 10 would be inclined to re-instate [if only to repeal the healthcare law].
That leaves 2 states of the 18 that have never voted for it to be turned. Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia look like candidates to me.
What do you all think ???
Now THAT I understand!
I stated that the Constitution is a GREAT document - but, if it is so "perfect" as it was originally written, then why did the Founders allow for amendment at all? Because, they realized that it wasn't a "perfect" document and that it MIGHT need to be modified from time to time.
The Constitutional Convention is a tool that the Founders left us with. Given the healthcare debacle, if the courts do not provide us relief, why not use the tool? God knows you ain't going to get 2/3 of the House and Senate to propose any amendment ...
We are talking about getting the liberals who have court-twisted the Constitution out of our faces again.
_______________________________________________________
AMEN!
I think if the courts and elections doesn’t stop this mess—we will need a con-con or a civil war.
Or we could say oh, well..we’re completely socialist now.
If we don’t stop this, our kids won’t have a Constitution to back them...the world will work towards International Law.
Exactly. we've seen what hopey-changey can do. There are some people in this country who just do not get it. We do not need to change the constitution, it works, we just need to enforce it, especially the ones who swore to uphold it.
Well, you finally write a cogent and respectful comment. Thank you.
The commerce clause is eating away all of our liberties. We can propose an amendment to handle it, valid. However, a CC can also accomplish that. Is a CC a good idea? Not in my opinion, but it should be on the table for debate because it is a method allowed in the Constitution.
The 9th and 10th have also been ignored. The 9th mostly by the conservatives and the 10th by the left. Do we chip away at the 9th and piss off conservatives or chip away at the 10th and make the left go up in flames? We can solve both by a CC. Is rewriting the BOR a good idea? No, not in my opinion, but I am happy to discuss it.
srry, *make the left happy.
Not disagreeing with that - except in the last 20 years or so, legislators [sometimes even Republicans] have become more beholden to their party leaders than the people that they represent.
Look what just got rammed down our throats - and look in November for those Dems who walk the plank and lose. But [for now at least], the damage is done.
Let me ask you a question, the Constitution as written is not being upheld and obeyed.
Why is it you believe that any changes would be adhered to?
What we need to do is return to the original intent of the founding of this Country, State need to assert the 10th Amendment, and then elect honest, moral men to office, yeah I know....not in this lifetime.
I screwed up and wasted space. Too much time trying to split Excel worksheets.
PosterType.Drunk || PosterType.Idiot? return 0: Console.WriteLine(opinion);
I'll dismiss the condescending comment first, now then tell how do we enforce any changes when we cannot enforce what we have now?
The Constitution is being complete ignored yet you propose to change it and expect those changes to somehow magically be honored?
Let's get back to the basics first.
Constitutional Convention? Kiss the Second Amendment goodbye. They’d trash the First Amendment too.
You started your comments out on this thread spitting venom at the poster. Everyone who argued with you was offended by that conduct not your arguments. My point wasn’t condescending but recognizing that you had returned to debate. Disagree with a poster but don’t call him DU, crap, sh!t, and everything else. Civility is what marks debate, not personal attacks.
Lincoln trashed the Constitution and we have lived with his legacy. Then came the expansionist commerce clause. To say that people ignore it is a debate point. The reality of it is that some gaping holes were left in by the founders because they had no idea how poorly they would be interpreted.
bump that
The Constitution is not the problem, those elected to represent us are the problem, we need to stay focused on flushing them.
sorry about the spelling. It should have been failed. I didn’t see it on spell check.
Constitutional Amendments are not the same thing as a Constitutional Convention.
Let me ask you a question, the Constitution as written is not being upheld and obeyed.
Why is it you believe that any changes would be adhered to?
What we need to do is return to the original intent of the founding of this Country, State need to assert the 10th Amendment, and then elect honest, moral men to office, yeah I know....not in this lifetime.
*****
I agree with you - for the most part. I took this from the following post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823341/posts
The Founding Document is silent about a Convention for Proposing Amendments, except for establishing its existence and the criterion of its call by Congress. In 1965, a commission of the American Bar Association laid out what could be divined about the Framers’ intent. Then in 1992, after the commotion over the unexpected ratification of the 27th Amendment, originally proposed in 1789, Congress passed a bill reforming its involvement in the amendatory process, to include regulating the petitions for a Convention for Proposing Amendments and regulating the Convention itself.
Petitions from state legislatures ask Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The petition would have to request a subject or subjects for the Convention to consider, or it could request a general revision of the Constitution of 1787 – but not a new constitution!
If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a convention, and if the wording of those petitions is in agreement as to the subject(s) the Convention is asked to consider, then Congress would call the Convention [no choice], i.e. set the time and place.
Delegates would be elected by the people, not appointed by a governor or state legislature. The model for the Convention would be similar to the Electoral College, where each congressional district would elect one delegate, and two delegates would be elected at large by each state.
The petitioning language used by the states to request a Convention for Proposing Amendments would define the purview of the Convention. The Convention would not be allowed to address any subject outside that language.
Upon convening, the Vice President would preside until the Convention could elect its own officers and establish its own rules of order.
During the Convention, the Supreme Court would be available to hear cases generated by the Convention without going through the usual appellate process.
Amendment proposals would go through deliberation and vigorous debate as would any amendment proposed in Congress. The Convention would set the bar for approving an amendment proposal to pass it on to the states for ratification. This could be a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or anything that the Convention chose.
Once the Convention exhausts the language of its purview and passes one, more than one, or no amendment proposals to the states for ratification, the Convention would adjourn permanently, and the delegates would become ordinary citizens again.
Congress would then submit the proposed amendments to the states for ratification by deciding whether they should use the Legislative Option or the Ratifying Convention Option.
If Congress chooses the Ratifying Convention Option, each state would hold an election for delegates to its state ratifying convention, which would be apportioned according to population.
Each state legislature (or state ratifying convention, if Congress so chose) would vote up or down on each proposed amendment. If three-fourths of the states ratified an amendment proposal, it would become part of the Constitution.
The reason that the Constitution is not being adhered to in some cases is that the vernacular of the 18th century can be claimed to be ambiguous - and people can disagree.
Originalists [like me - and I think, you] take it to mean what the Founders knew at the time. Others use the vague language to rationalize their positions. Case in point:
Article I, Section 8:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
And:
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Healthcare supporters believe that the phrase “general welfare” and the power to regulate commerce makes the mandate of healthcare constitutional.
You and I disagree.
But what if an amendment produced through the Constitutional Convention process was written like this:
“The power provide for the general welfare and the power to regulate commerce shall not be construed so as to mandate the purchase of goods and/or services from any private entity”.
The language is unambiguous. SCOTUS would have no leeway in interpreting it.
Exactly - they were not dumb, most were brilliant. And I have been wondering lately how many have rolled over in their graves, never having been able to conceive how their original intent has been perverted.
The only revision needed at this time is an ammendment that rescinds the 16th ammendment. cut off the revenue stream and the rest falls in line.
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.