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

To: UnwashedPeasant
" It would be wise for the Free States to form some sort of association now, to organize strategy for dealing with the advancing Tyranny, even if there is no secession. "

The Constitution tells us how the free states should proceed. It's called an article five Constitutional Convention. We need 34 states to trigger it and 38 to ratify changes. Just a few amendments or changes to amendments and it's OVER for this out of control federal government.

It would take some work but it's far more likely to succeed than a brutal civil war or succession.

13 posted on 01/12/2013 12:56:30 AM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: precisionshootist

Constitutional Convention Question's

Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?

What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past:Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“

Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.

A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.

Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.

I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.

Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.

Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.

You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."

Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????

Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."

Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"

Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.

What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.

An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

17 posted on 01/12/2013 2:24:35 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: precisionshootist

I say with respect that I am convinced that you are mistaken. There is no real problem with our existing constitution, the problem is that our elected government refuses to abide by it. Why should anyone believe that calling a convention to change the constitution will correct this problem?
I see it as the same thinking that leads some people to believe that the problem of people using guns to murder people in violation of laws prohibiting murder can be solved by passing laws against guns. The problem is not one that can be solved by passing laws and the problem of a lawless gangster government cannot be solved by changing the constitution. The existing amendments have all come about one by one except for the first ten and I would suggest that some of them have turned out to be grievous errors with the twenty sixth being the most recent such error. To open up the possibility of a total rewriting would almost certainly accomplish nothing but destruction.

I have said for years that our elections have devolved to become a contest to see which candidate can promise to violate the constitution in the most appealing ways. Then when one is elected he swears to uphold the document he just spent two years promising to violate. Why would anyone be surprised when he totally disregards the constitution from that day on? Why would anyone imagine that changing the constitution will bring any different result?

The source of the problem is the voters and many of those who now vote were barred from voting by the original constitution and or by the state laws regarding voter qualifications, the only changes needed are to once again bar those people from voting. When people continue to reelect the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Biden and Obama and steadfastly refuse to consider electing decent human beings it is the voters who need to be changed, not the constitution, except insofar as the constitution needs to be changed to stop some of them from voting.

In fact the call for a constitutional convention makes me think of someone who has gone to a doctor with a complaint and left with a prescription and calls the doctor three days later and demands another prescription because he is not feeling any better. When the doctor asks if he took his medicine as directed he replies that he never actually had the prescription filled.


29 posted on 01/12/2013 7:55:49 AM PST by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

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