Posted on 09/02/2013 7:03:49 AM PDT by dontreadthis
Practically everyone I know agrees that strictly obey the Constitution and that is why those that oppose the calling forth of Article V Convention are Constitutional hypocrites. You can not support the Constitution while at the same time rejecting the provisions of Article V.
The Article V Convention was what the method the founders provided to insure the people would be able to control the government and prevent their abuse of power. There have already been more than 34 states that have petitioned Congress for an Article V Convention Even though the requisite numbers of states has been reached Congress continues to violate the Constitution by failing to do what is mandated in Article V. If we have the authority to pick and choose which portions of the Constitution we will follow and which portions we will ignore we are doing the same thing that Congress has been doing for over 100 years.
Currently the progressives get virtually everything they want. The Supreme Court rubber stamps every legislative act regardless of its constitutionality. Congress amends the Constitution every time they pass unconstitutional legislation, the President amends the Constitution with his Executive Orders and the Supreme Court amends the Constitution every time they re-interpret the Constitution to justify the actions of the Legislative and Executive Branches of government.
Why would anyone trust the criminals that created our problems to solve the problems? Anyone that looks to Congress to solve our problems is obviously a valedictorian of a government school. There are so many laws that unconstitutional laws that are being enforce, the Constitution has become an irrelevant piece of paper. Why is it wrong for a forum of the people to gather to discuss possible amendments to the Constitution? Since when is it dangerous to discuss potential solutions to a problem?
Some say that it would be dangerous to convene a convention to discuss potential amendments to the Constitution. Refusing to talk about the problems serves absolutely no useful purpose. Denying the people their right to voice their opinions is what tyranny is all about.
The calling forth of a convention would threaten status quo and the crime syndicate that benefits from the cesspool on Capital Hill. If we sit back and do nothing we are giving our consent to the crime syndicate to continue to rape and pillage what is left of our once great nation.
If the people and the states are supposed to by the masters as it was so eloquently expressed in the tenth amendment, then why are we allowing our servants to call the shots?
If Congress were to propose a terrible amendment and presented it to the states, a total of 38 state legislatures would need to ratify it. If an Article V Convention were to propose an lousy amendment to the state legislatures, it would also need the approval of three fourths of the states. The power to amendment the Constitution is in the people and the states, Currently the states and the people are powerless unless Congress proposes amendments that will limit their power to abuse us.
The American colonist knew that declaring their independence from England would be dangerous, but because they were willing to pay the price for freedom a victory was achieved. They won the war for independence because they believed that freedom was worth fighting for.
In the Declaration of Independence we were instructed to alter or abolish our government when it became tyrannical. If you believe in the principles espoused in the Constitution are worthy, we should not abolish the government. The alter our government lawfully we must utilize the provisions of Article V and avoid the blood bath that would result from efforts to abolish the government.
The worst thing that would come from an Article V Convention would be the proposal of a lousy amendment. If that occurred the proposed amendment would be rejected by the states and no changes to the Constitution would occur. In the best case scenario an amendment that would allow us to indict and prosecute elected officials for violating their oath would added to the Constitution. We have absolutely nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain;
Where do you see loopholes in, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," that permit the ObamaCare mandate to infringe on the free exercise of religion by those with religious objections to paying for the murder of unborn babies? It's not a loophole, just ignoring the plain language by a group of illegitimate and petty tyrants.
Where do you see loopholes in, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that permit the tens of thousands of anti-gun laws on the books today and the new infringements that are proposed by the far left? Again, it's not a loophole, just ignoring the plain language by a group of illegitimate and petty tyrants.
I could go on through the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Enumerated Powers, and the prerequisites for the Office of the President, but the point is clear. The fault is not in the Constitution. The fault is in corrupt and lawless politicians who are attracted by the opportunities to enrich themselves and the opportunities to exert power over others that an over-sized government offers - and in the amoral voters who can be bribed with other people's money.
The wording is perfectly clear. What are the chances of Congress ignoring something so unambiguous? They could no more ignore those words than they could ignore "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment.
The other side of this is that a Constitutional Convention would bring out the Tea Party like you haven't seen since the ObamaCare townhalls. I suspect we would swamp the left at such a convention. The problem is that I can't imagine what we could add to the existing Constitution beyond "and we really mean that . . . and we really mean that too" that would help.
detecting, (perhaps incorrectly) a bit of sarcasm in your reply, I would expect that the backlash would be enormous should Congress ignore 34 like-minded States whose citizens and legislators dedicated major time and effort to bring forth an application.
I can’t get past the first sentence, but I tried a few times.
Broader needs an editor.
I actually don’t see much chance of a “hijacked” convention, but I would be interested in your thoughts as to how that could actually happen - within the reality of how these conventions are set up and function. Beyond that, even if the convention were “hijacked” all the convention can do is propose amendments to the Constitution. The convention would have no power to adopt them. Any proposals still have to be ratified by 38 of the 50 states where Wyoming’s voice is equal to California’s and Idaho counterbalances New York..
And as for Liberals not playing “nice,” “fair.” or “adult”,” I don’t care; they’re just doing what is natural to them, and we know what to expect. We can beat them on the battlefield or off. We just can’t expect the Beltway party animals to do it for us.
As for your second comment, you have succinctly revealed why the Amendment Convention can work, if you only listen to your own reasoning.
Have you read any of the proposals? They are all very practical.
Congress has no such power, express or implied. Congress' role has been described as "purely ministerial". In other words, all they get to do is "call" the convention, setting the date and time. Beyond that nothing.
Or, can the states do it themselves?
The states have full control over setting the rules of the convention where each state has an equal vote and voice, unless the states vote to employ some other voting mode, but I think that possibility beyond imagination.
I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?
I think the results of the convention and any proposed amendments subsequently ratified by 38 States will be honored without question because of their immediacy. These will not be the archaic words of men long dead; these Amendments will represent the bedrock will of the people TODAY.
And what is the alternative, anyway? According to many on this thread, it is civil war. Should we not first try the civil, Constitutional alternative given to us by the Founders for just such a situation?
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.