Are You a Constitutional Hypocrite?

THE CONSTITUTION CLUB ^ | September 1, 2013 | Keith Broaders

[Pollster1]

Sorry getting active isn’t going to do it. We have to close ALL the loopholes in the USC.

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.

[Pollster1]

the Congress “shall” call for the Convention

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.

[Pollster1]

But, something like a Constitutional Convention would bring out the leftwing like you’ve never seen. You don’t think they would realize all the potential crap they could pull with something like this? Yes, it would take 3/4’s of the states to ratify - but, that’s just not enough protection in my opinion.

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.

[dontreadthis]

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.

[Gene Eric]

I can’t get past the first sentence, but I tried a few times.

Broader needs an editor.

[John Valentine]

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.

[John Valentine]

Have you read any of the proposals? They are all very practical.

[John Valentine]

That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes?

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?