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

To: Gaffer

Any amendment adopted by such a convention would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, right? I don’t see the harm in having a convention. At least the conversation would be on our footing - how to limit the government. But with the country split the way it is, no amendments would likely ever be adopted anyway.


21 posted on 09/02/2013 7:47:32 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Twotone

Our laws about eligibility for President, etc were written down, too weren’t they? Immigration laws also. You can’t count the laws Obama and the Democrats have broken in 4.5 years.

If you have a convention, it only opens us up to more potential appeasement in the name of propriety and fair play(by our RINOs and moderate ‘adults’). It opens up a whole new venue for the media do demagogue and keep the real points from being aired. In short, it will be another “equal rights amendment” debacle whose leftover remnants have been slowly introduced into law by fiat and into practice by rote repetition and intentional re-education of our young.

I am in no way willing to open our Constitution up for that. I’d rather take a hard line to defend it as it is, even if by arms.


23 posted on 09/02/2013 7:55:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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