Posted on 04/13/2014 5:05:22 PM PDT by EveningStar
Do you have a firearm?
Do you expect to keep it after a “new” interpretation?
Sounds good in theory but you’d have to have a pretty good change of the guard to mke it happen. Its going to be a lot of work but Obamacare and 0’s bad behavior and track record may make the job easier. Educating the public about what is really happening with facts to back it up may make a big difference over time. I anticipate that their next move is to take over the Internet and control it in a way that has ever been seen before. Alternate Internet communication methods need to be ready to go.
This is not the original intent of the Commerce clause. It was simply to allow Congress to direct ( or 'regulate') shipments from foreign countries to various ports in the States in order to spread the monies collected from taxes on incoming goods among the several States.
Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
Elliot's Debates , Volume 3, page 455 - U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=466&itemLink=?%230030467&linkText=1
The federal government having any authority inside the States proper and outside the strict wordage contained in the Constitution is a concept of 'modern' government, not the Intent of the Founders.
The first time around they were only suppose to modify the Articles of Confederation, but we got a new constitution.
You want what now?
That is one heck of a post. Thank You.
Affirmative sir.
The check on a runaway convention is state ratification of proposed amendments. The argument against a CoS because it might become run away is specious. This is not to disparage the concern as I understand the fear. I also suggest that given the present circumstances and the mendacity of the political class there are only two options. Reform the government using the CoS to guarantee our freedom. Garuntee our freedom the old fashioned way.
When Conservatives take back Colorado in November, we’ll be next on the list.
Great Assemblies this weekend at State, CD, and HD levels!
The thought of anyone even tinkering with a perfectly brilliant document is nerve-wracking enough, but seeing a misinterpretation makes it downright impossible for me to stay quiet. :-)
It is not fine. It cannot protect our freedom against a mendacious government. It was not written to contain the type of people we have in government. I think some sensible additions will correct things.
A M E N!!
Well stated. Thank you.
The Convention of States needs to go on a serious education campaign in every state that has a hope of joining them.
The Constitution does not need to be rewritten. It needs to be followed.
Now, here are some questions:
Is it possible to keep the Convention limited only to particular amendments?
Is it possible for the Left to co-opt the convention and propose amendments of their own?
Correct.
If a proposed amendment outside the legal purview of the convention is introduced, it is the duty of the presiding officer to rule such a proposal out of order and gavel down the delegate who introduces it. If the delegate appeals the decision of the chair to the floor, it is the sworn duty of the delegates not to take such a proposal up for consideration. Bottom line: the kind of runaway convention feared by so many is outside the law.
Delegates to an Amendments Convention would be chosen by the state legislatures. I see no way this could be hijacked by the Left unless the majority of legislatures were controlled by the Left.
Keep in mind that there is one absolute fail-safe. If you go back to that long pedantic opus I added to this thread about how the amendatory process works, you'll see that it would take three-fourths of the state legislatures (or state ratifying conventions, if Congress so chooses) to ratify anything out of an Amendments Convention to get it into the Constitution. In brutal math, that means that if 13 states say no to the product of a convention, that amendment is dead.
There is no chance that a convention would agree to repeal or weaken the 2nd Amendment, and there is absolutely no chance that 38 states would ratify such foolishness.
Bogus.
Congress can propose and pass Constitutional amendments any time. What if Congress decided to “rewrite” the whole Constitution?!?!?!?
A Convention of the States can no more do that then Congress can.
And ANY amendment proposed by the Convention of the States must go through exactly the same ratification process that all amendments have gone through in the past.
Others have already said the same thing—but it cannot be said enough, until people stop publishing the same old lies.
They did so not because they were a "runaway" convention, but because the states AUTHORIZED them to meet for that purpose. Again: The original Constitutional convention was NOT a "runaway" convention.
I believe I am not alone in thinking we "tried out" the 17th long enough and can repeal it right away.
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.