What good are new Constitutional amendments if current ammendments aren’t being followed?
You take all avenues within the framework of the constitution as part of the process of correcting the problems.
Those that think that you can just jump that because it’s “not going to work” and go into secession, or some sort of shooting war, have decided to forsake the very document they claim to revere, out of expediency and have not forfeited all of the moral and legal high ground.
Under your logic, what good is the First and Second Amendment?
You either fight or you surrender....well, or you get killed. The argument from the position “but we are losing” is always a bad one. it is a display of WHY we are losing.
“What good are new Constitutional amendments if current ammendments aren’t being followed?”
“Current amendments”? How about provisions of the Constitution, never amended? Barack has never himself claimed to be a natural born citizen. The only claimed attestation was signed by Nancy Pelosi to ger Barack on the ballot in Arizona. Barack and Claire McCaskill, Barack’s campaign co-chair sponsored two actions to affirm natural born citizenship for McCain, SB2678, which failed in 2008 and SR511, which is just a resolution, not actionable. “...born to parents who were citizens at the time of the birth” was the opinion of Barack’s Harvard Con-Law professor, also reiterating the need for birth on sovereign U.S. soil. Is argument was based upon the 1790 Nationality Act, repealed in 1795, changing foreign born children of citizen form natural born citizens to naturalized citizens, based upon Article 1 Section 8. They didn’t succeed in changing it before Barack was “elected”, and chose to use McCain’s questionable eligibility as cover. You guys to don’t ask and we won’t either.
What does any discussion of amendments mean if we pretend a provision, Article II section 1, doesn’t exist? Few talk honestly because they are afraid to discuss article II honestly, some knowing that federal courts are political and will avoid trouble by denying standing and the Supreme requiring NBC interpretation. Others support a political candidate who doesn’t satisfy the existing definition and believe the end justifies ignoring the intent of our framers. Amending Article II Section 1 will requie Court thanks to Kagan and Sotomayor have blocked cases overturning Minor v. Happersett which confirmed the definition, “born on our soil to parents who were its citizen at birth”.