Posted on 07/03/2022 11:44:06 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The latest Supreme Court rulings make it clear: Our current constitution is ill-equipped to provide the necessary legal structures and framework of ideas necessary for democracy to flourish as an institution in the 21st century. This may be the real point of the latest rulings of our highest court. Rather than hold the position that the court ruled inappropriately, consider the argument that the court ruled correctly based upon the document they had at hand, namely, the United States Constitution.
During the 1970s and ’80s, conservative groups dreamed of holding a constitutional convention. Why? To write into our governing document ideas and governing beliefs that those on the right believed were missing. I suggest that rather than whine or complain about the court’s current rulings based on its constructivist view of law, why not instead use the energy of our modern times to construct a document that is reflective of a new constructivist view of the world that includes all of humanity, not just selected groups?
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
When I read that I assumed it meant postmodernist, i.e. it means whatever is convenient for it to mean at the time.
Yeah. It’s a new term to me, I think.
No thank you!
Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Well, guess what? They did. And it is very good for the country.
However, this is another reason for needing a massive Red Wave to take control / solidify control over more state legislatures - we'll give them their constitutional convention, alright.
Exactly! I’m right there with you! No way would I trust our citizens to do tue right thing. No way.
“democracy”
I stopped reading when I saw that word.
It would be a sh!t show. That’s the problem with that movement. They think once convened the leftist participants (and there would be) will play by the rules set out. In truth the whole context could be changed. I looked into this for years and the proponents can’t assure anything.
It’s almost inconceivable to imagine how much time it would take and the astronomical number of pages the “new” constitution would end up requiring, since the primary purpose of this idiot’s idea is to give unlimited rights and very few responsibilities to the greatest number of followers. If pelosi really believes - and she really does - that it’s necessary to pass a bill to know its contents, there would never be enough time to read the result of this moron’s quest.
John Birch Society has been warning against this since I first started reading The New American back in the early 90’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)
Construct new knowledge.
Yeah.
Doesn't take much to see where the progs would go with that one.
.
So, it's working pretty well. We are not a democracy.
“The right to privacy, equality with equity, substantive due process are all ideas that are lacking in the current document.”
That’s the antithesis of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
That would be hell on earth.
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story predicting this. “Harrison Bergeron”.
Starts with...
“The year was 2081 and everyone was finally equal.”
https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt
Article V convention bump…. Sign me up.
Our founding fathers would overturn those darn Govt. agency heads from running the USA.
Typical liberal horse manure. When they don’t like a court decision, they want to dismantle the court, stack it, or change the Constitution. When Congressional Democrats don’t like a rule they previously created, they change it, then down the road, complain that the rule they just created is unfair, and needs changing again. When Rudy Giuliani was elected Mayor, the Democrat-controlled New York City Council changed the Mayoral term limits from unlimited to two terms, and they refused to let Rudy remain in office a few extra months so he could see through the city’s recovery after 9/11. When Bloomberg was elected, and changed his party affiliations (from Republican, to Independent, to Democrat) the City Council changed the term limits again, so Bloomberg could run for a third term. Then when de Blasio was elected, they changed it back to two terms. They change rules every time the wind blows, to suit their needs.
No way!
Opening up a constitutional convention will have the RINOs and the Marxist/fascist/totalitarians kill of the Second Amamdment, remove any idea of God from the new document, and limit the first amendment to whatever that think is acceptable speech and likely conduct.
Recipe for failure for the US. Better to make amendments as needed, even if you don’t like having idiots for reps for 40 years.
So, basically, we need to pass a Constitution before we can find out what's in it.
There is a big difference between a constitutional convention and an Article V convention. A constitutional convention would be convened to rewrite the Constitution as we know it. An Article V convention can only propose amendments to the existing Constitution. Under an Article V convention, each proposed amendment would still need ratification by 38 states. In a Constitutional convention, I guess they could set any criteria for approval they wanted, such as a simple majority.
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.