Constitutional Convention?

self

[Bounceback]

Everyone, it seems, is outraged by this 9th Circuit Court decision. Read the text of the decision - it is illogical, full of nonsense and touchy feely statements. But the implications of this decision are enormous: by the logic of this decision, Mr. Bush acts unconstitutionally by ending a public address with "God Bless the United States"; every federal court in the country is opened by an unconstitutional "God Save this Honorable Court"; the government prints currency with unconstitutional language; the Senate opens its session with an unconstitutional prayer. And the Declaration of Independence cannot be read at a government function or housed in a government building by reason of its references to God, particularly the language that says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I read tonight that Senator Lieberman this afternoon suggested a Consitutional Convention to overturn this 9th Circuit decision. That is the last thing we need now in the middle of a war. The liberals see a Constitutional Convention as a golden opportunity to amend away most of the Bill of Rights. Who will stop them once the media momentum builds?

If the expressions of anger in the people I have talked to this afternoon and evening are any indication of the true emotion and feelings throughout the country about this 9th Circuit decision, then Mr. Bush should step up to the plate and address the public's concerns immediately. And the United States Supreme Court should have its chance to rectify this disgraceful decision before any Constitutional Convention is called.

[philman_36]

I read tonight that Senator Lieberman this afternoon suggested a Consitutional Convention to overturn this 9th Circuit decision. That is the last thing we need now in the middle of a war. The liberals see a Constitutional Convention as a golden opportunity to amend away most of the Bill of Rights.

Through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing Articles, the Convention would draft an entirely new frame of government.
A HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION
The official purpose of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation but when the convention convened, the delegates realized that they had two general goals in common: to create a republican form as well as a new constitutional form of government.

Personally, I believe it would be for something much worse than that, like an opportunity to write a whole new frame of government more to the liking of liberals.
As far as I know only one has ever been held on the Federal level.

The silence on this thread is deafening and scary!

[philman_36]

Where did you read that at, if I may ask?

[walden]

The silence is because a constitutional convention is simply a non-starter. It's the last thing we need to worry about-- to fight among ourselves when we are in a fight for our lives world-wide is idiotic.

[inquest]

The libs would never try this. It would blow up in their faces like they were a bunch of amateur Palestinian bomb-makers.

[fogarty]

I'm not agreeing either for or against a Consitutional Convention. It's just that your rationale is a bit flawed. Let us not forget that the US was very much in desperate straits when the original Consitutional Conventions were called - even after the Revolution, we were facing crisis after crisis of funding and civil unrest.

[philman_36]

The silence is because a constitutional convention is simply a non-starter.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement.
What do you mean by "non-starter"?
Do you mean to say it is a "non-issue"?

It's the last thing we need to worry about-- to fight among ourselves when we are in a fight for our lives world-wide is idiotic.
Your following statements led me to believe that is what you're actually saying.

[philman_36]

If you mean "someone or something that is not productive or effective" then why would Lieberman even suggest having one if he thought it wouldn't be productive or effective.
And, BTB, both of us were wrong in the use of the hyphen. Neither nonstarter nor nonissue have them. Sorry, I try to be correct, but not politically correct.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since most are unaware that Congress has the power to prevent these kinds of decisions, I will point to the "exceptions" clause Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2. "In all the other Cases before mentioned (in paragraph 1), the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Thus, Congress can pass a law stating that the subject matter of the law is not subject to federal or Supreme Court jurisdiction.

[walden]

By "non-starter", I mean that it's not going to happen. And, events are overrunning us: the judge that issued the ruling just stayed his own ruling, and the 9th circuit is going to hear it "en banc" (all 11 judges.)

[philman_36]

..."en banc" (all 11 judges.)
Oh thank you for thinking I was too stupid to know or figure out what "en banc" meant.
I just love it when you're condescending to me!
en banc...in full court : with full judiciary authority

[Bounceback]

I think perhaps in my disgust over this 9th Circuit ruling, I misread an earlier report over the AP. I thought the report said Senator Lieberman was calling for a Constitutional Convention, but in researching yesterday's news and the Congressional reaction to the 9th Circuit's ruling, it appears that Senator Lieberman merely called for a constitutional amendment to keep "under God" in the Pledge. From the A.P.: "Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a former vice presidential candidate, immediately called for a constitutional amendment to make sure the words stay in the pledge: 'There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it.'"

Senator McCain also suggested a constitutional amendment.

What I was pointing out in my post remains true: there is always great danger to the republic in an emotional appeal to amend the Constitution, for constitutional amendments can turn the country and the government upside down and inside out. In the headlong rush for amendment A, there will always be those seizing the opportunity to advocate amendments B and C and D. One dark day the political parties may indeed see the amendment process as the ultimate way to finesse their opponents and impose their views and ideologies upon the country.

But not yet; not yet.

[philman_36]

I've already commented on my views about an amendment.
That is a far cry from a Constitutional Convention. That man wants to do away with the Electoral College too though so nothing he does surprises me much and I wouldn't put it past him to try and call for one.