Posted on 06/18/2016 11:08:48 AM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Any proposed amendment would still need ratification, which requires 3/4 State approval either in the Senate or in a separate ratification convention. (IIRC the only time the ratification convention was used was to repeal Prohibition.)
Who is suggesting that (other than Phyllis)?
Not quite. 3/4's of the state legislatures.
I hope you didn't write the article yourself. It's whack-a-doodle:
For instance, as individuals, we have the natural and God-given right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment grants nothing. The 2A merely acknowledges a preexisting right.
Well, no. People all over the world have a "natural and God-given right" to defend themselves. They don't have the Second Amendment (and we may not have it that much longer ourselves). Written laws and constitutions do matter. The natural rights you think you have aren't respected by governments without written guarantees.
Theoretically perhaps, but ratification is still required after the Convention is over. I see no reason to expect a Convention to be more radical than Congress already is, and Congress has never passed a proposed amendment to delete the 2nd. Even if either tried, the state legislatures, as a whole, are much more conservative and would never ratify such a thing.
Ping
But what makes you think a convention could agree about anything? First of all, Democrat and Republican states wouldn't agree about anything important. Secondly, you wouldn't get what you want from Republican conventions or state legislatures.
Ah, thank you for the correction.
Actually a congress and court exist but I hardly think they are ours. As far as overstaying we have the very best situation in this cycle to actually start an uprising then all bets are off.
As far as elections are concerned..
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. Joseph Stalin
I think this election will tell us if Joe was right.
Here is a related column from the same source that deals with your point.
Government can violate, but not take away natural rights.
Your post surprises me. It refutes our Founders’ reasons for Declaring independence.
Not mere words. The state’s have to ratify any proposed amendment. There is the ultimate check and balance. Your argument is specious and beyond that dangerous. If the state’s are not empowered to overrule the federal government soon AND recover their voice in DC, the Republic is likely finished and with that the world will be plunged into war. Compared to what is happening right now, the invasion of islamists, the marxist courts, the lawlessness of all branches of government especially the unelected agencies, the islamist fifth column at the highest levels of government that facilitates the invasion and prevents America from defending herself, there is no risk at all to a convention of states. Get over your fear. Fight for Article V or the nation is likely finished.
Not my argument but it is the argument of those conservatives who are opposed.
It is easier to elect people who respect our constitutional principles than to propose a wise amendment.
Our demographics are quite different today than they were in 1789. You could get an amendment to take the vote from white males and it could pass. California's government is virtually all Mexican from top to bottom. Other states are flooded with aliens; i.e. Somali's Pakistani's, Arabs all who hate us. We may pretend race does not count but they know better and ACT upon racial discrimination.
People hear "Constitutional Convention" and think "all our problems are solved" NONSENSE a Pandora's box would be opened. Leave it alone.
As to electing people who respect constitutional principles, hogwash. We have been electing people who promise fealty to the constitution. The roll back of government. Reigning in the federal courts. And the repeal of noxious laws. And we we were lied to straight to our faces. Every election. It is clear our "leadership" has no moral underpinning. There will be no correcting this situation by electing politicians. Thus it will fall to other methodologies to correct this situation.
As to the aliens, all illegal aliens should be thrown out. All aliens brought in over the last sixteen by color of law should be thrown out too. The democrats brought aliens into this country to destroy the United States and raise a socialist state in its place. Copperheads all and the pubbies too. Lincoln knew well how to deal with them.
The idea that a Convention of States is a Pandora's Box is an argument I have heard over and over again. It is an illogical argument based upon fear of the unknown. What people should fear is the status quo. Doing nothing ensures our destruction. While a convention of states provides a slim chance of averting our destruction. While all must make their own choice, I will take the slim chance the Convention of States provides us over no chance at all.
bkmk
I believe you are missing the founders' point when they say, "unalienable". Just because a government tramples your rights does not remove them from you. That's why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is, for instance.
"But what makes you think a convention could agree about anything?"
If that is the greatest risk we face from a convention, isn't it worth that risk to try (as opposed to doing nothing)?
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.