Long live the Constitution (subject to change) ***BARF ALERT!!!***

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, November 17, 2002 | Ken Gormley

[Sam Cree]

"Unfortunately, the Socialists will find a way to ramrod some utterly horrid ideas through"

IMO, once the population as a whole no longer respects, understands or cares about the Constitution, or the values which it protects, they will ignore it, just as the Democrats do now. That is why the educational establishment is doing its best to dumb down the population and discredit our founding fathers.

I hope we can find a way to let everyone understand the value of individual freedom and the purposes for which our country was founded. I believe that if the population really understands these things, they will never willingly give them up.

[Publius]

A constitutional convention, i.e. a convention aimed at writing a constitution, is implicitly forbidden by Article V. Read "A Convention for Proposing Amendments...As Part of This Constitution" for details.

[f.Christian]

That is why the educational establishment is doing its best to dumb down the population and discredit our founding fathers.

via evolution/atheism!

[M-cubed]

I mentioned that same thought to a liberal friend of mine and his response was.....Can you imagine how screwed up it would be if Congress had the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof?....He was right!...Sad but true..

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[MonroeDNA]

How many jobs were lost because of this?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

There not going to update it periodicly they will ignore it and write laws contrary to it just like they have been for 100 years

[July 4th]

To this author, I say, "You need the people before the paper." You can't just write something, and expect everyone to play along and fall into line. When the founders crafted our Constitution, it was in response to all of the failings they'd seen in other governments. It was an acknowlegdement of a shared American experience.

[Captiva]

OK. I've been in fixed income (bonds/CDs) since I took out huge gains in March 2000 earned since 1989.

[CalConservative]

Those who are impatient to rip the document to shreds always favor a Constitutional Convention to the more traditional amendment process provided by our Founders.

Absolutely! It is amazing to me how a document prepared over 200 years ago can still be so functional today, socialist protestations aside. I cannot even begin to imagine the utter chaos of a constitutional convention, what with every politically correct interest group out there trying to get their agenda recognized in a new constitution. This would be our worst nightmare!

[The FRugitive]

Could you please elaborate?

[The FRugitive]

Never mind I found this:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

LOL.

[Wolfstar]

Actually, there is no "general welfare clause." Those words are part of the preamble to the Constitution and, as such, have no force of law. The preamble merely states the broad purpose of the Constitution. Here's the verbatim preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There was considerable debate over the meaning of "general welfare" even during the period when the original states were deciding whether or not to ratify the Constitution. However, it most certainly did not mean what "welfare" means in our time. Rather, it meant "well-being," as in prosperity — primarily issues like uniform interstate laws governing commerce, protection against riots and insurrections, protection of shipping, and related matters.

By the way, few people today who aren't historians are aware of just how close the Constitution came to failing to be ratified. It carried in Massachusetts by only 19 votes (187-168), and then only with assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added. It passed in New Hampshire and Virgina by only 10 votes, and in New York by the razor-thin margin of 3 votes. North Carolina did not ratify it until the Bill of Rights was created more than a year after New York ratified. And Rhode Island, which held so strongly to its independence that it didn't even send delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, finally ratified in 1790. Ratification in Rhode Island carried by only 2 votes.

Men who opposed the Constitution included prominent figures of the Revolutionary period, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Among them were: Patrick Henry (of 'Give me liberty or give me death' fame); Thomas Paine (author of 'Common Sense' the best rationale for independence ever written); George Clinton (a brigadier general during the Revolutionary War, 7 times governor of New York, and eventually 3rd VP of the US); George Mason (among the greatest, if less well known of our founders; who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was the model for the Declaration of Independence and the basis for the Bill of Rights; he was one of the most influential members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention). The opposed the Constitution because they did not want to see the states weakened and subjugated to a strong central government — a concern that still flows through many American veins to this day.

[Willie Green]

Could you please elaborate?

Only to say that feminazis seek to establish unequal/preferential treatment of various segments of the citiznry through formal definition of "oppressed" subcategories whose rights are already protected by the Constitution. Their "Equal Rights Amendment" was redundant and superfluous.

[The FRugitive]

That's exactly how I felt after reading it. The constitution merely needed to be reaffirmed.

What struck me as funny is that it is still apparently an issue for some.

Every congress has proposed it since the '80s apparently by Ted Kennedy.

[Willie Green]

What struck me as funny is that it is still apparently an issue for some.
Every congress has proposed it since the '80s apparently by Ted Kennedy.

It is not something that should be viewed as "funny".
At one time, that abomination came terrifyingly close to being ratified.

Be always vigilant.

[f.Christian]

To: Nebullis

I suspect the AAAS would like to update the Declaration of Independence to better reflect their view of what should be the foundation of American liberty to:

We hold these outlooks to be best, that all men are evolved, that they are endowed by accident with certain conditional allowances to be determined by us.

America is based on the assumption of God's existence. Throw that out we become just as much of a Hell on earth as was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.


114 posted on 11/08/2002 8:32 AM PST by Tribune7

[Willie Green]

Amen bump.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights