Free Republic

The attitude that anyone not a leftist just doesn’t know what’s good for him is extremely insulting. That they don’t realize this is just more evidence of their inability to even consider views other than their own.

This was from February:

"Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Florida and Georgia have formally adopted Article V resolutions.

"They have also been introduced in 33 other state legislatures this year – including the presidential battleground state of South Carolina.

"Last month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed an Article V Convention in his 'Texas Plan', stating that 'each branch of [the federal] government has strayed from its intended role.'"

I think Indiana may have adopted a resolution since then also.

"Well, the constitution says parents, not parent."

Let me guess...you've never actually read the Constitution, have you? It says no such thing. This is the entirety of what it says about presidential qualifications:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Do you see the word "parent" or "parents" in there anywhere? Of course you don't.

"All Cruz supporters should be stripped of citizenship, deprived of property, and deported by executive order. This should happen not later than 12:03 PM EST on Jan 20, 2017."

You Trumpers are kind of insane, aren't you?

"a progressive voice for reason and sanity."

Again with the redefinitions of ordinary words. "Reason" and "sanity" don't have anything to do with progressivism.

You might take a look at Watts Up With That? Anthony Watts is very knowledgeable and informative on this question. The AGW left hates him with a passion.

You're right about impeachment not being eligible for presidential pardons, for this reason. The person being impeached would be the president, and couldn't grant herself a pardon. However, since the offense occurred before she became president, the argument would be made that she can't be impeached for acts done before she was in office. No, it doesn't make much sense to me either, but it would be made and the DC denizens who would have to vote on the impeachment would grasp it like drowning men grasping a floating branch, in the hope that they could escape having to be put on record about a presidential impeachment.

No, a presidential pardon can be granted without a conviction, or even an active indictment. Bill Clinton did it for Mark Rich, Gerald Ford did it for Nixon.

The recourse is to have the states say, “the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this matter, so its opinion isn’t binding.” And then to convene the convention whether or not Congress agrees.

First, the supreme court can't rule a properly-ratified amendment unconstitutional. If you think that, nothing else you say is worth considering. Second, yes Congress could repeal the 17th amendment. But it won't; the feral federal government will never agree to reduce its power. The only way to get something like this done is via an Article V convention, bypassing Congress entirely.

As for "one has never met the requirements needed to compel Congress to call" an Article V convention, there have been over 400 state resolutions calling for such a convention. Since these resolutions haven't been identically worded Congress has pretended that they didn't meet the constitutional requirements, but the Constitution nowhere says that such resolutions must be identical to be valid. For that reason the Convention of States movement is working to get states to pass identical resolutions. So far, six states have done so, and the resolution is being considered by a fair number more.

Assuming it works as claimed, it would still only disguise the Earth to one specific star system per laser. So do they plan to have one for every star they think might have a civilization?

The only way either of those things could be done is via an Article V convention; Congress would never submit the needed amendments for ratification. So, do you support an Article V convention?

Opinions of “Constitutional attorneys-at-law and legal scholars” that have not been accepted by courts are worth about as much as blank paper. Then can “contradict” the courts as much as they want; they mean nothing unless the courts agree with them.

And I’ve provided you with a video response to Schlafly’s errors. I notice you’ve not even mentioned that she’s been refuted.

In other words, nothing anyone can do has any chance of working, we’re all doomed. Geez, why don’t you just go ahead and commit suicide if you believe that. Me, I’ll work to set things right.

You do know that what you’ve just said is a complete load of crap, right?

To hear the responses to Schlafly's misunderstanding of Article V, listen to this:

AUDIO: Michael Farris Debates Andy Schlafly in New Jersey

And to see many more corrections of misunderstandings:

Responses To Convention Of States Opposition

So what’s your solution, armed resurrection? All you complainers about an Article V convention are very quiet about how you would go about reining in a feral government. This is the legal, constitutional method of doing so. If you refuse to even try it you’re basically ignoring the Constitution just like our common opponents. Unless you’re content with just moaning about how things are, and don’t want to try to change them for the better.

Point to one instance where the electoral college voted for a candidate who was not a natural born citizen. Go ahead, we'll wait. As to dispositive law on who is or is not a natural born citizen, point to that also. The courts have recently tossed out all challenges to natural born citizenship that have been brought before them. Unless you can show something more than what you have, you're only voicing your opinion.

As for your contention that amendments can be ratified by fewer than 38 states, the mind boggles at your misunderstanding of the process.

Facts not in evidence. Your contention about the electoral college is only a matter of opinion on your part, which opinion is not backed up by any legal findings. You may have some basis for your belief about constitutional ineligibility, but at this time that is just your unsupported opinion, not a fact. As for the rest of your fear about an Article V convention, you do know that anything coming out of such a convention will have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures to go into effect, right? If you believe that there are that many state legislatures that will vote to destroy the Constitution, I think you should seek counseling.