- Mark,
Either you can not read or you just choose to reject thought and legal systems as they function under our current situation and how the Constitution is applied. Read the three part Article V convention proposal and tell m,e where you have problems and where you see risks. Do not just call names and print out some foolishness about some NEW Constitution. It takes 34 States to call the Convention and Congress must act without input, then the convention is held and all of the state legislatures have agreed to language and limits on the subject to be ratified. The actions then are returned to the Sate legislatures for Ratification which requires 38 States to adopt.
John and Mark, you are both either uneducated in the matter at had or are reading the JBR or other such groups of misinformation regarding a Article V "CONVENTION" - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION! You both find it convenient to attack but come to the debate loaded with bias and false premises backed by ZERO facts - Good luck with your future actions for going forward with false information will not severe you or the Nation very well.
Thank you for reading this post.
- Permalink Reply by on
- MARK ... Huh?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,I have no idea what or who JBR is. Nor does it really matter. I appoligize folks, for what will be a looong read, but I can not abide falsehoods to go unchecked. I cannot RISK someone else thinking a Con-Con wise action.Lock, I gave you the links. You want me to do your homework for you.- Fine, but it will cost you your lunch money for a week.First, Art V specifies TWO form of amending the Constitution. Our discussion involves the latter, namely; a "Convention" to wit;“The Congress...on the Application of the Legislature of two thirds of the several States,shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;..” (emphasis added)The 5th Article makes three things clear;
- that there are 2 modes of ratification ; either by the State Legislatures, or by Conventions (ie-the people of the State) Therefore, the States' assurance that they get the final say is a LIE! The Congress can call for ratification by the people of the States and completely by-pass the State Gov'ts. Imagine the States' surprise, once their “application” was accepted by Congress, who then proposes ratification-by-Convention. HAH! Sorry State Legislature- you just surrendered control to the delegates of the Convention and the voters in your State. Now, do YOU trust the future of every God Given Right you currently enjoy to an independent body of delegates who (a) have no frigging clue what Our Founders left to us, or (b) have progressive “plants” armed with that lovely $2.5M pre-drafted “New Constitution” or a similar atrocity and the “articulate speaking skill's” . or BOTH!.(2) that anything approved by the Convention (or the Legislatures if Congress doesn't screw the States) becomes “..to all Intents and Purposes..” The new fundemental LAW OF THE LAND. GAME OVER! WE LOSE! No more unalienable rights- we will trade em' for 'police state privileges'.
Now, onto your beloved 3 part Article- Excerpt: Part 1- “This power was meant to provide a fail-safe mechanism to control the federal government.” Can you see, in light of the above, that there is nothing 'fail-safe' about it? Why doesn't Natelson mention the “mode of ratification” ? There is a HOLE!Continuing...Part 1, “..this report reveals that the Framers rejected drafts of Article V that contemplated the very kind of wide-open convention that could “run away,” substituting instead a provision for a limited-scope convention, attended by state-chosen delegates, and addressed to specific subject matters” Then follows in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE... “Of course, abuses of the Article V constitutional amendment process are possible. But that possibility must be viewed against the clear and present danger to individual rights and freedom of doing nothing.” (emphasis added)Natelson admits that the process can be abused RIGHT AFTER HE SAYS it can't. I learned a long time ago, never trust he who speaks out of both sides of their mouth. Especially, when one side is to my liking!Now MY PERSONAL FAVORITE!!! PART TWO:“Critics claim no one really knows how the process works and calling a convention would open the door to mischief by Congress, the courts, and convention delegates.”(emphasis added)Here, Natelson pulls the quintessential progressive card trick- restating the objection and changing the grounds; UNDERSTAND THIS- it is NOT that “no one really knows..” ; quite the opposite in fact. We can look to the ONE AND ONLY TIME A CON-CON was employed, AND we have honorable justices (before the court turned the law on it's head) who not only KNOW how it works- BUT WARN US OF THE DANGERS!! to wit:“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.” (Chief Justice Warren Burger in a Letter to Phyllis Schlafly, June 22 1983) (see also Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9- Holding; The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (cites omitted))(emphasis added)Continuing with Part Two- “...But states frequently applied for an amendments convention between 1789 and 1913.” What is interesting in this phrase are the dates; specifically, the END date. Why did the applications cease? I LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS ONE... 1913 16th Am , 17th AM , Income Tax Act of 1913, and last but NOT LEAST...The FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF 1913 (LOOK!!! enacted December 23, 1913!!!!!) During the Christmas Break !!So the reason these applications stopped should well indicate WHO and FOR WHAT PURPOSES they were sought. Are YOU STARTING TO UNDERSTAND DEAR LOCK?But wait- There's more.. Part 2 cont'd. “..Natelson’s research confirms that, for the most part, Americans stayed close to the original understanding of Article V and the important ground rules governing the process.” I'll say it again...How many Conventions have we experienced to fruition? Anyone? Lock? ONE!!!! So how does Einstein's research confirm squat if he has no record of a complete successful convention from which to draw? Hint: IT CAN”T!This is getting too long for a forum post. You disagree? FINE- Go get ya som' o 'dat Convention. I'll go with the idea condoned by folks much wiser than I- Incidentally, if you heard Rush' show today , Walt Williams was sitting in and was discussing federal limitations under Art 1, AND AND....Wait for it..........NULLIFICATION BY STATE LEGISLATURES !!! Imagine that?Best of Luck Brother!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,You are so right on everything else, Which is why I can't understand why your falling for the Con-Con course. I don't have any desire to insult you (well maybe a little) I just want you to think it through.Our Constitution is perfect. It complies with God's laws and Will, It fits Bastiet's "The Law" to a "T". What is WRONG isn't the document; it's the government's REFUSAL to obey it AND OUR REFUSAL TO ENFORCE IT. If we don't enforce our own Constitution and cram it down Washington's (the District) throat, who will? CAnadians? Mexicans? Russians? No! It is OUR JOB, OUR RESPONSIBILITY. Changing a law being ignored by our gov't (NEVER call them 'leaders' -they are SERVANTS! and WE are the SOVEREIGNS!)It's GOOD to be KING!!!BE a KING LOCK!IT IS YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!God Bless Us ALL!!!!
- Permalink Reply by on
- RON ... I am sooooo sorry. I'm such a windbag. Please forgive me. I didn't mean to go on and on. It's just that I'm an old, retired, single guy, so what the heck else do I have to do? Ha ha. But people have been telling me I spend too much time on the computer ... so I'm gonna try to change. I promise. Best always, John
- Permalink Reply by on
- It's called exchanging ideas. We ALL learn from each other. Other than prayer and study of His Word, I can't imagine a more worthy activity.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mark,Explain if the actions of Lincoln were Constitutional and if so how and why?
- Permalink Reply by
- Some minor Article written by a professor high school teacher of "apologetics" about Lincoln's religious beliefs? That is the basis for determining whether some unidentified act of his was Constitutional or not?"Kevin Probst teaches History, Government, and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus, Georgia." (from his article posted at center for western journalism website.)
- Permalink Reply by
- We have already covered this ground when you had a different pseudonym.You think the Constitution needs to be changed -I Don't I think it needs to be obeyed and enforced.You think a Convention can be limited and Controlled- I Don'tYou think that no EVIL will pervade a Convention- I believe the opposite.I am not interested in Wikipedia's opinion. If that is where you choose to research-that is your prerogative.And some university riddled with liberal professors (the ones who have lied to generations) is the last place I would dare seek explanations of America's principled roots and origins.You are a free man- go do what you please. Do not ask for my endorsement because it is unavailable for that task.If you understand that political power flows FROM the States TO the Federals, then you should be able to understand that whether any other States agreed or supported Kentucky or Virginia is irrelevant. If each State is independent and a MEMBER of the federation, there is no requisite that each State have cookie-cutter laws to match each others. If you read Locke, Vattel, Hamilton, etc. you didn't grasp that characteristic of independent political entities. Your contention that one State could not resist (nullify) federal usurpation contradicts your apparent belief in independent States, and further confounds your belief that our Constitution Says what it means, and means what it says.Finally, any issues you may have with other members should be directed at THEM. Mine is not a posting spot for hatred.
- Permalink Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply byLock,Chill out !First of all. You and I agree on more than you know. I despise the 17th Am for the very reason you cite. So we agree !. and the 16th was DEFINITELY used to further bribe State rights away from the States. AGAIN WE AGREE !.The 14th Am is abused by the federal judiciary to "reach through" to invade State sovereignty. Not sure but I THINK we agree on that also.Where we part company is in entrusting what is left of our frail and tattered Constitution- That fundamental law which is the only vestige of Liberty remaining in this country, to the POTENTIAL RISK (I repeat) POTENTIAL RISK, that any convention will not be hi-jacked by liberal, progressive, socialistic minded groups and individuals and destroy ANY AND ALL hope of ever preserving the Republic.Your demands that the name of a thing, whether Convention, or Con-Con, or Constitutional Convention, whatever has some bearing on that risk doesn't bear out. I am sorry that we disagree on that point but nonetheless we do.Finally, let me explain my total disdain for public educators (that's what they like to be called now). Ever since the Feds hi-jacked public education our students have grown dumber. It is a fact and provable on any education criterion site-our test scores are some of the worst among developing nations. If I had it to do over again not ONE of my children would have ever set foot inside of a public school. The institution has turned into a money pit which serves as little more than glorified day-care system. Universities are NOTORIOUS havens for left minded professors. If this is your chosen career path that is your choice, but I blame much of today's ignorance of ALL matters significant (God and Country) on the perverted institution called public education. If that offends you so be it, but I will not agree with an institution that has for decades taught young impressionable Americans that we live in a Democracy; that everyone's opinion is important; that showing up or participating is equivalent or even superior to excelling; and that there is no objective standards, only subjective FEEEEEEElings.The fact that we both love liberty and that we both recognize many of the same issues plaguing our country is grounds enough to be amicable. The path you and I choose for correction is different however, and history, rather than either of us, will determine who, if either, were correct.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply by
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply byWhat do ones religious beliefs have to do with whether Emancipation was Constitutional? I will say that Lincoln's greenbacks were one of the worst things to ever befall our nation as it opened a door that may never be shut (unsecured paper currency/ debt as money). I believe as a Christian that we should never have had slaves to begin with. However, we did, and it has since been corrected. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was noble and proper. Since that time however it has been abused by constrained definition of it's meaning and has subsequently been the tool of the left to degrade State rights and invade the sovereignty of the States. It has been used as an excuse to "legally" kill innocent babies, instituted "hate-crime" legislation, established homosexuality as a "acceptable" alternative, etc, etc, etc. For this purpose, and since their are no living slaves, the 14th should be repealed post haste. Like any child who abuses a tool or a toy, you take it away from them for their own good. I say take the 14th away from them.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Damn B,You are good when you get mad - well said old friend.Reply byHouston, we've got a problem concerning Arizona v. United States.
Regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, so-called conservative Scalia scrubbed Jefferson's reference to 10th Amendment out of Jefferson's clarification that immigration is a state power issue.
From page 34 of Arizona opinion, here's Scalia's 10th Amendment-sanitized reference to Jefferson's clarification that Congress has no power to address immigration issues.
But Scalia stopped short of including Jefferson's reference to 10A in that excerpt. From Jefferson's writings ...
Given that the Supreme Court cannot easily argue against Jefferson's 10th Amendment-based clarification that the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate immigration, evidenced by the Constitution's silence about immigration, since the Supreme Court kept 10A out of Arizona v. US I question if all justices are Progressives, justices like Scalia merely pretending to be conservative.
Scalia arguably "overlooked" Jefferson's reference to 10th Amendment in same misguided spirit of anti-state sovereignty meanness that FDR's activist justices watered down the 10th Amendment in Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what was left of 10th Amendment in Wickard after pro-big federal justices got finished with it.
Scalia's omission of 10A from Jefferson's writings is arguably no different from FDR's puppet justices treating 10A like a wives' tale in Wickard in order to give green light to Congress to overstep its Section 8 limits.
Finally, regardless that enemies of the Constitution will argue that only the activist priest justices of the post FDR era Supreme Court can séance the restless spriits of the Founding Fathers for the true meaning of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already clarified that the Constituton was written so that us ordinary folks could understand it.On the other hand, it doesn't help matters when most voters don't know the Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Case on the 10th Amendment and powers thereof -
- Permalink Reply by on
- "The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled;
public debt should be reduced;
and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled."
Cicero. 106-43 B.C."Realize that if you have time to whine & complain about something
then you have the time to do something about it."
A J D'Angelo"In the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can,
by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."
James Madison, 1788
- If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of
that original right of self-defense...
Alexander Hamilton
"The world is a dangerous place to live,
not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who
don't do anything about it."
Albert Einstein“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:
God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, that battle is your calling, and peace has become sin. You must at the price of dearest peace lay your conviction bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”
Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), theologian, statesman, journalist,
and Prime Minister of the Netherlands (1901–1905)per unitatem vis ("through unity, strength")
- Permalink Reply by on
- There is no such thing as a Con Con - that is a term used by Phyllis Schlafly, The John birch Society, A poet named Lamb, and a few others. The Constitution does not mention a Constitutional Convention. Please watch the videos and read the articles on the Article V "STATE CONVENTION" that can be used by 38 State legislatures to simply write, prepare, agree on a common document to say revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments - present it to their legislatures for approval and upon the approval of 38 States it is sent to the congress for them to send out for ratification by the 38 State Legislatures. Upon the ratification of the 38th State it becomes the law of the land - there is no danger as the States agreed and then by placing a clause that no amendments can be made to the document it is then submitted to the same 38 state legislatures for ratification. So if Congress or anyone tries to change even one word the States can refuse to ratify and the amendment would start over again.
- Permalink Reply by on
No comments:
Post a Comment