Why is the Judge supporting a Constitutional Convention?

[Vessol]

In a recent discussion with a few friends we talked about the idea of a constitutional convention and how it is a decidely bad idea. Someone then brought up that Glenn Beck supports it(not surprising at all), but also does Judge Napolitano(which is really surprising).

If someone could explain to me why the Judge supports an act that would allow the Feds to legally tear up a document they already ignore, I'd be gracious.

[Matt Collins]

See this:

http://mikechurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4507:as-close-to-live-as-you-can-get&catid=960:public-transcripts&Itemid=300038

[phill4paul]

I don't know Vessol. I hadn't heard that. Thanks I'll search around.

Personally, I would support one. I'm tired of the federal governments interpretation. I think we need to make it quite clear on the powers of the federal government.

I realize the risk. However, they don't obey the Constitution anyway. Maybe a convention will be cause for an awakening. This middle-of-the-road attitude with its fight for your liberty everyday BS has got to come to a head.

[LibertyEagle]

I sent the Judge 2 emails asking that very question. Why had he supported this? I know for a fact that the C4L did too. No response to them either.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know Vessol. I hadn't heard that. Thanks I'll search around.

Personally, I would support one. I'm tired of the federal governments interpretation. I think we need to make it quite clear on the powers of the federal government.

I realize the risk. However, they don't obey the Constitution anyway. Maybe a convention will be cause for an awakening. This middle-of-the-road attitude with its fight for your liberty everyday BS has got to come to a head.

Yes, it'll be over. Every last vestige of liberty that is standing in their way at all, will likely be completed dissolved.

[specsaregood]

Personally, I would support one. I'm tired of the federal governments interpretation. I think we need to make it quite clear on the powers of the federal government.

The problem is highlighted in bold in your comment.
Who exactly do you think would be the representatives at a con-con? I very much doubt Dr. Paul would be allowed to be there.

[LibertyEagle]

The problem is highlighted in bold in your comment.
Who exactly do you think would be the representatives at a con-con? I very much doubt Dr. Paul would be allowed to be there.

Exactly!!

[Baptist]

I vote that we just convert everything west of the Continental Divide into anarchy with no government, and everything east of it into a liberal/socialist/big government utopia. Problem solved.

BTW, dibs on the back 40 in Sequoia Natl Forest.

[RM918]

If they had one today, it'd just be full of oligarchs. They'd just add a bunch of amendments to let them bypass all those pesky civil protections they've had to pay lip service to. I can imagine a ton of special interests jumping in on it.

[KCIndy]

The problem is highlighted in bold in your comment.
Who exactly do you think would be the representatives at a con-con? I very much doubt Dr. Paul would be allowed to be there.

Agreed.

I'm a huge fan of Judge Napolitano, but I'm afraid he's being unrealistically idealistic in this case. Any Constitutional convention held would be flooded with innumerable politicians who would want to include any number of new provisions "to protect the people," or "because this is a good idea."

I think it would become a fight between the far left liberals and the right-leaning neocons.

Can anyone imagine a Constitution drafted by Romney, Palin and Gingrich? Likewise, can anyone imagine a Constitution drafted by Pelosi, Obama, and Reid?

Of course, when the fussing gets heaviest, calls will go out for "compromise" between the left/right stereotypes. That'll get us the best of both worlds, I tell ya!! :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

I vote that we just convert everything west of the Continental Divide into anarchy with no government, and everything east of it into a liberal/socialist/big government utopia. Problem solved.

BTW, dibs on the back 40 in Sequoia Natl Forest.

lolol

[phill4paul]

Yes, it'll be over. Every last vestige of liberty that is standing in their way at all, will likely be completed dissolved.

Then I say let them make the dicision to dissolve it. Then we can get on with the business at hand. As I have already said they have already totally stripped it of any semblence of the founding intent.
Honestly, LE, at what point do you say that they no longer recognize the document as a restriction on their power. Mandated healthcare? Government sanctioned assassination of citizens? Standing armies in perpetual war?
The last vestige of liberty has already been dissolved.


The problem is highlighted in bold in your comment.
Who exactly do you think would be the representatives at a con-con? I very much doubt Dr. Paul would be allowed to be there.

Then forever will their names be remembered in infamy. They will have signed their names and thus they will show themselves as friends of liberty or enemies.

I'm tired of the BS and constant end-runs. When was the last time that the government rescinded any power it has ever gained from the twisting of words. For gain or ill I would rather spell the rules out once and for all.

[payme_rick]

doesn't it just suck that every idea WE have gets shot down by,well, the rest of US, so basically as a whole we end up NOT being for trying ANYTHING?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm 100% on board with it as long as I can opt-out..ha! :p

[specsaregood]

Then forever will their names be remembered in infamy. They will have signed their names and thus they will show themselves as friends of liberty or enemies.

I'm tired of the BS and constant end-runs. When was the last time that the government rescinded any power it has ever gained from the twisting of words. For gain or ill I would rather spell the rules out once and for all.

If you want a concon as an impetus to start a bloody revolution, then by all means it is a good idea.

I'm of the opinion that the only way you get a constitution like the one we have now is immediately after a bloody revolution where the people are pained and distrustful of any governmental body. We aren't there yet. People are too fat and happy and trusting of the government.

Note: to fbi bots in the audience, this comment was not promoting or calling for a blood revolution, just a reflection on history and origins of this country.

[phill4paul]

Note: to fbi bots in the audience, this comment was not promoting or calling for a blood revolution, just a reflection on history and origins of this country.

LOLz!:D

I'm just saying that I welcome one (edit: a con con). For the reasons I stated. Everyone has their own opinion and its not like I'm gonna change it over the internet. ;)

[thehunter]

I vote that we just convert everything west of the Continental Divide into anarchy with no government, and everything east of it into a liberal/socialist/big government utopia. Problem solved.

BTW, dibs on the back 40 in Sequoia Natl Forest.

I was actually going to suggest that this very type of solution would actually come up if the constitution were ever opened up for a redux. It also answers why the judge would support a convention -- some people hate the constitution for not being restrictive enough, others for being too restrictive. Guess which group the judge falls into!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

LOLz!:D

I'm just saying that I welcome one. For the reasons I stated. Everyone has their own opinion and its not like I'm gonna change it over the internet. ;)

I wouldn't be so hasty, nor would I ever welcome a bloody secessionist fight. It may come to pass, and may be my duty at a point in the future, but I wouldn't ever wish for it. I value life far too much to ever wish for such a fight. You should be wary of how hastily you lust for a bloody revolution. I don't think the people are ready for one right now, and it would most likely turn out like the Jacobin or Bolshevik run revolutions. We must be judicious and cautious, but there may very well be a time where they foist a revolution upon us, but we first must use every non-violent means.

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Tom Woods discusses the Con Con issue in an end note of Nullification. His point is basically this: the federal government already defies the Constitution at will in virtually every way that it wants to, so what is there left to lose?

Plus, it's also worth pointing out that any amendments that get proposed at a Con Con would still have to be ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that we'd see something like a repeal of the Second Amendment get ratified.

[phill4paul]

I wouldn't be so hasty, nor would I ever welcome a bloody secessionist fight. It may come to pass, and may be my duty at a point in the future, but I wouldn't ever wish for it. I value life far too much to ever wish for such a fight. You should be wary of how hastily you lust for a bloody revolution. I don't think the people are ready for one right now, and it would most likely turn out like the Jacobin or Bolshevik run revolutions. We must be judicious and cautious, but there may very well be a time where they foist a revolution upon us, but we first must use every non-violent means.

You attribute words to my post that I have never written.

edit: I see how that was confusing. I meant to infere that I welcomed a concon.

[Bill Walker]

First of all the author makes it clear he doesn't support the Constitution. He refers to an Article V Convention as a "bad idea". Given the states have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call, (see www.foavc.org) it is not "an idea" but a constitutional requirement. Would he call electing a president "a bad idea" or appointing a federal judge "a bad idea"? To be consistent he would have to say yes. Of course he'd immediately come back and say if it is liberal it is a bad idea but that again shows his ignorance. The politics of a person holding an office has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutional requirements of that office meaning if the Constitution demands we elect a president, we must do so. It is not a "bad idea" that we can simply reject out of hand.

As to the specific question he asks: both the judge and Glenn Beck were originally against a convention until they went to the FOAVC website and got educated as to the facts. I'd suggest all who read this column do the same.

[TheTyke]

I believe constitutionally, Congress could declare war on every country in the world. Just because someone is permitted by the Constitution, doesn't make it a good idea.

After our politicians had gotten done butchering the Constitution and taking every inconvenient protection of liberty out of it, they'd proceed to ignore anything that survived - (just like they ignored their new Paygo rule 2 weeks after making it.)

With our current Constitution, at least Dr. Paul and the hundreds of liberty candidates have the moral high ground to stand on. Even that would be gone after a con-con.

[Pericles]

Tom Woods discusses the Con Con issue in an end note of Nullification. His point is basically this: the federal government already defies the Constitution at will in virtually every way that it wants to, so what is there left to lose?

Plus, it's also worth pointing out that any amendments that get proposed at a Con Con would still have to be ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that we'd see something like a repeal of the Second Amendment get ratified.

This /\

[Matt Collins]

The John Birch Society (JBS) has just released a new 12-minute video on YouTube, "Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention."





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4

[sailingaway]

I'm not for it. The same people who write our legislation now (blech!) would appoint the people to the Constitutional Convention. I don't want them anywhere NEAR our Constitution.

[sailingaway]

This /\

There is a legal presumption, if you change one part of a law, but leave the rest the same, that you approve the court interpretations of the other parts you leave the same.

No thanks. (Welfare clause, commerce clause...anyone?) The judge knows better. The others may not.

[Fox McCloud]

I'm guessing for the reasoning Lysander Spooner applied:


But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

[PermanentSleep]

Word of advice: Don't puff on a peace pipe before reading any thread or post pertaining to Con Con's.

I may or may not be speaking from experience. Attempt at your own risk. :collins:

[johnwk]

The problem is highlighted in bold in your comment.
Who exactly do you think would be the representatives at a con-con? I very much doubt Dr. Paul would be allowed to be there.

Your instincts are on target regarding a second constitutional convention, and James Madison would agree with you!

“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

And who would attend a convention if one were to be called? Could Madison be right? Let us take a look at what happened in New Hampshire in 1984.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!

The suit went on to charge

“there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a pubic office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

What we need to do is enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, including the Tenth Amendment, and start severely punishing judges and Justices who ignore the documented intentions in order to supplant their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution.

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[Pericles]

Tom Woods discusses the Con Con issue in an end note of Nullification. His point is basically this: the federal government already defies the Constitution at will in virtually every way that it wants to, so what is there left to lose?

Plus, it's also worth pointing out that any amendments that get proposed at a Con Con would still have to be ratified by the states. I seriously doubt that we'd see something like a repeal of the Second Amendment get ratified.
Thread winner. Like nuclear brinkmanship, the ploy is that the threat of a convention has the desired effect, not the actual having a convention.

[timosman]

++