PDA

View Full Version : David Horowitz prefers name calling over debate on dangers of Article V Convention




johnwk
04-16-2018, 08:22 AM
SEE: David Horowitz: Why Conservatives Need to Amend the Constitution Now (https://conventionofstates.com/news/david-horowitz-why-conservatives-need-to-amend-the-constitution-now)

Mr. Horowitz begins his article by writing:

”What do the John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, Common Cause and Planned Parenthood have in common? They all oppose the states’ use of Article V of our Constitution to impose and enforce constitutional limits on Washington.” Mr. Horowitz goes on to write, ”While it is no surprise that Marxist-leaning groups would fight, tooth and nail, to resist any plan for breaking the federal government’s virtual monopoly on policy-making, all conservatives agree that this monopoly is a perversion of our federal system. But, sadly, the Left’s propaganda and junk history have brainwashed some conservatives into opposing the states’ use of constitutional power to check federal overreach.”

Indeed, in Mr. Horowitz’s view, that conservatives who oppose the call for a convention under Article V have been “brainwashed” by, “the Left’s propaganda and junk history”, is absurd and disingenuous to say the least. In fact, conservatives who oppose the call base their reasoning on historical facts and unanswered questions which Mr. Horowitz should address rather than insulting these patriotic Americans and portray the opponents of an Article V convention as sympathizing with “Marxist-leaning groups” and “the radical Left”.

Hey, Mr. Horowitz, how about addressing a few of the unanswered questions and dangers of calling a “convention of states”, which I might add is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution? The Constitution merely declares that Congress shall “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” if the required number of State Legislatures make application.

In the meantime Mr. Horowitz, let me suggest you study Here Be Dragons: Dangers Of A Constitutional Convention (http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/28/here-be-dragons-dangers-of-a-constitutional-convention/) and then address the dangers and unanswered questions instead of adolescent name calling.


JWK



”The deception of the appeal for a "convention of states" lies first of all in the name of the project. If you open your pocket Constitution, it's easy to see that the convention authorized by Article V would not be a "convention of states" in any sense of the word.” __ Phyllis Schlafly, 5/24/2016 (https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/phyllis-schlafly-failed-republicans-want-to-rewrite-constitution/)

johnwk
04-17-2018, 06:06 AM
From what I have observed over the years, the most vocal advocates of calling this convention, especially those who have access to media outlets, constantly insult those who oppose calling a convention and refuse to engage in a dialogue concerning the various unanswered questions and dangers attached to the idea. All they do is engage in name calling and make insulting remarks about those who question the call for a constitutional convention.


Keep in mind the same crowd that gave us the United Nation's Charter, the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve paper money system, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and more recently the NAFTA, have been behind the call for a convention to rewrite our Constitution. One of its principle advocates was Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the three original members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal “brains trust,” and he authored The Constitution of the New States of America (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) which seems to be the goal of the globalists behind the movement.


JWK


At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

nobody's_hero
04-17-2018, 10:28 AM
Personally I think that if an Article V Convention were that easy to manipulate, TPTB would have allowed one to happen long ago. Just sayin. Apparently it's easier for them to just ignore the constitution.

johnwk
04-17-2018, 11:31 AM
Personally I think that if an Article V Convention were that easy to manipulate, TPTB would have allowed one to happen long ago. Just sayin. Apparently it's easier for them to just ignore the constitution.

There is merit to what you think, especially when several generations of children have been brainwashed in our government schools by useful idiots masquerading as teachers while still others intentionally work to have students attack our Constitution and embrace the evil philosophy of communism, socialism and progressivism.



JWK




The unavoidable truth is, our social democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

fisharmor
04-17-2018, 12:47 PM
The Constitution is dead letter.
If any part of it survives, it is because there is a dedicated group of people devoted to teaching the core concept (or a pale shadow of it).

Gun rights aren't defended by the constitution: they're defended by the tireless minority who understand them and teach others about them

Free speech isn't defended by the constitution: it's defended by pornographers more than anyone else.

Jury trial isn't defended by the constitution: it's defended by the efforts to educate about jury nullification.

There was this guy named Ron Paul who wrote that laws don't dictate what we do in society: society first believes something and then crafts laws to protect it.
An Article V Convention isn't going to change society. It might make the "goddamned piece of paper" agree with what we're already doing, but that's about it.
I fail to see any real danger in it.
I also fail to see any real solution in it.

Swordsmyth
04-17-2018, 02:13 PM
Personally I think that if an Article V Convention were that easy to manipulate, TPTB would have allowed one to happen long ago. Just sayin. Apparently it's easier for them to just ignore the constitution.

They haven't done it yet because it would risk a civil war or a breakup of the US, those pushing for it are either willing to risk those or they believe the frog has been cooked enough that they are no longer a problem.

Swordsmyth
04-17-2018, 02:17 PM
The Constitution is dead letter.
If any part of it survives, it is because there is a dedicated group of people devoted to teaching the core concept (or a pale shadow of it).

Gun rights aren't defended by the constitution: they're defended by the tireless minority who understand them and teach others about them

Free speech isn't defended by the constitution: it's defended by pornographers more than anyone else.

Jury trial isn't defended by the constitution: it's defended by the efforts to educate about jury nullification.

There was this guy named Ron Paul who wrote that laws don't dictate what we do in society: society first believes something and then crafts laws to protect it.
An Article V Convention isn't going to change society. It might make the "goddamned piece of paper" agree with what we're already doing, but that's about it.
I fail to see any real danger in it.
I also fail to see any real solution in it.
Just the existence of the "dead" Bill of Rights improves our ability to fight for the rights it enshrines, if it is mutilated in an A5 convention our position will weaken immensely.

johnwk
04-17-2018, 02:27 PM
The Constitution is dead letter.


Only if a majority of the people subscribe to that notion. The fact is, the Constitution is still there and waiting for the people to demand the enforcement of its text and documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

fisharmor
04-17-2018, 02:36 PM
Only if a majority of the supreme court subscribe to that notion.

FTFY

Like it or not, the parliamentary bits are all that anyone working for the federal government cares about.
And like it or not, one of those parliamentary bits, the 17th amendment, has to get trashed before we have a prayer of having a government that respects the rest of it.
People have more or less direct access to their state representatives.
State representatives are supposed to elect US senators.
Senators are who chooses SCOTUS justices.
With the 17th in place we cannot exert any control over what is and is not considered constitutional.
We literally have to trash part of the constitution to save the rest.

I don't see that on anyone's radar, whether pro-concon, anti-concon, or otherwise.
All the people I ever met who understand this are all anarchists.

johnwk
04-18-2018, 06:39 AM
Originally Posted by johnwk
Only if a majority of the supreme court subscribe to that notion.




FTFY

Like it or not, the parliamentary bits are all that anyone working for the federal government cares about.
And like it or not, one of those parliamentary bits, the 17th amendment, has to get trashed before we have a prayer of having a government that respects the rest of it.
People have more or less direct access to their state representatives.
State representatives are supposed to elect US senators.
Senators are who chooses SCOTUS justices.
With the 17th in place we cannot exert any control over what is and is not considered constitutional.
We literally have to trash part of the constitution to save the rest.

I don't see that on anyone's radar, whether pro-concon, anti-concon, or otherwise.
All the people I ever met who understand this are all anarchists.

Why did you alter what I wrote and then quoted me as if I wrote those words?

What I actually wrote was: "Only if a majority of the people subscribe to that notion. The fact is, the Constitution is still there and waiting for the people to demand the enforcement of its text and documented legislative intent which gives context to its text."


JWK

fisharmor
04-18-2018, 08:52 AM
Why did you alter what I wrote and then quoted me as if I wrote those words?

What I actually wrote was: "Only if a majority of the people subscribe to that notion. The fact is, the Constitution is still there and waiting for the people to demand the enforcement of its text and documented legislative intent which gives context to its text."


JWK

Okay thanks for being honest about the level of acumen we are dealimg with.

For the record, for the last decade or so, when one quotes someone else, changes what was written, and adds "FTFY", that is short for " fixed that for you". The implication is that you had your concept mostly right and that I have made the changes necessary for it to be completely correct.
There is a bit of a context shift in the rest of my post from the populism you espouse to the federalism the founders intended. I think they were wise enough to recognize that the compact as written would encourage sovereign states to protect the ideas in the constitution. But as soon as the states took real issue with the federal govt ignoring the compact (in 1861), the feds started a war that killed more Americans than any other, and then about 50 years later the constitution was amended to make state protection of the compact impossible (via yhe 17th amenfment). Thus the original idea is dead.

Look, I appreciate how you seem to like liberty and all, but I just realized that even though I'm trying to break this down, I may still be moving too fast.

So here is a basic idea:
A significant portion of the liberty movement moved on from where you are a long time ago. We aren't going back to where you are. If you want to know more, ask questions.

johnwk
04-18-2018, 02:14 PM
Originally Posted by johnwk

Why did you alter what I wrote and then quoted me as if I wrote those words?

What I actually wrote was: "Only if a majority of the people subscribe to that notion. The fact is, the Constitution is still there and waiting for the people to demand the enforcement of its text and documented legislative intent which gives context to its text."


JWK



Okay thanks for being honest about the level of acumen we are dealimg with.

For the record, for the last decade or so, when one quotes someone else, changes what was written, and adds "FTFY", that is short for " fixed that for you". The implication is that you had your concept mostly right and that I have made the changes necessary for it to be completely correct.
There is a bit of a context shift in the rest of my post from the populism you espouse to the federalism the founders intended. I think they were wise enough to recognize that the compact as written would encourage sovereign states to protect the ideas in the constitution. But as soon as the states took real issue with the federal govt ignoring the compact (in 1861), the feds started a war that killed more Americans than any other, and then about 50 years later the constitution was amended to make state protection of the compact impossible (via yhe 17th amenfment). Thus the original idea is dead.

Look, I appreciate how you seem to like liberty and all, but I just realized that even though I'm trying to break this down, I may still be moving too fast.

So here is a basic idea:
A significant portion of the liberty movement moved on from where you are a long time ago. We aren't going back to where you are. If you want to know more, ask questions.


Stop with the bull-crap-ski, and deflections.

:rolleyes:

JWK




John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...". Witness today the suicidal path America has chosen, supported by a Fifth Colum media and Yellow Journalists.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 02:28 PM
An Article V Convention is sort of the "Hope and Change" of Constitutional law, at this point.

There's no good reason to expect a good outcome, but some people think anything new and different must be better.


The Constitution is dead letter.

...and then there's that.