Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post

    The bottom line is that even though you may want to hold a Constitutional Convention
    um. no. I. don't.

    Haven't you been reading ANY of my posts to which you have been responding?
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I honestly do not understand where you are getting your data from that id 2/3 of the states call for a Con Con that suddenly whatever the Con Con decides on is 'the new constitution.'

    The Law simply does not work that way.

    WHATEVER a hypothetical Con Con comes up with, still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies; and historically ratification had been held up for as long as 5, 10 years on account of basic punctuation/grammar issues.

    Let's just say for the sake of argument that they do hold a Con Con; and that this Con Con comes up and recommends lifetime President Obama; and permanent and complete Communism.

    NOW that the Con Con is complete, whatever 'changes' they made have to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies. There is simply no legal way around that requirement thank God.

    I am not a proponent of holding a Con Con right now. But I do not believe that your alarm here is based on valid data.

    You seem to think that once a Con Con is in session, they can just rewrite whatever they please; and once they adjourn then whatever they decided becomes law.

    It just does not work that way!
    Two thirds is the number of states you need to call the Con Con which can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those will still need to be ratified by three fourths (not two thirds) of the states to be adopted.

    Article Five of the US Constitution says:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, 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 the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #33

    Default

    I would say it would be VERY difficult to get any amendments ratified from a con con...that's why the damn congress continues to write unconstitutional legislation and we don't ddo anything about it. When the judge called for the con con..Beck said that the mass suggestion of a con con would freak congress out...I guess it's a bluff. I think the states should massively call for it...I honestly believe congress would go nutz. tones

  5. #34

    Default

    No I don't trust a Con Con. With a democratic president with a 65% approval rating, 60 democratic Senators, a majority of democrats in the state houses and soon a majority of the SCOTUS, I am sure you could pretty much kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye by the time it was all done. What a stupid time to even think about opening up the constitution to rewriting!
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  6. #35

    Default

    that is probably true..bad timing..but why would the judge call for it? tones

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Two thirds is the number of states you need to call the Con Con which can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those will still need to be ratified by three fourths (not two thirds) of the states to be adopted.

    Article Five of the US Constitution says:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
    Yes, thank you. I was originally working from memory; but then re-reading Art 5 it was indeed 3/4 (which I addressed in subsequent posts to the one you responded)
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  8. #37

    Default

    Point is, which you were trying to make, is that even if a con con is called, it will be extremely difficult to get any proposed amendments to actually be added to the Constitution.
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Problem is, you can't specify that only one thing can be changed. Once a Con-Con is convened, it's ALL up for grabs.
    Well, if you believe the "Friends of the Article V Convention" website (www.foavc.org), well over two-thirds of the states have filed 754 applications for a Con-Con over the years, meaning that we should have had one long ago.

    One would think that if it was all up for grabs and the powers-that-be wanted to have a Con-Con, they would have used these applications to convene the convention. Problem is, the states had _specific_ changes they wanted to make to make to the constitution, so they don't all count together. (i.e. direct election of senators, balanced budget requirements . . .)

    If it didn't make a difference what the states wanted in a Con-Con, then why would these applications not count towards the two-thirds requirement? Why haven't we had a Con-Con since 1787?

  10. #39

    Default

    It seems the fear of a out of control constitutional convention around Barnett's federalism amendments is unfounded.

    In the latest version of Barnett's Bill of Federalism he includes a section that would explicitly limit the actions of a convened constitutional convention to propose any or all of the amendments he wrote up in their original language. Here is that section:

    Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the
    Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without
    effect; and

    Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:
    federalism amendment site: http://www.federalismamendment.com/

    I'd like to see some further level-headed discussion on this topic.
    Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
    ‫‬‫‬

  11. #40

    Default

    Hhmm... I'm not seeing how that would keep a Con-Con from doing whatever the heck they wanted to. That's one of the problems with these things; you can't limit their agenda to a specific amendment.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Hhmm... I'm not seeing how that would keep a Con-Con from doing whatever the heck they wanted to. That's one of the problems with these things; you can't limit their agenda to a specific amendment.
    If a state calls for a con con using the text as presented, then its delegates to the convention are limited as to what they are chartered to do. First, by repealing any previous memorials for a con con the justification for action in accordance with those old mandates are denied. Second, each state's memorial is conditional on the memorials that other states use to call the convention. So if 34 (2/3 of 50) states call for a convention, but just one of those states memorial does not direct its delegates to approve some or all of the amendments he includes in their exact wording, then the remaining 33 (having accepted the conditional nature of the memorial) effectively retract their memorials.

    Now you may argue that there is historical precedent of a constitutional convention overstepping the mandate that most state legislatures wanted to give it. But it seems to me that the states, in convening the first con con were way too general in their mandate. For example, Hamilton's New York referenced two conflicting mandates.

    One, from the act from Annapolis recommends the "appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every State, will effectually provide for the same."

    A second, "Resolved -- That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."

    In Federalist #40 Hamilton was effectively able lawyer his way through the conflicting mandates and successfully argue for a whole new constitution not just a revision on the Articles.

    Nothing is impossible with politicians, but I don't see how even the best lawyer-delegate could find a mandate from their state to do anything other than approve some or all of the already fleshed out amendments. Barnett seems to have effectively learned from the anti-federalists' mistakes.

    And regarding the 10 proposed amendments he makes, I think they sound pretty good. I'll quote them here:

    Resolution for Congress to Convene a Convention to Propose Amendments Constituting a Bill of Federalism

    Whereas Article I of the Constitution of the United States begins "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"; and

    Whereas the Congress of the United States has exceeded the legislative powers granted in the Constitution thereby usurping the powers that are "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" as the Tenth Amendment affirms and the rights "retained by the people" to which the Ninth Amendment refers; and

    Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has ignored or misinterpreted the meaning of the Constitution by upholding this usurpation;

    To restore a proper balance between the powers of Congress and those of the several States, and to prevent the denial or disparagement of the rights retained by the people, the legislature of the State of ________ hereby resolves

    First, that Congress shall call a convention, consisting of delegates from the several States selected by procedures established by their respective legislatures, for the purpose of proposing the following articles be added as separate amendments to the Constitution of the United States, each of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when separately ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; and

    Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without effect; and

    Third, that copies of this memorial shall be sent to the secretary of state and presiding officers of both houses of the legislatures of each of the several states in the union, the clerk of the United States house of representatives, the secretary of the United States senate, and to each member of the ________ congressional delegation; and

    Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

    [THE BILL OF FEDERALISM]

    Article [of Amendment 1] [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]
    Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.
    Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the President of the United States.
    Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

    Article [of Amendment 2] [Limits of Commerce Power] The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States

    Article [of Amendment 3] [Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending] Congress shall not impose upon a State, or political subdivision thereof, any obligation or duty to make expenditures unless such expenditures shall be fully reimbursed by the United States; nor shall Congress place any condition on the expenditure or receipt of appropriated funds requiring a State, or political subdivision thereof, to enact a law or regulation restricting the liberties of its citizens.

    Article [of Amendment 4] [No Abuse of the Treaty Power] No treaty or other international agreement may enlarge the legislative power of Congress granted by this Constitution, nor govern except by legislation any activity that is confined within the United States.

    Article [of Amendment 5] [Freedom of Political Speech and Press] The freedom of speech and press includes any contribution to political campaigns or to candidates for public office; and shall be construed to extend equally to any medium of communication however scarce.

    Article [of Amendment 6] [Power of States to Check Federal Power] Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

    Article [of Amendment 7] [Term Limits for Congress] No person who has served as a Senator for more than nine years, or as a Representative for more than eleven years, shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate or the House of Representatives respectively, excluding any time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

    Article [of Amendment 8] [Balanced Budget Line Item Veto]
    Section 1. The budget of the United States shall be deemed unbalanced whenever the total amount of the public debt of the United States at the close of any fiscal year is greater than the total amount of such debt at the close of the preceding fiscal year.
    Section 2. Whenever the budget of the United States is unbalanced, the President may, during the next annual session of Congress, separately approve, reduce or disapprove any monetary amounts in any legislation that appropriates or authorizes the appropriation of any money drawn from the Treasury, other than money for the operation of the Congress and judiciary of the United States.
    Section 3. Any legislation that the President approves with changes pursuant to the second section of this Article shall become law as modified. The President shall return with objections those portions of the legislation containing reduced or disapproved monetary amounts to the House where such legislation originated, which may then, in the manner prescribed in the seventh section of the first Article of this Constitution, separately reconsider each reduced or disapproved monetary amount.
    Section 4. The Congress shall have power to implement this Article by appropriate legislation; and this Article shall take effect on the first day of the next annual session of Congress following its ratification.

    Article [of Amendment 9] [The Rights Retained by the People]
    Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.
    Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

    Article [of Amendment 10] [Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter the Meaning of Constitution] The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment, which meaning shall remain the same until changed pursuant to Article V; nor shall such meaning be altered by reference to the law of nations or the laws of other nations.
    Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
    ‫‬‫‬

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Let's just say for the sake of argument that they do hold a Con Con;

    I am not a proponent of holding a Con Con right now. But I do not believe that your alarm here is based on valid data.
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post

    The bottom line is that even though you may want to hold a Constitutional Convention
    um. no. I. don't.

    Haven't you been reading ANY of my posts to which you have been responding?
    so THIS is where she gets the bizarre notion that I supported a con con. From my words saying that I do not support a con con. This explains a lot.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 01:28 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 01:57 PM
  3. Palin Groomed to Hijack Tea Party Movement?
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2009, 09:35 AM
  4. Ron Paul backers 'hijack' delegates
    By qwerty in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 01:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •