Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: David Horowitz prefers name calling over debate on dangers of Article V Convention

  1. #1

    David Horowitz prefers name calling over debate on dangers of Article V Convention

    SEE: 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 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



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

    Who is behind the Convention of States?

    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 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.

  4. #3
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    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.


  6. #5
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post


    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

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post


    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.



    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.

  15. #13
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The Constitution is dead letter.
    ...and then there's that.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-12-2014, 05:53 PM
  2. David Horowitz: How Republicans can win
    By Uriah in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2013, 07:14 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 02:12 PM
  4. Beck Interview with David Horowitz (must watch)
    By Objectivist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 07:13 PM
  5. meet and greet with david horowitz
    By benhaskins in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2007, 06:45 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
  •