The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: corbe on September 13, 2018, 08:19:38 pm
-
A campaign to rewrite the Constitution is underway
By Wilfred Codrington, opinion contributor — 09/13/18 04:00 PM EDT
American politics today is extremely polarizing, almost palpably so. Despite the partisan divide, Republicans and Democrats across the country still agree on some things. For one, there is broad agreement that the pillars of our democracy are under attack.
According to a recent poll by the Democracy Project, an initiative of the George W. Bush Institute and University of Pennsylvania’s Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, 68 percent of the U.S. believes that American Democracy is “getting weaker.†Fully half of Americans believe that the country is “in real danger of becoming a nondemocratic, authoritarian country.†And even in the midst of this uncertain political climate, there is a campaign to open up the U.S. Constitution to “edits,†threatening the country with far more unpredictability and instability.
Over the decades, there have been growing efforts to use Article V of the Constitution, which governs how to amend the document, to hold a new constitutional convention. Extremists on both sides of the aisle have pushed for an unprecedented convention, usually claiming that their delegates would propose only slight alterations to the Constitution. But an Article V convention would open the floodgates. It would expose the Constitution to any number of sweeping changes, putting the basics of our democracy at risk. Shockingly still, it is close to becoming a reality.
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/406581-a-campaign-to-rewrite-the-constitution-is-underway (http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/406581-a-campaign-to-rewrite-the-constitution-is-underway)
-
I'm down for an Article V convention. Contrary to what the Hill's opinion writer thinks, given the manner the Constitution has been perverted over the past 100 years I believed our system is doomed if we DON'T clarify certain clauses that currently are being misinterpreted.
The GOP would have the preponderance of delegates, so there's not much chance of the convention being hijacked by the leftist nutters.
-
Nope.
They already ignore the existing Constitution with regular impunity and with clever legalese circumvent it daily.
Adding new Amendments is not going to stop them from continuing to do so.
The rule of law in this country is dead, and was killed by BOTH parties and with full assistance from the Judiciary.
We live in a post-Constitutional Kleptocracy.
-
It scares the $hit out of me @skeeter in this age of twitter/facebook and an extremely dumbed down electorate.
I've moved back over to the 'Be careful what you wish for' crowd. Becoming way to skeptical in my old age.
-
Another feeble attempt by the deep state to twist the facts to maintain their hold on power. The Convention of States is NOT a Constitutional Convention. It can not rewrite the constitution, only propose amendments that must get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to vote for them to pass.
-
It scares the $hit out of me @skeeter in this age of twitter/facebook and an extremely dumbed down electorate.
I've moved back over to the 'Be careful what you wish for' crowd. Becoming way to skeptical in my old age.
The founders put the provision in the Constitution for the very situation we find ourselves in today - as a remedy for a non responsive and increasingly dictatorial federal government.
I'll have to check, but I thought state governors act as the delegates, or at least assign delegates to such a convention. I do not think we conservatives will be in a better position to get what we want out of one.
Actually, the fact there are so many short attention-spanned brainstems out there might work in our favor.
-
I would certainly hope so @skeeter and as @RetBobbyMI brought up there seems to be substantial safeguards built into the process.
-
I would certainly hope so @skeeter and as @RetBobbyMI brought up there seems to be substantial safeguards built into the process.
I must say those founders are pretty wise in the document they signed that has withstood the test of time. 242 years and only amended 27 times.
-
I must say those founders are pretty wise in the document they signed that has withstood the test of time. 242 years and only amended 27 times.
"Should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World.
We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" - John Adams, October 11, 1798
-
"Should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World.
We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" - John Adams, October 11, 1798
Well, there you go. Wise man as I said. But what went wrong with New England? Now we have the likes of John The Traitor Kerry and Pocahontas reincarnated.
-
Well, there you go. Wise man as I said. But what went wrong with New England? Now we have the likes of John The Traitor Kerry and Pocahontas reincarnated.
We are no longer a moral or religious people, and as such the Constitution that was intended to govern - is incapable of doing so.
" only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters" - Benjamin Franklin
This is why we have a Statist Beast for a federal government and why so many have made it their Master.
-
I firmly believe that the time has come for an Article V Convention of the States.
Some facets of the Constitution that definitely need fixing:
- term limits for Representatives and Senators (of course)
- term limits for federal judges
- term limits for Supreme Court Justices
- age limits for elected officials (that is, no Representative, Senator, President or Vice President will run after attaining the age of 72 years)
- very slight correction of Second Amendment that specifies that its protections are intended for individual citizens as well as for "a well regulated militia".
- an amendment that limits governmental snooping and information gathering, essentially creating a "right to privacy" for citizens by beefing up the Fourth Amendment.
- a correction to the Fourteenth Amendment that limits citizenship to those born to American parents. It should also clearly define the term "natural born citizen".
- and finally, a correction that changes this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
to this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."
-
Nope.
They already ignore the existing Constitution with regular impunity and with clever legalese circumvent it daily.
Adding new Amendments is not going to stop them from continuing to do so.
The rule of law in this country is dead, and was killed by BOTH parties and with full assistance from the Judiciary.
We live in a post-Constitutional Kleptocracy.
Very similar to my way of thinking: If lawyers and judges are willing to twist the meanings of words of the present constitution, they'll be perfectly happy to twist the meanings of a new one. No practical difference at the end of the day.
-
I firmly believe that the time has come for an Article V Convention of the States.
They currently do not follow the existing Constitution.
They currently circumvent the existing Constitution.
They ignore the existing Constitution, except when convenient for their agenda and cause.
No one in government or the Judiciary upholds the rule of law when the Constitution is violated.
No one in government or the Judiciary holds violators of the existing Constitution accountable.
So please, if the existing government will not enforce the current Supreme Law in the land, why would we assume adding more amendments that restrict what the cabal has already circumvented and cemented as legal precedent in the first place, work better than what they currently ignore?
We're dealing with a wholly corrupt, lawless and irredeemable institution, perverted at every level and hardened against efforts to restrain the oligarchy.
Article V will serve only to provide the moral justification for what must be done.
-
Article V will serve only to provide the moral justification for what must be done.
That's why the first thing the politician delegates will do, once they're broken free of the moorings that are supposed to govern a Convention, will be to repeal the 2nd Amendment, root and branch. Seize the guns.
-
Why is Convention of States promoting Trump instead of limited government?
https://www.stridentconservative.com/why-is-convention-of-states-promoting-trump-instead-of-limited-government/ (https://www.stridentconservative.com/why-is-convention-of-states-promoting-trump-instead-of-limited-government/)
-
I must say those founders are pretty wise in the document they signed that has withstood the test of time. 242 years and only amended 27 times.
After using the Convention of States to throw out their first attempt.
-
That's why the first thing the politician delegates will do, once they're broken free of the moorings that are supposed to govern a Convention, will be to repeal the 2nd Amendment, root and branch. Seize the guns.
Proponents say that can never happen because 2/3 of the states have to ratify it.
I think it would be stupid to ignore the fact that traditional American values are rapidly becoming a minority viewpoint in the country and held among those who are older and remember what we were. It's foolhardy to assume that with the right pressure, propaganda and corruption such as 'deem it ratified' that abolishing the Second Amendment and restricting the First could never happen.
Yes it can.
A majority of the population think our inalienable rights come from Government or the parchment and can be changed when needed to be changed or added to.
Notwithstanding the fact that state legislatures are not exactly as Constitutionally-rock-ribbed Conservative as we individuals are.
-
I’m with Levin and Hannity on this one.
-
Proponents say that can never happen because 2/3 of the states have to ratify it.
I think it would be stupid to ignore the fact that traditional American values are rapidly becoming a minority viewpoint in the country and held among those who are older and remember what we were. It's foolhardy to assume that with the right pressure, propaganda and corruption such as 'deem it ratified' that abolishing the Second Amendment and restricting the First could never happen.
Yes it can.
A majority of the population think our inalienable rights come from Government or the parchment and can be changed when needed to be changed or added to.
Notwithstanding the fact that state legislatures are not exactly as Constitutionally-rock-ribbed Conservative as we individuals are.
A frightening number of states have passed "National Popular Vote" laws (or are working on it), to disrupt the Electoral College.
-
I'm down for an Article V convention. Contrary to what the Hill's opinion writer thinks, given the manner the Constitution has been perverted over the past 100 years I believed our system is doomed if we DON'T clarify certain clauses that currently are being misinterpreted.
The GOP would have the preponderance of delegates, so there's not much chance of the convention being hijacked by the leftist nutters.
I agree.
-
Proponents say that can never happen because 2/3 of the states have to ratify it.
I think it would be stupid to ignore the fact that traditional American values are rapidly becoming a minority viewpoint in the country and held among those who are older and remember what we were. It's foolhardy to assume that with the right pressure, propaganda and corruption such as 'deem it ratified' that abolishing the Second Amendment and restricting the First could never happen.
Yes it can.
A majority of the population think our inalienable rights come from Government or the parchment and can be changed when needed to be changed or added to.
Notwithstanding the fact that state legislatures are not exactly as Constitutionally-rock-ribbed Conservative as we individuals are.
I thought it was 3/4?
-
Very similar to my way of thinking: If lawyers and judges are willing to twist the meanings of words of the present constitution, they'll be perfectly happy to twist the meanings of a new one. No practical difference at the end of the day.
That’s why the states need to take on the ultimate veto role, as intended by the framers.
-
This is hardly breaking news. They have been working on this since 1917. Mostly in the norther parts of the US. For example,the statue of Stalin in a part in the northeast,the Farm Labor Party and similar communist fronts in Mn and other areas of the mid-west,and the actual CPUSA.
Not to mention the presidency of King Franklin and his commie cousin-wife.
-
That’s why the states need to take on the ultimate veto role, as intended by the framers.
@RetBobbyMI
That ended with Mr Lincoln's War. The states only have the authority to say "Yessir,yessir,three bags full,SIR!" now.
-
@RetBobbyMI
That ended with Mr Lincoln's War. The states only have the authority to say "Yessir,yessir,three bags full,SIR!" now.
Thee of little faith. The state’s can still, if they assert themselves.
-
Thee of little faith. The state’s can still, if they assert themselves.
Money talks, everything else walks.
The states are broke and are wholly dependent upon Mama Big Government in DC to hand them other people's money.
The States are NOT going to assert themselves, unless it is for big-fat overt Marxist efforts of defiance to reject any attempts to reassert the rule of law.
-
That’s why the states need to take on the ultimate veto role, as intended by the framers.
Just thinking about that one. What happens when CA, NJ, and Minnesota say that they will allow for unlimited immigration for instance? And, they give them driver's licenses and voter registration cards? What do the other states do about that?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just trying to figure out how it would work.
-
Thee of little faith. The state’s can still, if they assert themselves.
The states just need to be careful about how they do so. If they assert themselves in some non-PC way, the Army will show up, like in the 1860's. Offering a free-for-all for illegal aliens is one thing, refusing to disarm the citizens or raise federal taxes are another.
-
Thee of little faith. The state’s can still, if they assert themselves.
@RetBobbyMI
Name ONE incident where that happened. EVER.
Mr Lincoln's War was the biggie that made it official,but it goes all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. Maybe even earlier than that for all I know.
-
Name ONE incident where that happened. EVER.
Mr Lincoln's War was the biggie that made it official,but it goes all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. Maybe even earlier than that for all I know.
It's happening now. 12 or 13 states have already stood up and more in the process.
https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application (https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application)
-
It's happening now. 12 or 13 states have already stood up and more in the process.
https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application (https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application)
@RetBobbyMI
"Happening" ain't the same thing as "happened".
-
States have been doing plenty of defying the Feds, on the subject of "sanctuary cities" for illegals.
-
And the Federal pot laws.
-
States have been doing plenty of defying the Feds, on the subject of "sanctuary cities" for illegals.
And the Federal pot laws.
Well, if and when the Oligarchy bans certain firearms or requires gun registration and states decide to exempt their residents and citizens from complying with that "law" - we will see if the Beast will let that slide like they have Pot and Illegals.
Methinks no. Lots of examples will be made by the Alphabets.
-
Well, if and when the Oligarchy bans certain firearms or requires gun registration and states decide to exempt their residents and citizens from complying with that "law" - we will see if the Beast will let that slide like they have Pot and Illegals.
Methinks no. Lots of examples will be made by the Alphabets.
Ayup. That's my point in #28.
-
States have been doing plenty of defying the Feds, on the subject of "sanctuary cities" for illegals.
@Cyber Liberty
True,the left does stick together. That's what "comrades" do.