Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

Done already. How about for those who vote?

 

I agree that it's pointless to try to draft a new constitution when the problem is SCOTUS ignoring the old one. A constitution is just a piece of paper if you have a legal tradition that makes it OK to ignore it for feelz.

 

They are too concerned with smoking doobie? Uneducated or incorrectly educated? They don't care about the process, they want what they want, Now! and stomp their feet or will believe whatever they are told.

And that is why there need to be term limits. Those folks cannot run again for the same position. If folks were educating themselves, we wouldn't need term limits.

I see your concerns in the quote below are echoed above, @TheResister .

Seems to me that would help, not harm. It would also force others to know what the hell they are talking about, if they are elected, so they can get things moving more quickly. Also, it will push the voting public to learn and know what is possible by law, or elect ineffective officials.

Quickly, the nation will adapt.

 

This is an issue addressed by the Convention of States Action.

 

Well I went to the website but I didn't see the issue addressed. Could you just tell me?

 

That will not be effectively blocked. It shouldn't be, but my rights should be respected to disagree by a choice to offer a few cents through my taxes or not. I already pay for WIC, and every other benefit through my taxes. I don't mind helping poor citizens. If these other programs are available, why do I need to pay for abortions for citizens, only.

I'd rather not get into all of that. If you can show me where the folks at the Convention of States Action talk about abortions, I'd be willing to continue. I haven't seen it, yet.

Women have the right to the procedure. I also should have the right to disagree, particularly when the system pays for those kids(through WIC, etc. which I approve of) with my tax dollars or cents.

 

They don't want a new Constitution, only amendments made to allow for greater justice and less interference from the feds.

 

OK that's not my point, but whatever.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...onal-convention.527775/page-5#post-1068781167

I disagree with both of you.

Your fears are not unfounded, unless you believe that those in charge would be in favor of oppression and servitude. What do you think they do now, when you don't have much say in any of it?

Some change would give power back to those young folks who desperately want it and think they will get if from a Bernie Sanders type.

 

Reservation of Powers in People
Section 25

To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article [Article I] is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

http://www.duq.edu/academics/gumberg-library/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution

inviolate
adjective

1. free from violation, injury, desecration, or outrage.

2. undisturbed; untouched.

3. unbroken.

4. not infringed.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inviolate

What part of "inviolate" do you disagree with?

 

Sorry, you'll have to explain with more than a sentence and back it up.

 

When you read the above and apply it, the below is more easily understood.

Either you guys don't understand what you are reading, or you are adamantly opposed to the Republic.

 

I believe this is one thing they want to address with the Convention of States Action.

 

It's plain English and I fully understand both sections. The first (Section 2) refers to the right of The People to alter, reform or abolish their government. The second (Section 25) refers specifically to Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution. They are not one and the same.

Speak for yourself. It seems you didn't understand the difference between the 2 sections of Article I.

 

Understood but if government does not abide by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, what possible mechanism would there be in a new Constitution to enforce any part of it (including war powers) on government? That's the meat of the matter. Words are not good enough, there is an absolute requirement that there be a legitimate tool that controls government from overreach. As already explained in this thread, I have proposed several Amendments that hopefully could do just that.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

 

The second amendment is no longer enough, is it?

 

It's the same thing. You don't really think they have a "Black History Month" and celebrate people whose skin color is barely black, do you?

There is a cultural difference between races.

 

It would have made it easier had you quoted what post number so this took a while. You are asking me about a reply that I made to another poster. His post said this:

"Places like Alabama can be the white only, bible thumping heaven religious extremists want. Righties should love this. The South has NEVER accepted the Constitution. They have never wanted to be "America". And they have hated anyone who isn't from the South for as long as I can remember..."

EVERYTHING in that paragraph was off topic, incendiary, anti-Christian and as racist as anything a White supremacist would ever utter.

It was inaccurate and dishonest. The left talks this wholly dishonest game about diversity and their commitment to rights, but they never practice what they preach.

Now, me personally, I would fight for your Rights even if I didn't agree with a single word of it. Fact is, I'd fight to the death to protect YOUR unalienable Rights. I don't even know you.

By contrast, the left has taken from the whites their Confederate flags, statues, monuments, memorials, and most of their history. Nativity scenes in public have been banned, the public display of the Ten Commandments made illegal. YouTube, Twitter and Facebook all use the ADL to ban anyone right of center on the basis of some material being "hate speech."

ANYONE who is critical of the left is presumed to be "anti-semitic" is banned from the Internet post haste. The left started with the most indefensible organizations like Stormfront and the alt-right and have been working outward. If you are a descendant of the posterity of this country, unless you have your nose stuck up a liberal's backside, you will get kicked off YouTube; find that you are not "verified" any longer on Facebook; and your Twitter account will be suspended.

Churches that don't toe the line with respect to the secular humanist line find that their churches have their non-profit status revoked. Meanwhile, the left bust their collective asses off to defend Muslims whose religion teaches that they have to either convert or kill you. Not all Muslims believe that, but if one group says anything that is similar to what the extremists do, then all of them must be guilty. Right? I mean I say a lot of things that sound like what the alt right may say and I face the wrath of God... or the God of the liberals (their hatred, intolerance, bigotry, stupidity, and even violent acts.) If we're going to play the accusation game, let's apply the standards equally.

The left only want their kind to have any say so in America. I guess I'm still whizzed off that they launched nothing short of a military campaign against a man living in a shack, minding his own business. The government killed his family; they killed the family dog. BTW, we're talking about a guy that was a former Green Beret, living his life as a separatist. He didn't have the Right to believe what he wanted to believe even when he was miles away from civilization.

When I hear liberals making racist and indefensible statements like that poster did, it makes me livid. And, the fact that whites have been programmed, Palvovian style, to feel guilty about not publicly disavowing that kind of rubbish, makes me wonder if there is any hope for an America that has any room for the posterity of the founders.

Have I expanded on this enough for you?

 

If people, even on the right, understood the differences between the Rights of the people (unalienable Rights) and what the wording of the Second Amendment is, this would not be an issue:

 

Thanks. I figured that's what it meant. A militia, which is a necessary means of protecting the country, i.e.: Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, SF, SO, etc., may not be used to take away the right of the people to own and possess firearms.

Doesn't say anything about an amendment to the Constitituon. I am for keeping the second amendment as it is.

 

I voted no. This call for a CoS has been going on since Obama was in office. I think Mark Meckler needs to read the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution, along with other commenters in this thread.

 

Yes, thank you.

 

Specifically? I'd like to read what you are referencing.

 

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/

 

§ 25. Reservation of powers in people.
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we
have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is
excepted out of the general powers of government and shall
forever remain inviolate.
(May 16, 1967, P.L.1035, J.R.1)

1967 Amendment. Joint Resolution No.1 repealed former
section 25 and renumbered former section 26 to present section
25.

Seems like this means the government cannot change Article !, though the people might be able.


§ 2. Political powers.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments
are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace,
safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they
have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to
alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they
may think proper.

What am I missing here?