Quote of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on April 22, 2009 by Allahpundit

“[S]tate legislatures have a real power under the Constitution by which to resist the growth of federal power: They can petition Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Article V provides that, ‘on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states,’ Congress ‘shall call a convention for proposing amendments.’ Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Isn’t it kind of scary that people are even discussing this?

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Excellent choice for QotD!

Spirit of 1776 on April 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM

I like it. Modernity lends itself to 2 trends in government. The consolidation of monetary regulations and the decentralization of buying and selling of services. Putting together statewide infrastructures to handle the normally federal service provider responsibilities would, in my view, both return invaluable sovereignty to the states. It would do this while also tailoring the delivery of these services not to the countrywide lowest common denominator, but to the needs and tastes of the actual communities in which we live.

A good reiteration of the 10th amendment would be a wonderful outcome of any convention, and the thought of scaring congress alone makes it worth the trouble. I say Yea.

ernesto on April 22, 2009 at 10:41 PM

The time is nearing for such an event.

rplat on April 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Ratified by three-quarters of the States or ratified by three-quarters of ACORN?

Limerick on April 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM

The members of the several states legislatures are every bit as corrupt as the US congress and Senate, there is no way in hell those criminals would ever even think about an option like this.

doriangrey on April 22, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Now thats a plan,that’ll put the fear into Liberals!

Time to play the Liberal game,start the process!

Let the fear and distraction’s begin!

Let’s see how the Liberal’s like it!!

First its the Tea Partys,and now Amendment Conventions!!

canopfor on April 22, 2009 at 10:44 PM

I saw a different guy than this on Beck making the same argument (or maybe it was the same guy, I can’t remember). Boy, it’s quite a game of Russian Roulette though, huh? It’d sure be interesting!

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Congress’ ‘devil may care’ attitude toward spending warrants something like this to slap them around a bit. At least, that’s how it would happen in the movies. In real life, the RINOs will begin to cry and hide behind their liberal buddies skirts while a few real conservatives battle for what’s right.

AubieJon on April 22, 2009 at 10:48 PM

What are we up to now 20 some odd states have re-established their sovereignity laws? Anyone have the correct count of them? That says this could be possible. I like it.

canditaylor68 on April 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM

O/T
____

Remember,its Hot Air’s Birthday in 2 days!

April 24,2006 at 4:15AM.:)

canopfor on April 22, 2009 at 10:50 PM

The idiot president and congress have brought us to the brink. I think it is the only card to play…..

HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 10:50 PM

nothing to do with this topic, but man both Bush 41 and Barbara are still going strong. Both in their 80′s but they dont look it or act like it. Being interviewed on Greta’s show.

ousoonerfan15 on April 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM

BadgerHawk writes

Isn’t it kind of scary that people are even discussing this?

Yes, it is. But I find it less scary than the circumstances that are producing it. Senators and Representatives, elected by States and districts, under seniority rules that they control, are running the country to the extreme partisan tune of their constituencies while spending your money and mine in crippling torrents and handing out favors to friends, lovers, and contributors–favors that, in the case of Dodd and Frank, nearly destroyed the world financial system. The Media protects them: if the truth were told nightly about them, and about how the last Bush administration asked them to change the rules on Fannie and Freddie, they would have been long gone. Instead, it lets a foul socialist like Maxine Waters spout hatred for the productive on the nightly news.

njcommuter on April 22, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Can we amend the constitution to get a do-over if we elect a moron?

Lummox on April 22, 2009 at 10:55 PM

I would add this to the Federalism amendment:

The first paragraph of Article I Section 8 shall be replaced with:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I.e., remove “the general welfare” statement.

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 10:56 PM

33 states as of Feb 29,2009 are working on 10th Amendment resolutions or have passed them. Alaska’s is up for vote soon.

canditaylor68 on April 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM

This guy has really thought this through. It’s wonderfully refreshing to read something so specific and so focused. I hope some state legs. are paying attention.

Weight of Glory on April 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM

uh, what ‘general welfare’ statement?

Lummox on April 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Amendment Conventions=Liberal Nuttyness on a whole new Level
attaining a Liberal Cosmic Event,me might thinks!!

Ya know,if AxleBrokenRod hears about this,he’s gonna
have a catiniption fit!!

You Betcha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on April 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM

good reiteration of the 10th amendment would be a wonderful outcome of any convention, and the thought of scaring congress alone makes it worth the trouble.

How would another iteration of the 10th (or 9th) do any good if the current ones are ignored?

What’s the stick?

Boortz has called for a convention to repeal the amendments (can’t recall the numbers offhand) providing the income tax and the direct election of Senators along with the enactment of a national sales tax.

That’s quite a plateful.

Madison said the Constitution provided a republican form of government (note: not democratic) for a republican people.

We’re tinkering with the document when it’s the people and the elites that need fixing.

SteveMG on April 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM

Let’s just do amendments. A constitutional convention would be way too scary and fraught with danger from libtards.

Mojave Mark on April 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM

I dunno – you think the libs would really fear this? I think they’d welcome, especially now, when a majority of voters are still in thrall to Obama.

I think this would be a disaster. We can guess at all the wonderful things that could actually be done to get the country back on track – but I’m more convinced that what would occur is the legal and Constitutional eradication of the framework / rights / etc as we know them.

Think about it; what kind of destructive path has Obama and the Demcongress put us upon in less than 100 days under the Constitution as we know it? Imagine, then, what would occur if those restrictions were completely removed, and a “Changestitution” created to support their every leftist/statist desire?

“Be careful what you wish for…”

Midas on April 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM

The idiot president and congress have brought us to the brink. I think it is the only card to play…..

HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 10:50 PM

All in!

dmann on April 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM

So,finally,as I have asked throughout this Presidential
Nightmare,

their is a way to strike back,legally of course!

canopfor on April 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM

I don’t even count 50%. please tell me there is hope somewhere.

http://www.270towin.com/

nolapol on April 22, 2009 at 11:04 PM

And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution

This is what people have been aching to hear… There is something we can do other than die by the weight of the Federal Gov.
Whether it will happen is another thing but it’s a start.

katy on April 22, 2009 at 11:05 PM

President Romney is really gonna have a hell of clean up job.

therightwinger on April 22, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Let’s just do amendments. A constitutional convention would be way too scary and fraught with danger from libtards.

Mojave Mark on April 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Second that. In Ilinois we had a referendum to call for a consitutional convention. Per our current constitution we need to pose the question to the voters every 20 years. There was no way in Hades I was going to vote for that when our government is dominated by statists.

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 11:06 PM

States With a Standing Call for a Constitutional Convention

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Delaware

Colorado

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Maryland

Mississippi

Missouri

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Wyoming

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htmTom

marinetbryant on April 22, 2009 at 11:07 PM

President Romney is really gonna have a hell of clean up job.

therightwinger on April 22, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Like fixing that health care boondoogle he created in MA.

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Sorry, my name screwed up the link:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

marinetbryant on April 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM

This is well thought out and presented, logical and entirely within the framework the founders envisioned.

There is interest. Enough to pull this off? I’m not convinced.

Excellent QOTD.

cs89 on April 22, 2009 at 11:09 PM

marinetbryant on April 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Hummmm. Just few more and we may have something here.

katy on April 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM

marinetbryant on April 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Do we want some convention now with statists philosphies so prevalent in the country? These people will participate in the convention and will attempt to enshrine the welfare state into the constitution.

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Come to think of it, now’s not the time. 90 years from now. When im old enough to have great grandkids, and everyone alive is totally adjusted to high technology. I wonder what kind of government we’d come up with.

ernesto on April 22, 2009 at 11:15 PM

We’re tinkering with the document when it’s the people and the elites that need fixing.

[SteveMG on April 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM]

I agree, at least initially. We need to strip the Federal Government back down to the it’s original Constitutional powers, but we then need some Congressionally driven additional amendments to keep this from happening again … FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN!

Dusty on April 22, 2009 at 11:16 PM

They keep pushing the gay thing.

They keep pushing the illegal aliens.

They keep pushing international laws instead of the Constitution.

And we WILL take back this nation… “by any means necessary”.

madmonkphotog on April 22, 2009 at 11:16 PM

I am all for this. It is beyond time. As long as the ratification at state level includes a vote by the people.

Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 11:16 PM

20 years ago I’d have had far more confidence in the public, and in our representative governance and would have readily and easily encouraged such a Constitutional Convention to address just about any problem facing us as a Nation.

Today, when a Federalist Amendment is clearly something to actively consider as is a call for a Constitutional Convention to accomplish the same, I have far less confidence in the public and even less confidecne in our representative governance to accomplish such.

My fear is that if called, such a convention would soon break out into rabid factionalism, chaos on a 24/7 news cycle…and all the best hopes and intentions of getting this Nation back on an even keel would vaporize.

The elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008 have shown me that a gullible public, led by a powerful well-funded and media-savvy political organization, can easily and willingly sell its soul and that of its progeny for a cheap throw-away campaign slogan.

Is that sufficiently pessimistic for y’all?

When we really need an informed and politically educated and conversant society to right wrongs in our body politic…when we really need such…it is nowhere to be found, and when found, is found in rapidly diminishing numbers.

I favor this wonderous use of the Constitution to correct deviations, major deviations, from the Constitution as our Founders intended it to be. I strongly favor such.

I would pray that if sufficient votes of the states are obtained, such a convention could be had successfully, and prove my pessimism wrong…totally wrong.

Please, prove me wrong.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Isn’t it kind of scary that people are even discussing this?

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM

I think people are discussing this because we’re living in scary times.

Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM

A lot of people here are all for something they haven’t thought through. A Con-Con cannot be limited. All it would take to completely abolish our Constitution is a resolution passed by a simple majority of the delegates.
Is that what you want? Liberty hangs by a thread and you’re swinging a blade at it.

single stack on April 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I would pray that if sufficient votes of the states are obtained, such a convention could be had successfully, and prove my pessimism wrong…totally wrong.

Please, prove me wrong.

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Your pessimism is well founded. If such a convention were called, I would hope there would be a lot of pessimism and suspicion, as this could promote greater vigilance for protecting our rights.

Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 11:25 PM

All it would take to completely abolish our Constitution is a resolution passed by a simple majority of the delegates.

[single stack on April 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM]

Well, yeah that and confirmation by 3/4′s of either state legislatures or state conventions, as determined by Congress.

Dusty on April 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM

single stack on April 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM

At the rate we are going our Constitution is being shredded daily. I’d rather risk it and go down fighting to keep it. I seriously doubt the politicains would take such a risk as to blow the constitution up knowing the wrath of the people awaits them. Even the Dems….

katy on April 22, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Why not just hold the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judicial powers to Constitutional Limits that they are bound by……………..

……… Oh, that’s right, that is what a “Free and Independent Press” was for.

Whewwwwwww………..

……… for a moment, I was getting scared again!

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2009 at 11:31 PM

The easiest way to a better constitution, start with the Confederate Constitution, the remove all slavery protections. Great items in the Confederate Constitution include:

Article I, Section 7, Item 2. …The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

Line Item Veto

Article I, Section 8, 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

Bye bye earmarks

Article I, Section 9, Item 9. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses…

No TARP

Article I, Section 9, Item 13. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That’s pretty clear

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 11:33 PM

For those worried about what crap might get proposed and put out I say let them. They could do it in Congress now, why don’t they? There isn’t a hope in hell 3/4s of the states would go for it. Think of it as the having a Senate which required 67 votes to pass a bill. I doubt anything much would get ratified by the states and surely not the crazy crap the libs want.

Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 11:34 PM

Why not just hold the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judicial powers to Constitutional Limits that they are bound by……………..

……… Oh, that’s right, that is what a “Free and Independent Press” was for.

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2009 at 11:31 PM

It’s worse than just the MSM. The courts continue to change the meaning of the Constitution, and they’re threatening to include EU judicial reasoning in their decisions. After all, it’s a living document.

Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Time for Americans and our states to man up: After the Precedent’s attempts to pass a $12 trillion budget paid for with (unConstitutional) federal taxes, the time for a Federalism Amendment is now.
Let’s do this!

Jenfidel on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Wouldn’t section 2 of the proposed amendment:

Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

…block incorporation of the federal constitution into state law via the 14th amendment? That could cause a real problem with enforcing the political rights of citizens against oppressive state regimes, such as those that existed under Jim Crow.

Or am I misreading the language of that section?

irishspy on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

With the country as divided as it is this will never happen.

But, should such a Convention occur, it would probably actually end up ratifying, instead, a totally different Amendment …declaring “marriage” a total civil right for all, starting with gays and spreading out into the accidental consequence of legitimizing polygamy, polyandry, mother/son and father/daughter marriage, etc.

Caution is required when there are enough morons to vote in an unqualified tyro doofus like Obama who is blithely undermining national security to the vacuous applause of this 51% pithed populace.

profitsbeard on April 22, 2009 at 11:37 PM

irishspy on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Section 1 incorporates all enumerated or unenumerated rights, privileges or immunities recognized by this Constitution.

Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 11:39 PM

My only concern with this is that if you open the box up, you may find that it wont be easy to close- there are language in their that could be deleted, or change for the worse-

Ladies and Gentlemen. begin your prayers to God- the Libtards and the RINO”s are going to send us down shit river without a paddle and boat.

hawkman on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 PM

That could cause a real problem with enforcing the political rights of citizens against oppressive state regimes, such as those that existed under Jim Crow.

irishspy on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

I think our society has moved beyond Jim Crow think enforced by laws. Any state that tried to pass any such laws, and I do not think one would try, would be punished in the court of public opinion so heavily, and rightly so, that their attempt would be halted at the committee level.

WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 11:40 PM

This is also a big reason why Activist Judges are such a mockery. The people have built in safeguards to change the Constitution if it is their will. Liberals never have the people truly on their side, so they seek to backdoors and side routes around them. These alternate paths are the courts.

Time for Americans and our states to man up: After the Precedent’s attempts to pass a $12 trillion budget paid for with (unConstitutional) federal taxes, the time for a Federalism Amendment is now.
Let’s do this!

Jenfidel on April 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM

Hate to be a downer, but the Federal Income tax by way of the 16th amendment is actually Constitutional.

Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM

profitsbeard on April 22, 2009 at 11:37 PM

How would that happen with marriage? Already more than 1/4 of the states define marriage as one man and one women in their state constitutions.

It is not a nationwide vote. NY is no more powerful than AL when it comes to this. It’s state by state.

Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Come on, people!
Nothing is ever accomplished by fear!
The Feds, under Ogabe, Pelosi and Reid, are out of control.
Something needs to be done…and soon: America is under attack!
As someone said on Twitter regarding this article, this will give the Tea Parties something to focus on.

Jenfidel on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Breaking News:

Allahpundit, I found a church even you can love:

http://www.sharperfx.com/kkmime/index13.htm

you’d better sign up!

Vincenzo on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Hate to be a downer, but the Federal Income tax by way of the 16th amendment is actually Constitutional.

Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM

How can that be if it wasn’t in the original Constitution and not enacted until 1913?
And if the 16th can be added, it can also be subtracted.
Just sayin’.

Jenfidel on April 22, 2009 at 11:43 PM

This is a trap.

An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live.

1. Obama’s leftist radicals could dominate and produce a document that transforms the United States into the socialist utopia they dream of.
2. Stalemate where nothing changes, or very little changes. Nothing significant.
3. Mirror image of #1 where conservatives win.

The result of 1 or 3 could well be the firestorm that destroys the country when the losing side refuses to accept the results.

I suspect this is a setup by the left, playing to the conservative hope of stopping the advancement of the left’s political agenda while they plan to hijack the convention.

There are not enough honest, honorable men left in the country.

The only way conservatives are going to stop Obama is at the ballot box, in the media, or with open warfare in the streets. Itsa crap shoot; you’re rolling dice here. So far the media is a toss up because most people in the country don’t know, don’t care, don’t understand the problem. The ballot box is a toss up because of the media, and the organized democrat party machine. Open war in the street won’t happen because conservatives won’t take up arms against their own government.

Like coldwarrior, I am also begging someone to prove me wrong.

Skandia Recluse on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Any amendment is considered a part of the Constitution, no matter when it was ratified. The bill of rights is the Constitution and it is nothing more than the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

But yes, it could be repealed, as Prohibition was.

Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 11:46 PM

i’ll be stocking up on popcorn and ammo.

homesickamerican on April 22, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Question is, in the first term or the second term?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 22, 2009 at 11:48 PM

please lord, no!!!

homesickamerican on April 22, 2009 at 11:52 PM

Skandia Recluse on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM

I would say it would end up somewhere between 2 and 3. 1 isn’t even a possibility. Everything the Liberals want cost money, and lots of it. Any amendment with a huge price tag will die. Which leaves liberty issues and social stuff. The social stuff the Dems could kill at the Convention for the most part. They would have to there as most would pass if they let it go to the states. So they would use up there bargaining power killing social con stuff. The liberty stuff and cost cutting stuff goes through.

Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Like coldwarrior, I am also begging someone to prove me wrong.

Skandia Recluse on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM

That’s how I see it.

INC on April 22, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Calling a constitutional convention would be largely pointless. Any amendments proposed by the convention still need to be ratified by 38 states in a small time frame in order to become part of the constitution. This is a very, very hard thing to do. Remember the ERA, which had very broad popular support?

And yes, frankly there is a serious drawback to calling a convention – what if the Democrats just go nuts with social entitlements, with positive rights amendments like what Obama wants to add to the constitution? Most people like getting free shit, so it’ll be much more likely that they will vote for a positive rights amendment for “free” government healthcare than a toothless and vague amendment for federalism.

Tabris on April 23, 2009 at 12:00 AM

There are not enough honest, honorable men left in the country.

Skandia Recluse on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM

If there are not enough honest, reasonable people left in our country to trust, then our country is already lost.

Perhaps we need to be working on that problem first. How does one go about producing honest and reasonable people?

Loxodonta on April 23, 2009 at 12:02 AM

It isn’t all that scary. Even if a convention were held, any new amendments have to pass by large majorities at the state level for them to become law. It isn’t like Dennis Kucinich can sneak something in when nobody is looking, not that he wouldn’t try.

echosyst on April 23, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Isn’t it kind of scary that people are even discussing this?

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM

No one would be if our current president and congress were respecting the law and Constitution, and werent’ behaving like a wannabe National Socialist coup.

They only have themselves to blame.

And yes, Congress’s runaway power NEEDS to be cut back. As does the president. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have “Congress shall make NO law” in it for shits and giggles, it anticipated exactly what we have now.

wildcat84 on April 23, 2009 at 12:06 AM

but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

but Congress shall be required to prosecute defense of acts constituting war, violent insurrection and domestic invasion against the United States of America.

Speakup on April 23, 2009 at 12:07 AM

sounds good, great link and good read. We should teach this kind of stuff in civics class, no? I mean we learn all about the civil war and stuff, why not learn something useful that we can use in the future like this? thanks for the post.

ThackerAgency on April 23, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Shouldn’t we wait at least 100 days until we start talking about how Obama is trying to destroy everything American has worked for since before anyone reading this was were born? Okay, then, glad we’ve got that one settled.

Jim Treacher on April 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM

AP has succeeded in turning a good bit of you into the sorriest kind of Eeyores!

wildcat84, I like the cut of your jib, though!

Jenfidel on April 23, 2009 at 12:22 AM

It is scary–because the leftists will win. Didn’t they just vote in Obama?

PattyJ on April 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power.
————-
But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress’s enumerated powers.

Yeah but who restrains the judiciary?

Speakup on April 23, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Ideally the judiciary should be restrained by enforcing short terms for federal judges instead of lifetime appointments and redoing the nominating process so that it’s hard, if not impossible for the Senate to block a judicial confirmation.

Tabris on April 23, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Very interesting. Also very risky. I don’t think it’s time for this yet. Once we get our own numbers pumped up (and I believe we will) – maybe.

Alana on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 AM

coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM

We still have large polling majorities in favor of cutting DC down to size. I’d have to think about this idea in more detail to form an opinion on it, but cleaning up the mess we’re making may require a lot of unthinkable and unimaginable proposals.

A constitutional convention might be better than some of the other alternatives – which in past sustained emergencies have always included extra-constitutional measures, our equivalent of Roman dictatorship.

However, I don’t think either will happen until and unless things have become so glaringly hopeless in the eyes of the public that holding the status quo hostage against radical uncertainty no longer moves sufficient masses: In other words, more likely after the war, after the breakdown or the cataclysm – probably not before.

CK MacLeod on April 23, 2009 at 1:03 AM

A lot of people here are all for something they haven’t thought through. A Con-Con cannot be limited. All it would take to completely abolish our Constitution is a resolution passed by a simple majority of the delegates.
Is that what you want? Liberty hangs by a thread and you’re swinging a blade at it.

single stack on April 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM

I agree that it’s too risky right now.

venividivici on April 23, 2009 at 1:07 AM

We’re tinkering with the document when it’s the people and the elites that need fixing.

SteveMG on April 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM

I don’t think it is so much a problem with the people collectively as with the elites.

We have a system where a self selected elites is intent on enacting neo-feudalism and willing and able to engage in massive propaganda efforts to get what they want.

Obama is about to make us all tithe, potentially literally, to the church of Gaia with his tax and hide (aka cap and trade) plan. The environuts are working hard to deny us cars and electricity. And Congress is considering how to ban speech they don’t like without formally calling it a ban.

So what do we do about it? It seems more and more to me that we are going to get one last shot at saving our country when the Obama collapse happens a year or two from now. Is a Constitutional Convention the way to go? The problem really isn’t the Constitution we have now however (though as the article points out there is room for some small improvements), it is these elites within the government ignoring the intent and often the actual text of the document.

18-1 on April 23, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Like coldwarrior, I am also begging someone to prove me wrong.

Skandia Recluse on April 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM

I can’t. You guys are on the money. We’re 20 years too late and the polarization will be even greater after this administration is done.

a capella on April 23, 2009 at 1:15 AM

It is scary–because the leftists will win. Didn’t they just vote in Obama?

PattyJ on April 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM

They did sell him to the public as the man who would end the WoT without losing and give everyone a tax cut so I would not be quite so sure that the Leftists succeeded in winning hearts and minds so much as pulling a bait and switch.

18-1 on April 23, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Recall Obama

Kini on April 23, 2009 at 1:28 AM

They did sell him to the public as the man who would end the WoT without losing and give everyone a tax cut so I would not be quite so sure that the Leftists succeeded in winning hearts and minds so much as pulling a bait and switch.

18-1 on April 23, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Which is another reason not to do anything too hasty. The independents who gave Obama his margin of victory will likely not vote for him again.

venividivici on April 23, 2009 at 1:32 AM

At least a couple of generations would have to pass after we reintroduce the practice of education in our schools rather than indoctrination for this not to be a terrifying proposal.

This last election cycle proves that we are a gullible lot.

hillbillyjim on April 23, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Count me in. I like it.

Saltysam on April 23, 2009 at 1:34 AM

It is scary–because the leftists will win. Didn’t they just vote in Obama?

PattyJ on April 23, 2009 at 12:24 AM

If anything like this proposal was to occur anytime soon, it would be in one of two contexts: 1) the rejection or repudiation of Obama/Obamaism or 2) under the Obamaists’ sponsorship. In the former, conservatives (within a larger coalition of anti-Obamaists) would be in the ascendancy. The latter would be correctly viewed as an immense power grab and, under most conceivable circumstances, inspire opposition to the nth degree, with severe social disruption up to and including civil war a distinct possibility. Because (1) is much more likely, it is likely to be strongly resisted.

CK MacLeod on April 23, 2009 at 1:36 AM

We’re 20 years too late and the polarization will be even greater after this administration is done.

a capella on April 23, 2009 at 1:15 AM

It takes two to polarize. How can we avoid this without being bullied into submission, or bullying our opponents into submission?

Loxodonta on April 23, 2009 at 1:45 AM

If there are not enough honest, reasonable people left in our country to trust, then our country is already lost.

Perhaps we need to be working on that problem first. How does one go about producing honest and reasonable people?

Loxodonta on April 23, 2009 at 12:02 AM

I like to think it’s not so much a question of producing them as awakening them – not in the annoying “awareness raising,” hectoring style of the Left, but by offering them a critique of the decaying system that surrounds them. It must be a case made with both reason and passion, and unfortunately, after a few opportunities were lost over the last forty years, it’s a case that can only be made when the downward spiral of socialism enters its terminal phase.

We often marvel at the way people will support politicians who pursue policies they would never accept in their own personal lives. Even when the politicians aren’t manifestly corrupt, they often pursue policies their voters would consider dishonorable or criminal behavior, coming from a private citizen. The qualities of thrift, honesty, and courage we value in a household are pretty much the opposite of the way government works. We don’t borrow 300% of our annual income for spending sprees, then announce we plan to do the same thing every year for the next ten years. We don’t cut ten bucks off a hundred thousand dollars of spending, then brag about how much we’ve tightened our belts. We don’t respond to violent home invasion robberies by asking the criminals what’s on their minds. You wouldn’t pop across the street for a chummy backyard barbecue with a neighbor who spends every day calling your wife a slut, boasting about how he plans to murder your children, and accusing your parents of being pedophiles, then get some laughs from the crowd by remarking you’re glad the neighbor isn’t angry at *you* personally.

Most middle-class Democrat voters would be horrified to find themselves on the receiving end of the policies they support for the poor and disadvantaged. Some significant number of Harry Reid’s voters spend their weekends at the local watering hole, talking about how they’re glad our armed forces kicked al-Quaeda’s ass, and laughing about the latest batch of terrorists who blew themselves away with a faulty IED. Some of the D.C. residents who voted for Obama were genuinely surprised when he killed their school voucher program.

These people have allowed themselves to become weak, held down and bled by a system they could abolish in a single election cycle, if they had the will. All these wasteful programs and oppressive regulations could be swept aside like a curtain of dust, if a few million voters here and there were motived enough to demand it. They don’t exercise their power because they’ve been convinced the political machine constructed over the last forty years is indestructible. Questions are evil, doubts are racist, and hesitating to obey the Party is certain to result in disaster. The same political movement that demands a chemically precise definition of terms like “marriage” and “crime” maintains that we must accept 30,000 page tax codes and 100,000 page spending bills without question, and take the eternal necessity of affirmative action programs and government control of education on faith.

When Democrats make their election-year sales pitch for “hope” and “change,” they want their voters to become excited by the virtual thrill of the concepts, but they have no intention of “changing” anything significant. The voter gets the vicarious excitement of imagining he’s a daring rebel lining up behind a transformative leader, but the end result is another ridiculous pork-barrel spending bill, a few new taxes, and a new pile of regulations. Foreign leaders smile a bit more and proclaim themselves excited by the dynamic new President, but the end result is that they give less to America and take more, cushioning the bait-and-switch by offering some flattery to the American voters for having the wisdom to elect such a splendid valet for them. Obama’s no different than Clinton – it’s the same tired story of betrayal, incompetence, political greed, and of course the tidal wave of lies.

Now we find ourselves nearing the end of the socialist game, as the absurdity of its basic premises is made increasingly clear. The Democrats engineered losses that were too big to spread around, and demanded the overall economy bear a burden that will slowly crush its ability to grow. They stole so much money from the future that even the less politically aware Americans are scratching their heads and wondering how the heck those bills are ever supposed to get paid… and they blew the money on assets they mismanaged into worthlessness, or that were doomed to fall apart even after the billion-dollar failouts.

We need leadership that can show the electorate how hollow and doomed this all is, and remind them they have the power to knock this house of cards away and build something powerful and lasting in its place. The voters need a leader who can give them the confidence of knowing their desires are not racist or greedy. Liberty requires the courage to accept both risk and reward, and only that formula can restart a moribund economy. Throwing piles of bailout money on dead industries is just weaving them a burial shroud out of dollar bills. Some businessmen are going to have to do some crazy things to pull us out of the Bush-Obama nose dive. Some of those businessmen will become very rich, and some will lose everything. We must help the electorate to develop the courage and maturity to accept both outcomes.

It won’t be easy, but I think we should work to build up leadership that can show Americans how dynamism, industry, innovation, and liberty can build something vastly stronger and morally superior to the silver-plated mausoleum state Barack Obama wants to preside over. Then we can talk about having that Constitutional Convention, and building a legal framework to keep the nation we have built safe from thieves and vandals. Middle America is sprawled in a threadbare seat, grey and tired before its time, eyes filmed over by visions of helplessness and fear. We need a white wizard to shock him out of his stupor, and remind him of who he is, and what he’s truly capable of.

Doctor Zero on April 23, 2009 at 1:49 AM

Isn’t it kind of scary that people are even discussing this?

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM

It’s much scarier to me that so many Americans have became resigned to allowing our Constitution to be adjusted by judicial fiat rather than by our constitutionally mandated method.

The only alternative to asserting a right is losing it.

Buddahpundit on April 23, 2009 at 2:14 AM

This is all a scam to get the 22nd Amendment repealed so that Obama can become the permanent President of the USA in the same fashion as Chavez and Castro have become.

technopeasant on April 23, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Doctor Zero on April 23, 2009 at 1:49 AM

I’ll take the job………..

…….. but when the Left, Hollywood, the MSM, and the full power of the United States Government under Democratic Control come after me, my family, and anyone I have ever talked to in my life,

and put them on a cross and nailed them to it, dig up every mistake in judgement, every stand for American, my history in the Boy Scouts of America, my dating history, my struggle as a White Male against Affirmative Action, my ability to feed my family as a Single White Father who believes in the conventional sense of “Marriage”, and every other pimple on my as$………..

………… I sure hope you are all there in the “TEA” party numbers to have my back.

And if you do……….

……… will you handle the heat of being the next “Joe the Plumber”?

Late Night jokes with your name and family flushed in the toilet to become “Pop Culture”, movies made as propaganda to discount you without ever having a chance to reply, laws violated but not enforced upon you because of “political” reasons………..

…… yeah, I’m up for it, to fight for my country, but are the rest of you?

Seven Percent Solution on April 23, 2009 at 2:32 AM

“Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.”

This seems backwards to me. Right now, it would seem that all we’ve done is to bring the heels to Congress.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on April 23, 2009 at 2:35 AM

Seems to me the most important item to fix first is the so-easily-rigged (hello Acorn et al) voting and election system.

PaddyJ on April 23, 2009 at 3:08 AM

On December 10, 2009 at Draft Sarah Palin for VP and HA this is what I wrote concerning this subject:

Here is, I believe, how Obama and his merry men and women propose to dismantle the Constitution and set the stage where Obama can become President for life.

First let me set the scene. The American Policy Institute(API) has just asserted at World Net Daily that 32 states have already taken a vote to convene a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) with Ohio considering going along with its assemblage.

That would mean that the states would be only 1 state short (34) of being able to apply to Congress, whereupon the Congress would have no alternative but to call for a convention ‘for proposing Amendments, whiich shall be valid for all intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states or by Conventions in 3/4 thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress…’ (Article V).

Let me now say that the overt motive for the convention is to look at passing an amendment requiring a balanced bufget for federal agencies which doesn’t seem bad on the surface. However, Tom DeWeese of the API stated that the ‘US Constitution places NO RESTRICTIONS on the purposes for which the states can call a conventions.’

In other words, once a convention is called and delegates selected anything can be proposed such as eliminating or amending the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and maybe abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights, including repealing the 22nd Amendment limiting the President to 2 terms maximum.

Now if Congress agrees to ratification of the 3/4 (38)states represented at the convention then all Obama has to do is to threaten, bully, bribe, blackmail, or corrupt 38 state delegations to get his agenda passed.

Now if Congress insists on that 38 of thr State legislatures have to ratify the various proposals then all Obama has to do is appoint and assign 50 individuals to each of the 50 states with their only assignment being to bring the state legislature in line (I wrote this before the details of stimuls package came out and before it was revealed how Obama could leverage the possibility of holding back stimulus funds to a state legislature in the future if did not comply with voting the way Obama wanted).

For some of these kingpins the task is straightforward. In Democratic-controlled legislatures or those leaning in a majority to Obama just keep each legislator on your side until the vote comes up.

For those legislatures where Obama or the Democrats are not in the majority, the kingpin would compile a data base consisting of legislators and their voting preference.

As to ones who oppose Obama, first they would try to buy them off and if they couldn’t be bought, then set about in the next election cycle to take them out at the polls and replace them by someone who favors Obama. This would take big money to achieve, but as we all know Obama and his money men have more money than Fort Knox.

Follow the game plan over a 4-6 year period and I think you can see that Obama might get to 38 states eventually.

From that point everything is lost. Obama can then become President for life (even if elections are still legal he will rig them with the help of ACORN so that he will never lose again.)

Now I would invite anybody out there to tear my analysis apart and tell me why this could never happen. I would be happy to know and I think a lot of Americans would like to know as well.

technopeasant on April 23, 2009 at 3:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2