Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

We need a constitutional convention

July 14, 2013

To the editor: As one who is concerned that the federal government has forsaken its constitutional moorings, I have been searching for actions that can be taken to correct the alarming expansion of......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(68)

EaglesFan

Aug-10-13 12:22 PM

Wouldn't it just be a lot less work to buy a congressman or two? That's how it is done these days, isn't it?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-21-13 10:04 AM

mnsotn: If you actually read my letter to the editor, you would see the types of amendments that are needed. Your list deals with the outer symptoms, not the root causes.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 11:02 PM

The sad thing is that MT can't dispute any of these. Many of them are straight from the Republican platform.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jul-20-13 5:56 PM

I wonder who would benefit from mnsotn's excellent list?

Now, let's see....

The Koch bros wouldn't try to rig a constitutional convention would they? Nah!

And, ya' think ol' Sheldon Adelsen might cough up a hundred mil or so to make sure the convention "goes the right way"?

Oh, the things money can buy.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jul-20-13 9:20 AM

The sad thing is that if you look at most of Mnsotan's list, you will see that a lot of those have been Republican campaign promises or actual bills proposed by Republicans at one time or another since the rise of the Tea Party.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GrandmaD

Jul-20-13 8:14 AM

I doubt that Michael would propose Catholicism, as he is Lutheran.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-20-13 2:04 AM

I can just see some of the proposals that would come from people like Michael.

Catholicism is to be the National Religion. It is to be taught in all schools. All kids will pray.

All media is to be censored.

Eliminate Unions.

Eliminate OSHA.

Open free trade to all countries.

Eliminate the estate tax.

Eliminate corporate taxes.

Eliminate business property taxes.

Eliminate child labor laws.

Eliminate overtime laws.

Eliminate prevailing wage laws.

Eliminate Social Security.

Eliminate subsidized health care.

Repeal the 18th Amendment, but this time, allow poor white people to become slaves, as well.

Drill Baby Drill.

Eliminate Capital Gains Taxes.

Strip Wall Street Regulations.

Instate School Vouchers.

Cut Teacher Pay.

Eliminate the EPA.

Cut funding to Higher Education. (Poor people don't need education to work in the new sweatshops).

Reinstate the draft.

Did I miss any?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-19-13 9:24 AM

Sven: Madison expressed his support for this provision of the Constitution in Federalist 43. Hamilton supported it in Federalist 85. Yes, I have a high regard for the Founding Fathers.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-19-13 9:13 AM

LibertyLady - One more thought. You speak as though our "leaders" in Washington could make use of a convention for proposing amendments to completely destroy the Constitution. If that were even a possibility, I too would be against such a convention.

But the beauty of the whole process is that the "leaders" in Washington have no say in it. The whole thing is centered on the states and their legislatures. The STATE LEGISLATORS vote to convene the convention. The STATES select their own representatives to the convention. The STATE LEGISLATORS vote on whether to approve proposed amendments. The whole process was designed to keep Washington out of the loop.

Of course, the people in Washington will do their best to force their way into the process, but we the people will firmly and politely say, "No way!"

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-19-13 9:03 AM

LibertyLady: Two points - First, the Founding Fathers who wrote Article V of the Constitution and the 13 states that ratified it were obviously not afraid of allowing the state legislatures to convene a convention for PROPOSING constitutional amendments.

Second - Your comment assumes that such a convention, by its own action, could amend the Constitution. That assumption is completely wrong. According to Article V, all that the convention could do is PROPOSE amendments. The states would then consider each PROPOSED amendment individually, and those amendments that are approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures would then be considered ratified.

Does that sound to you like a process that could be hijacked by radicals? Only if 3/4 of the state legislatures are dominated by radicals. If that is the case, then the country is lost anyway.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LibertyLady

Jul-18-13 8:50 PM

Our “leaders” in Washington already ignore the Constitution, but they would love an opportunity to finally toss it into the trash as a quaint, antiquated document and be done with it in their quest for total government.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LibertyLady

Jul-18-13 8:48 PM

There is no way to limit the scope and purpose of a Constitutional Convention and we will finally lose the Constitution once and for all. It’s how we got our Constitution in the first place — the founders tossed out the Articles of Confederation when the states’ representatives were only authorized to amend them.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jul-18-13 5:24 PM

James Madison. What did he know? He was probably just a compliant accomplice of the Radical/Marxist Colonial Left.

Dang commie pinko founding father bad guy varmints.

Right, MIT?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-17-13 11:55 PM

I shrill at the thought of some of the middle class killing proposals that could come out of the red neck states.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-17-13 8:40 PM

AD: I am not concerned that a Convention called by the legislatures of 2/3 of the states would cause harm to the republic. Why not? Because it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, but a CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Whatever they agree upon is only a PROPOSAL. It is NOT YET part of the Constitution. It is only after 3/4 of the state legislatures approve of one of their proposed amendments that it becomes part of the Constitution. If one of their proposals is too far out of the mainstream of public thought, it will not pass, and no harm will be done.

Your comments are typical of what we can expect to hear from those who like the Constitution and the federal govt just as it is, that is, malfunctioning as a compliant accomplice of the Left.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-17-13 9:07 AM

cont... Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. - James Madison

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-17-13 9:06 AM

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville:

If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.

continued....

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jul-17-13 1:03 AM

Yet, MT, you seem to have no problem with the Fascist Plutocrats in your party that are taking over this country. Legislators should be writing laws at the will of the people, not the will of corporations.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-17-13 12:19 AM

What my last post is saying is that there is a certain segment of our society that is not going to sit quietly by and allow ourselves to be enslaved by radical Marxist/socialists like the ones in the current administration. I personally am not going to take up arms, but I have a hard time believing there are not many who will.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jul-16-13 11:15 PM

MIT: I believe you have evolved into a certified nutcase. Just read your last post, cowboy.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-16-13 10:33 PM

And which would you prefer, an attempt to reform govt by peaceful, constitutional means, or people on the right taking up arms in a civil war? If we don't do the former, we're headed for the latter.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-16-13 10:30 PM

Sven: Seriously, though, you speak of "our constitution" as though the U.S. Constitution is the private possession of the Marxists among us. The Constitution is to represent the will of the people regarding the federal govt. The next decade will show what that will is, your scoffing notwithstanding.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-16-13 10:26 PM

Sven: Actually, I've been studying evolution lately. And the one thing I've learned is that no matter how astronomical the odds against something may be, it still could happen (at least according to the evolutionists). So, if you are declaring my proposal to be impossible, does that mean you don't believe in evolution?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jul-16-13 6:25 PM

Congratulations to Mr. Thom for his brilliant and bold proposal to circumvent Congress and change our constitution via direct legislation by the states.

Everyone knows--certainly Mr. Thom--that state governments are far more reliable and less corrupt than the national legislative branch. Fine current examples of gross ineptitude include, but are not limited to: Illinois, California, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Nevada and most of our former Confederate brethren, notably North Carolina of late. And, Texas is in its own special category: uber-nuts.

One can only image what kind of ham-fisted mess Mr. Thom and his fellow fascists would concoct if given the opportunity.

Fortunately, there is no possibility he or any of his ilk will ever get the chance to fiddle with our constitution, because the overwhelming majority of Americans like our country the way it is, not the way right-wingers imagine...it was.

Keep listening to your radio, MIT. But, next time try Christian rock.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-16-13 2:13 PM

Yes Michael, when you organize that group, could you tell them to stop treating corporations like people and start giving rights back to the American workers? Also, tell them to start holding Wall Street to the same accountability as Main Street.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 68 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web