Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | 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




Jul-14-13 10:29 AM

Listening to Mark Levin again. Well this explains the recent overuse of the word Marxist.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-14-13 5:15 PM

But MT, the corporations are already writing the laws, what more do you want? The Republican Party is owned by ALEC and they are run by Corporate America. Cheer up, MT. You have everything you want, and it isn't even Christmas.

Maybe your next letter should be to the Koch Brothers. They are fighting hard, actually they are paying someone else to fight hard to make sure that your money and my money stays their money. You should be so is everything you believe in.

I wonder how many years it will be until the Supreme Court abolished the 18th amendment. This time, it won't be based on color, but rather on class.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-14-13 5:27 PM

MT: Not planning to read Levin's new book. Reading his horrendous definition of anyone not ultra-conservative, which you used to define homosexuals, and the preaching that both plan to destroy civil society pretty much sums up where he’s coming from. Same old, same old.

“The Great One”? It is an appropriate title for a person one worships.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-14-13 6:21 PM

Wayne Gretzky wrote the Liberty Amendments? Who knew?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-14-13 8:14 PM

THis guy is such a bozo its comedy.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 12:00 AM

The federal government has taken upon itself the role of a nanny, claiming to do so for the good of all, but really using that as an excuse to control out lives. We no longer have the right to choose the volume of water our toilets can use per flush, how many watts of energy our light bulbs can use, to have sugar in our soft drinks at school, to have toy guns without orange barrel tips, to have fireworks for personal use (state law), to have readily available ethanol-free gasoline, or for that matter corn for food use, we have idiotic labeling warning against using a hair drying in the shower, and a host of other regulations which have nothing to do with the government's role of protecting us from foreign enemies.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 3:20 AM

Norway... Part of the reason that the government gets involved with these things is because our resources are not infinite.

Water supplies all over the country are suffering. My 1.2GPF toilet works just fine. Energy resources are also strained. The nations infrastructure is failing fast. I don't miss the incandescent lamps at all. Most of my lamps have been replaced with CFL's years ago, or Halogen, which are just as versatile as incandescent, but provide a crisper light. We have replaced about a dozen of our lamps with LEDs and they are working very well. Here's the thing, we have soldiers in every corner of the world ensuring that our oil supplies are safe because just won't conserve energy like they need to unless the government mandates it.

Tell me, just how has any of these energy mandates negatively affected you? I can't imagine what my utility bills would be if my house had its energy saving upgrades reversed.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 3:23 AM

Do you remember when kids used to get shot by cops because their toy guns looked so real? Is that what you want to go back to? I get what you're saying about essentially protecting the stupid people (and I agree with you on that), but when it comes to children, or our children's natural resources, we need to protect them.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 8:56 AM

Those are the rights of such concern? Here I am concerned about silly rights that Republican states are messing with like limiting voting, forcing unnecessary medical procedures, replacing all elected local officials with one all-powerful person appointed by a governor, taking people's land for fracking, and SCOTUS deciding corporations are people and money is speech. I like clean water, air, and safe food and medicines, a baseline against third world wages, and 6 year olds not working. EPA regulations protect people and their land over corporations. This and financial regulations are big conservative no-no’s, but important to actual people.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 9:19 AM

The problem, MT, with doing things strictly on the state level is that you then have 50 completely separate sets of laws in every state, which would make traveling and remaining a law abiding citizen much more difficult. Also, you would see states fighting even more than they are. Just look how southern states have already degraded the workplace with cheap, undereducated labor. States in the south are subdidising foreign auto manufacturers with taxpayer money to build factories in their states to directly compete with American auto manufacturers, many of them in northern states. That is something I would like to see the federal government step in on. We should not be using taxpayer dollars for one state to compete with another.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 9:24 AM

You bring up the EPA. Do you not want clean air and water? Do you REALLY trust backwards states like Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and others like them to do the right thing for our environment, particularly if they need to compete with another state that is lax in environmental laws?

If anything, the EPA should be regulating Chinese imports. If they are produced in a factory that does not meet our standards, then they should reject the goods at our docks. We cannot tell China what to do, but we can tell them what we will allow our companies to buy. Imagine how many American jobs that alone would bring back.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 9:27 AM

Well said Auntydem! Labor laws are a very important job of the Federal Government. Remember, some states would still have slavery if not for Federal laws. But, I suspect many of the registered Republicans here would be okay with that.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 9:59 AM

MCW, if you are concerned about dwindling water supplies, then ethanol production, mandated and supported by the government, should bother you. It uses incredible volumes of water for a dubious benefit of reducing dependence on foreign oil.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 11:25 AM

MT: At least it took a bit longer for Marx to show up and you to explain what everyone else thinks. Disagreeing with decisions made by state legislators or courts or conservatives or Republicans does not indicate dislike of the Constitution, nor agreement with Marx. Not having your omniscience I can’t speak for others, but I expect government to protect me from being cheated or exploited by those with the money and power to do so, not just from foreign enemies in times of war. Fling Marxist at that if you will, but who's actually trying to change the Constitution when the ballot box or the person in the WH disappoints them? I know those in government are never perfect. That is why the Constitution exists. If I to can play God for a moment, you believe states and unregulated private entities are incapable of decisions or actions that harm citizens – they are perfect and benign, if not downright paternal - and money is the measure of a person’s morality and human worth.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 11:54 AM

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group.” FDR

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 12:44 PM

Really auntydem? You are going to quote the most socialist president in our history (present occupant of the white house not withstanding) to bolster your point?

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 1:01 PM

mnstn, to suggest that republicans, or anyone would be in favor of slavery makes you ignorant and sick. You have bought revisionist history because the reality is that it has been the Republican Party that has always been at the forefront of civil rights, including Abraham Lincoln who signed a little document called the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

Robert Byrd (D) was a Grand Wizard of the KKK and Al Gore, Sr. (D) filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to stop republicans from bringing it to a vote. Get your facts straight before spewing your nonsense.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 2:04 PM

Guess FDR's statements mean as much to you as Mark Levin's do to me.

If you prefer, check for the 14 characteristics of fascism.

Do you consider the billions to corporations as welfare?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 2:10 PM

Yes. I absolutely consider the billions of dollars that go to corporations as welfare. Government giving an unfair advantage to any individual or group is outside of the scope and bounds of the constitution.

Who is Mark Levine?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 2:13 PM

A simple way to look at it for you simpletons is this: Bigger government = bigger problems. Smaller government = smaller problems. Government cannot grow its way out of problems, it can only make them worse. You will see this stark example as ObamaCare unfolds.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 4:06 PM

Dems don't distinguish between corporate welfare and tax incentives. The former is money thrown down a rat hole like with Solyndra. The latter is a break on the taxes for companies to incent them to invest those dollars into communities, jobs and economic growth. This is a break on taxes corporations pay on their profits, which is in addition to taxes they pay for their employees, their real estate and their equipment. When properly structured, rarely does a tax incentive end up being a negative investment like the earned income credit, food stamps and welfare payments.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 7:37 PM

Ask Levin. Was he still Meese's chief of staff when Attorney General Meese resigned when facing investigation for influence peddling, selling federal jobs,and the manipulation of federal investigations?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 8:27 PM

Direct as in "explain to me the difference in philosophy between yourselves and the old Soviet Union"?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-15-13 11:49 PM

We don't have to speak about theoreticals. The "great society" is a decided failure. Government cannot efficiently manage massive programs. That goes for social security, medicare, national education, our standing military, and now ObamaCare. There are big government progressives on both sides of the aisle and they are helping themselves to obscene benefits and cushy futures. Support for the status quo or anything that resembles it is shortsighted at best.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-16-13 12:21 PM


I think what you are referring to would best described by a group that is already in existence. They call themsleves the "Tea Party".

Our status quo government must have felt very threathened by them so much so they had to sick the IRS on them and continues to use the MSM to constantly lampoon them. You should sign up. Don't expect your admission fee to be tax deductable any time soon, however.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 41 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web