The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin

[J Starkey]

I've always wanted that bridge I'll start bidding at $10 I agree with you on that. That's why I'm torn. If we could do it and it work out it'd be great but I don't believe it would.

 

[jbombelli]

If we have a Constitutional Convention, kiss some of your rights goodbye.

 

[pudly]

If we have a Constitutional Convention, kiss some of your rights goodbye.

I dunno. According to Article 5 of the Constitution, 3/4 of the states would have to agree to any new amendments. I'm really not sure you could find much of anything that 3/4 could agree on if they are at all controversial.

 

[jbombelli]

I dunno. According to Article 5 of the Constitution, 3/4 of the states would have to agree to any new amendments. I'm really not sure you could find much of anything that 3/4 could agree on if they are at all controversial.

If you really look closely, you'll be surprised at how often our legislatures come up with just enough votes to do whatever they want, while having just enough people vote against it to make it look like they really didn't want to do it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

To someone's point above, the Constitution will not prevent legislators from doing un-Constitutional things; neither will the product of a con-con. For heaven's sakes, there was once a time they had to pass amendments to ban alcohol and start collecting an income tax. Maybe I'm being cynical, but there is no amendment that can be written to undo much of the train wreck we have before us today if the people don't have the will to do. Alternatively, if the people want to right the ship, there is no new amendments necessary.

 

[uberpeck]

You all should read the first chapter, it's free online, and clearly renounces all your fears on the subject (including runaway amendments, static action, and the like). The fed is out of control and the states should claim their inheritance in the continuation of this nation.

 

[yepthatsme]

If we do not have the numbers to change the direction of our government at this time, what makes us think that we will have the numbers to improve our Constitution? Let us defend what we have and force our representatives to honor their oath.

 

[uberpeck]

If we have a Constitutional Convention, kiss some of your rights goodbye.

A man of sound mind realizes how few rights we have left.

 

[uberpeck]

If we do not have the numbers to change the direction of our government at this time, what makes us think that we will have the numbers to improve our Constitution? Let us defend what we have and force our representatives to honor their oath.

We have the numbers, you just haven't researched enough to know. Look at all the states in the recent past that have struggled against the Feds to put their own policies concerning labor/economics/welfare/education into place. CO, NC, MI, WI, IN, AZ , etc. Their attempts to exercise constitutional rights have been illegally thwarted. That's what this is about, and its possible

 

[hornadylnl]

We have the numbers, you just haven't researched enough to know. Look at all the states in the recent past that have struggled against the Feds to put their own policies concerning labor/economics/welfare/education into place. CO, NC, MI, WI, IN, AZ , etc. Their attempts to exercise constitutional rights have been illegally thwarted. That's what this is about, and its possible

And the states cower every time the fed threatens to pull highway funds.

State and local governments are every bit as corrupt as the federal government. It's great hearing local "conservatives" telling us we need to cut spending and shrink government in Washington all the while holding their hands out for federal money to fund their state and local projects.

 

[jamil]

A national constitutional convention is a deadly idea. It will open the door for this treacherous lot to repeal anything they want. Surely you guys don't trust the most unpopular congress -- perhaps ever -- to rewrite the constitution?

You trust state legislatures any more than you trust the federal legislature? The federal government is what it is because it's representative of the people. It's not its own entity.

To someone's point above, the Constitution will not prevent legislators from doing un-Constitutional things; neither will the product of a con-con. For heaven's sakes, there was once a time they had to pass amendments to ban alcohol and start collecting an income tax. Maybe I'm being cynical, but there is no amendment that can be written to undo much of the train wreck we have before us today if the people don't have the will to do. Alternatively, if the people want to right the ship, there is no new amendments necessary.

(virtual rep)

 

[jbombelli]

A man of sound mind realizes how few rights we have left.

We have the numbers, you just haven't researched enough to know. Look at all the states in the recent past that have struggled against the Feds to put their own policies concerning labor/economics/welfare/education into place. CO, NC, MI, WI, IN, AZ , etc. Their attempts to exercise constitutional rights have been illegally thwarted. That's what this is about, and its possible

A man of sound mind sees the situation we're in and knows there's nothing the states are going to be able to do about it. And I'm well aware of how few rights we really have left.

But that begs a question: why should we have a Constitutional Convention when the Supreme Court will just whittle away at whatever we do through it anyway?

Do you really think the feds will allow the states to tell them "no"? REALLY?

We will lose with a Constitutional Convention. Count on it.

 

[CavMedic]

I just fear that a convention like that would give those that wish for Tyranny a very convienent forum in which push it through. It's obvious that the powers that be are willing to use any tactic whether morally questionable or not to further their agenda.

 

[uberpeck]

There real question is: do you trust the states or the nanny state. Both amendment processes require 3/4 states approvals anyway.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

A man of sound mind sees the situation we're in and knows there's nothing the states are going to be able to do about it. And I'm well aware of how few rights we really have left.

But that begs a question: why should we have a Constitutional Convention when the Supreme Court will just whittle away at whatever we do through it anyway?

Do you really think the feds will allow the states to tell them "no"? REALLY?

We will lose with a Constitutional Convention. Count on it.

J-BOMB FTMFW.

Stick to what we have, what is clearly enunciated, what is tradition, what is our origin.

 

[uberpeck]

And if you don't think it is a good process to look into, then you don't believe the framers had it right by putting the processes side by side in the constitution- so why would you trust the current situation?

 

[Tombs]

We have the numbers, you just haven't researched enough to know. Look at all the states in the recent past that have struggled against the Feds to put their own policies concerning labor/economics/welfare/education into place. CO, NC, MI, WI, IN, AZ , etc. Their attempts to exercise constitutional rights have been illegally thwarted. That's what this is about, and its possible

So, in the absolute most optimistic situation we end up protecting more civil liberties.
What then? They're laughing at the constitution as it is now. Am I really supposed to believe they wouldn't play pick and chose and would go by the book after this?

No, I can't imagine that situation. They'd use it to their advantage like anything else, just eroding what little liberty we have left.

But the states have control you say!? Oh, well that can be taken care of. Cut funding to states that don't support your agenda, or promise favors.

Sounds like another layer of bureaucracy to me, just imagine the lobbying.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

OMFG, our national Constitution enumerates that we have ALL powers not otherwise EXPRESSLY delegated to the national government, which it EXPLICITLY enumerates. How can ANY proposed amendment expand upon our near-limitless power?! Leave. It. Alone. And adhere to enforcing its restrictions upon government. The reason we've gotten into this situation has been a slow ceding of power over time due to being complacent. Short of fixing the root problem - complacency with governmental over-reach - it doesn't matter what you propose to alter in our beloved and noble founding document, it won't solve the REAL problem. Never before has such extreme measure yielded such slap-dash ineffectual effort.

 

[Tombs]

OMFG, our national Constitution enumerates that we have ALL powers not otherwise EXPRESSLY delegated to the national government, which it EXPLICITLY enumerates. How can ANY proposed amendment expand upon our near-limitless power?! Leave. It. Alone. And adhere to enforcing its restrictions upon government. The reason we've gotten into this situation has been a slow ceding of power over time due to being complacent. Short of fixing the root problem - complacency with governmental over-reach - it doesn't matter what you propose to alter in our beloved and noble founding document, it won't solve the REAL problem. Never before has such extreme measure yielded such slap-dash ineffectual effort.

I realize this, but it's a bit hard to explain natural rights and natural law in just the context of an example as to why a convention is a bad idea.

Either way, do you not realize I agree with you?

 

[jbombelli]

And if you don't think it is a good process to look into, then you don't believe the framers had it right by putting the processes side by side in the constitution- so why would you trust the current situation?

Keep in mind we gun owners are not the majority in this country. Most people are stupidly blinded by the lies the media tells them. You want to chance the 2nd Amendment being rewritten? Maybe using today's definition of "well regulated" as opposed to what it meant two centuries ago? There are a LOT of people that think "well regulated" means "jump through the government's hoops to get their permission."

Nobody's saying it's a bad process. We're saying using it now would be a giant mistake.