The Terminators: Rise of the States

[gun sane]

Is anybody getting pumped about calling for a States' Constitutional Amendment Convention to defang our runaway government?  It is in the power of the states through Article 5 to change the Constitution through a states-initiated amendment process, including term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court.  Mark Levin has been voicing this clarion call for the people to petition their state legislatures to get the ball rolling. 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/15/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

 

Here's a rallying point:  http://conventionofstates.com/

Edited August 18, 2013 by gun sane

[Guest ThePunisher]

I wish Mark Levine would run for POTUS. He's a library full of knowledge regarding the Constution and principles our country was founded upon, and clearly articulates how and what made America the great shining city on the hill for the world to see, and aspire to be like. He would easily win any debate against any Libtard/Commie, and his love and passion for American conservative values is second only to President Reagan. He needs to be at the beck and call of America to help save our country from the onslaught of the Libtard/Commie lunacy determined to destroy our nation.

[kieefer]

I'm in.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I ordered that book, should be in Monday. I listened to his show while he was talking to folks about it and, as usual, I

tend to love his expression about constitutional laws and how he wants things to change back to. We would be so

much better off without all these people in Congress and the White House killing the Constitution the way they do.

[seez52]

let's roll!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is anybody getting pumped about calling for a States' Constitutional Amendment Convention to defang our runaway government?  It is in the power of the states through Article 5 to change the Constitution through a states-initiated amendment process, including term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court.  Mark Levin has been voicing this clarion call for the people to petition their state legislatures to get the ball rolling. 

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/15/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

 

Here's a rallying point:  http://conventionofstates.com/

Don't get me wrong, as I'm all for it, but there are risks involved. If you read "Enemies Foreign and Domestic", one or two of the trilogy, he sets up a scenario where this very thing is cooked up and the results are devastating to the country. Of course, there's more to it than that, but there could be ways certain politicians could make a CC go awry and you get a bad result. There are risks in most everything. A CC should never be taken lightly. Look at our delegates to it and ponder that a while.

Edited August 18, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Wheelgunner]

A CC should never be taken lightly. Look at our delegates to it and ponder that a while.

This.

 

Also consider that these gatherings of the people's representatives rarely remain within the bounds set forth by the electorate.  During the French Revolution, for example, the people voted for representatives and sent them to voice their concerns to the king.  But when the representatives assembled, they sort of forgot the limited nature of their mission, and instead opted for creating a written constitution and instigating something that eventually morphed into the Terror.  My point is that, given the great liberties popular representatives take during tumultuous times, and given the average quality of modern American politicians, We the People might not get what we bargained for out of a constitutional convention.

 

This is not to say I'm opposed to holding one.  It's just a worry of mine that looms large any time I think about the possibility of actually accomplishing a CC.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I, personally, would not want to take a chance on it. There are too many crooks in Washington today to think they would do the right thing if they were confronted with the wrong thing that benefited them. They do not listen to us now, what makes anyone think they will listen during a Contitutional Convention. My gut feeling is it will be used to allow the government to have even more control over our lives.

 

Imagine how many would actually vote for repealing the Second Amendment. I suspect a lot more than what most here think. The Second Amendment has been a thorn in the side of many legislators. Removing the Second Amendment would allow some to go for complete control over our lives. Right now they fear voting on gun policy because how they vote could remove them from office because it is such a hot issue. If they removed the Second Amendment altogether, as well as all firearms, it would remove most of the reservations most of them have.

[Jamie Jackson]

I too would [u]not[/u] want to see a Constitutional Convention. There are simply too many inherent risks involved, as are already well articulated.

 

I don't trust those clowns in Washington as it is. That's a Pandora's Box I don't think that needs to be opened.

 

I appreciate Mark Levine's intelligence. I simply think this is a misguided, albeit well intentioned, effort.

 

:2cents:

[gun sane]

Removing the Second Amendment would allow some to go for complete control over our lives. Right now they fear voting on gun policy because how they vote could remove them from office because it is such a hot issue. If they removed the Second Amendment altogether, as well as all firearms, it would remove most of the reservations most of them have.

 

And just how long will it be before they remove 2A while we sit and wonder what happened to our freedoms?  How's that "no taxation without representation" thing working out for us?  Are Alexander, Corker and your congressman doing a peachy keen job telling these tyrants to cease and desist?  Maybe in front of the cameras.  Hell's bells, before we're forced to tattoo numbers into our arms, why not get behind some leaders who are fed up to here with these socialist bastards and fight them with the last legal stopgap provision we have before the fat lady sings?

[Guest PapaB]

Levin is not calling for a Constitutional Convention, he's calling for a Convention to amend the Constitution. These are not at all the same thing.

 

Choosing delegates is the real problem. Unless you could get some real Constitutional conservatives involved, it would be a mess. Our current "representatives" in the House and Senate would have to be banned. Many other States would have the same problem. I don't know that 38 States could or would find the right delegates.

[RobertNashville]

Don't get me wrong, as I'm all for it, but there are risks involved. If you read "Enemies Foreign and Domestic", one or two of the trilogy, he sets up a scenario where this very thing is cooked up and the results are devastating to the country. Of course, there's more to it than that, but there could be ways certain politicians could make a CC go awry and you get a bad result. There are risks in most everything. A CC should never be taken lightly. Look at our delegates to it and ponder that a while.

A constitutional convention could be devestating but I'm wondering if we haven't already reached the point that even a devestating convention wouldn't be any wors than our current destination?  If something pretty radical isn't done and done very soon there won't be a constitution to reform/return to.  Whether it's a complete (or even a partial) economic meltdown or smply the continued deevolving of our society, this country will not survive the path it's currently traveling and I see little hope in any political process, party or candidate(s) that anything will change for the better.

[Guest nra37922]

Ahhh, a CC convention that the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakan et all would have a voice in.  Think we would be better off rejecting the DNC and RNC and electing the neighbors we trust.  Course that would mean getting off our asses and actually voting...

[RobertNashville]

Ahhh, a CC convention that the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakan et all would have a voice in.  Think we would be better off rejecting the DNC and RNC and electing the neighbors we trust.  Course that would mean getting off our asses and actually voting...

Actually, I'm not an expert in such matters but I don't believe the federal government, has much and maybe nothing to say in such things...it woudl be each individual state that would have the power (but I would need to read up on it to be sure).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A constitutional convention could be devestating but I'm wondering if we haven't already reached the point that even a devestating convention wouldn't be any wors than our current destination?  If something pretty radical isn't done and done very soon there won't be a constitution to reform/return to.  Whether it's a complete (or even a partial) economic meltdown or smply the continued deevolving of our society, this country will not survive the path it's currently traveling and I see little hope in any political process, party or candidate(s) that anything will change for the better.

Our current devastation is unconstitutional, Robert. We are allowing this nonsense. That's where something radical

has to be done and that many people will have to feel the pain of losing their big shots of morphine they currently

get from the government through income redistribution.

 

I haven't read his book, yet, but there was something like what I think he suggests mentioned in Atlas Shrugged, when

it was written way before most considered the path we going down. Judge Narragansett, while living in Galt's Gulch,

after his escape from the lunacy called the United States, was thinking and writing suggested changes to the US

Constitution, like what Levin submits: Commerce Clause, which is abused daily by most liberal and progressive pols. I

think he suggested a couple others in the story, but I don't remember. Been awhile since I read it.

 

It's not hope you should see in any political process, rather, moving more to force change by outing the dirty pols into

giving up their grip on their so-called power by replacing and warning new representatives that they will see criminal

acts responded by punishment and that they can not make themselves immune to what they subject us to.

 

Resolve by people who stand on the sidelines are the ones who will make the difference. The ones who have given up

on voting for anyone are asking for their own demise. The ones who are sucking off the government teet will perish

and deserve what they get. They don't think, anyway. They can't exist without others holding them up. Decisions will

have to be made that affect yours and my life. No other way around it, at this point.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ahhh, a CC convention that the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakan et all would have a voice in.  Think we would be better off rejecting the DNC and RNC and electing the neighbors we trust.  Course that would mean getting off our asses and actually voting...

You can't do that if you believe in the Tenth Amendment or the rest. A state and its people elected them. That's part of the risk of

a CC.

[Wingshooter]

I would rather see a movement to demand term limits. I know it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that anyone in DC would vote to limit their own term, but I thought obamacare was a stretch too. Maybe term limits that apply to any new incoming freshmen from now on might have a chance. Term limits would significantly reduce a lot of corruption, IMHO.

A CC is a huge risk, and I just don't trust those "in charge" to make the right decisions. IMO, NO ONE that would be involved with it are on par with our Founding Fathers.


ETA: I like my Constitution the way it is. I just don't like those that have been screwin' around with it. What's that saying.... "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." Edited August 18, 2013 by Batman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Term limits may or may not be a good thing, but would still be only a temporary way to slow tyranny. I don't have a

problem with term limits, but the idea is to get and keep reasonable, constitutional representation in office. Term

limits could also have the opposite effect. Certain clauses and phrases in the Constitution should be more rigidly

redesigned to thwart attempts to redirect away abuses, known as tyranny. The progressives are shaping things

with the existing wording by redefining simple wording.

 

All actions have consequences, even term limits. I'm not going to pick on lawyers, but what do they do when a

decision goes a certain way? Precedent. Political forces have been overtaken, in a lot of cases, that undermine

by ideology a certain way, and precedent allows slight redefinition of ideas found in basic ideas already in the

Constitution. We have to get away from that and use the Constitution the way it was originally intended. Add to

that, placement of many liberal judiciary to reinforce ideas that never were intended. Emotion has been codified

into the Federal Register by all this and threw reason and logic right out the door to continue the increase of

power the government has and will continually strive to increase.

 

The framers of the Constitution intended for freedom, more than regulating everything into oblivion, by a federal

government. There are continual battles by Congress to see how many laws they can pass, rather than prudence.

You don't pass laws like this, except to incriminate more. That isn't what the framers had in mind.

 

It ain't as simple as term limits, but term limits could help in certain areas, like all those lifetime appointments made

by political machines to the judiciary. Maybe even the Supreme Court, like Mark Levin says. There is no reason

the Supreme Court has to rule and have total exclusivity on whether or not something is constitutional. They have

made some tragic mistakes in their existence, just like Congress and the President have.

 

Sometimes the "Democracy" part of our existence isn't so fun, is it?

[Hershmeister]

All I know is the sign at the Democrat booth at the Wilson County fair proudly states that "We're Democrats because we care".

Since when did caring become the essence of governing - which is fundamentally the notion of equal justice under the law.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hersh, that's the whole problem, isn't it? The only caring involved should be the caring to use reason and logic, and

understand the potential consequences of stupid Utopian ideas. They always throw it our right in front of us, and many

don't see their flaw. It's all in their premise.

[gun sane]

Before we run off into a bunch of speculation about the issue, perhaps it would be good to hear it from Levin himself.  He recently spoke to Sean Hannity about it in this two-parter. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAluXIrsogU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAb60gBc-iw

[kieefer]

All I know is the sign at the Democrat booth at the Wilson County fair proudly states that "We're Democrats because we care".

Since when did caring become the essence of governing - which is fundamentally the notion of equal justice under the law.

Did you see the Republican booth and did it say " We don't want you to have healthcare"?





Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What he is talking about is something I never got out of the Constitution. My fault, though. That is another

way to do it. Thank you, Mark. You're welcome, Mark. :D

[Guest ThePunisher]

The Utopian propaganda seems to have taken hold of the masses, better than the reasoning and logical conservative propaganda. The conservatives just haven't learned how to refute the Utopian lies espoused continually. The conservatives just can't find the "perfect messenger" or just don't know what the " perfect messenger" is suppose to be like, and until they find one, the Utopians are gonna continue winning with their lies.

[Hershmeister]

All I know is the sign at the Democrat booth at the Wilson County fair proudly states that "We're Democrats because we care".



Since when did caring become the essence of governing - which is fundamentally the notion of equal justice under the law.

Did you see the Republican booth and did it say " We don't want you to have healthcare"?











Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

No it did not - nor did it say we don't care, or, we care less or frankly anything about caring. It did have lots if literature about the Constitution though.