Constitutional Amendment Convention Gaining Momentum

[gun sane]

I'm lost. What does MSNBC have to do with it?

 

Levin and Hannity are "neocons"? When were they libs?

 

Reagan I suppose is the most famous neocon mentioned so far, if you consider his entire political life.

 

- OS

 

I gotta admit that I got lost, too, with JayC's labeling of Levin and Hannity as neocons.  I figured he may have picked it up from the pseudo-journalists at MSNBC, since the term originated with leftist ideology and they make a habit of name calling when they're fresh out of logical points to make.  I knew that Reagan was formerly a Dem, but often said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."  My apology for any misunderstanding.

 

[JayC]

Well my definition of a NeoCon is a conservative that promotes "democracy" and "national interest" by means of military force.  You often see similar views on domestic issues as well, support for law enforcement violations of the 5th Amendment, support for the War on Drugs, support for a big standing Army, and support for using the government to interfere in American's daily lives to 'protect' us...  While wanting to limit the Federal government, they believe the state governments have unlimited authority to regulate everything.

 

Mark Levin has in the past supported ideas that I would describe as NeoCon in nature...  Hannity on a regular basis supports the NeoCon ideology...  And the Weekly Standard is run by a bunch of NeoCons (who are big supporters of Mark Levins book), so anything they put their stamp of approval on concerns me a little bit.

 

I'm not saying that some of his proposed Amendments aren't good ideas...  Or if we could manage to get some ratified it would be a bad thing...  I'm saying that most of his amendments don't cover the real tyranny we see in our day to day lives...  It doesn't reduce the size of the Federal government to historic levels...  It doesn't re-establish many of the protections of rights we've lost over the years...

 

He's calling for a cap of federal spending at 17.5%, which is high, very high, the average since WWII has been 18%...  Historically our government lived off of 2-3% of GDP before FDR...  By leaving the spending so high, you doom Americans into paying 30-35% of their income in taxes forever....  The cap should be much lower.

 

The amendments don't require a balanced budget or prevent deficit spending...  which are the real problems that will soon ruin us as a nation....

 

You notice it doesn't deal with monetary policy at all either, like getting rid of the Federal Reserve?

 

Gun Sane, if you knew me, you'd know I'm not watching MSNBC ever ;)  FoxNEWS is a little too progressive for my tastes ;)

 

BTW, none of this really addresses the fact that once a Article 5 convention is called by the states, we loose complete control over what happens...  We can go in with these 11 Amendments and come out with 20 new ones that have nothing to do with these...

 

And in the Hannity interview he (Mark Levin) glosses over that part...  He asserts that we have nothing to fear because the state legislatures have to approve the Amendments...  but that isn't the case...  in the case of a convention Congress can hold ratifying convention(s) that bypass the legislatures entirely. 

 

This isn't the way to fix the issues in Washington...  This road is a much quicker way to slide into tyranny.

 

What is YOUR definition of neocon?? I kinda took him to be anything but...

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Some things I've disagreed with Levin on, also, but I still think he is right with the Article V process. As far as the word "neocon" goes,

I've not considered him to be one of those, but I hardly understand that word. Maybe it's just me, but dissecting neocon from conservative

leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. RINOs are bad enough and they are what I consider a neocon to be.

 

Now, back to your local broadcast....

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Here's my concern w/ the present Constitution, and any potential convention to alter it:

 

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

I'm not persuaded that altering the Constitution, even if we end up making it a better document, would alter the course of this nation.  We are an unrestrained, unbridled people ... postmodern relativism, together with pandemic envy, has convinced the citizenry that whatever they think is right, is right.   A convention today would look much more like a gathering of humanistic French revolutionaries than our God-fearing Founders.

 

I suppose that's why I side w/ those who say we're beyond the tipping point - beyond saving the Republic.  That doesn't mean I'm surrendering, however.  I'd certainly side w/ those who are willing to take a shot at correcting constitutional (really judicial) errors, but my hope rests in the reformation of town, county & state governments.  You can't reform the government without reforming the hearts/minds of the people.  

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know. I think we're already way past the point of tyranny being anything other than the rule of the day. I'm still puzzled by how

the Amendments to the Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, got passed without the rest of the Constitution falling. Could we be

somehow talking about something completely different? Or am I just mis-interpreting things? I honestly want to know, because I'm just

not quite as worried of the scenario Bracken used in the trilogy he wrote. It was horrendous and if that is seriously a reasonable

conclusion of a convention, I would be for something completely different, also.

[Wheelgunner]

The thought of a constitutional convention in my own lifetime concerns me.  In spite of that concern, I feel that we the people are running out of methods by which to keep the federal government under any sort of restraint.  With that point in mind, maybe the danger/potential for further government infringement of individual rights outweighs the risks associated with altering the Constitution.

 

In any case, it is not clear to me how even a measure so drastic as altering the Constitution would accomplish real world protections for individual rights.  After all, we have a federal judiciary that, speaking broadly, is willing and able to "construe" constitutional provisions however is required to expand the power of the federal government.  In modern times, constitutional amendments that purport to protect the individual have generally been used to beef up government power.  Ever hear of the Warren Court?

[JayC]

Gun,

 

I'm a conservative...  but as you probably are aware there are different types of conservatives...  and a lot of overlap between them...  NeoCon's are part of the republican party, and a part I generally don't agree with...

 

It's not anything but a label for the policies they advocate...  Where I am more in the Traditionalist/Libertarian wing of the party.

 

And my doctor doesn't let me watch more than 5 minutes of MSNBC a year because he's worried my blood pressure will spike and I'll have a stroke ;)  I personally find Fox News to be too progressive/big government for my taste ;)

 

 

I gotta admit that I got lost, too, with JayC's labeling of Levin and Hannity as neocons.  I figured he may have picked it up from the pseudo-journalists at MSNBC, since the term originated with leftist ideology and they make a habit of name calling when they're fresh out of logical points to make.  I knew that Reagan was formerly a Dem, but often said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."  My apology for any misunderstanding.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

6.8,

 

In all fairness some famous RINO's are also NeoCon's...  such as our 'beloved' favorites John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

 

Technically neoconservatives policies only deal with foreign affairs, and not domestic policy at all.  They generally believe in an interventionist foreign policy.  People such as Peter King from NY, any just about anybody on the editorial staff at the Weekly Standard :)

 

The basic ideas were imported from the Democratic party and aren't traditional republican values...  They tend to bleed over into domestic policy anytime you see an opportunity to grow the Government in the name of national security.

 

Mark Levin is for sure a Neoconservative without a doubt...

 

Some things I've disagreed with Levin on, also, but I still think he is right with the Article V process. As far as the word "neocon" goes,

I've not considered him to be one of those, but I hardly understand that word. Maybe it's just me, but dissecting neocon from conservative

leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. RINOs are bad enough and they are what I consider a neocon to be.

 

Now, back to your local broadcast....

 

[JayC]

I think it's a real possible outcome of a Article 5 convention.  

 

Congress not the states gets to call the convention itself, which means they can and would define the rules of the convention, who is eligible to be seated at the convention, how many representative from each state or other interested parties, the rules of order, and whether or not the entire thing would be open to the public.

 

Then once the convention passes proposed amendments...  those Amendments can be approved by one of two methods, the first being the state legislatures, and the second is a convention in 3/4th of the states...  Congress gets to pick which one, and again since Congress would be calling the convention so Congress gets to set the rules...   Who is eligible, how many representatives and from where, and whether other interested parties get seated at those convention.  

 

The instant 2/3rd's of the states apply for a convention everything after is at the whim of Congress, the states have 0 control over who gets selected, or even if they the legislature gets to vote on the proposed amendments or not.

 

It could be a huge mess...  it likely would be a huge mess...  

 

You know how badly I want to see this country change back towards our natural rights and a much smaller government than what we have today...  These aren't the Amendments to do that... and this isn't the method to do it either.

 

I don't know. I think we're already way past the point of tyranny being anything other than the rule of the day. I'm still puzzled by how

the Amendments to the Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, got passed without the rest of the Constitution falling. Could we be

somehow talking about something completely different? Or am I just mis-interpreting things? I honestly want to know, because I'm just

not quite as worried of the scenario Bracken used in the trilogy he wrote. It was horrendous and if that is seriously a reasonable

conclusion of a convention, I would be for something completely different, also.

 

[Guest TNSovereignty]

The thought of a constitutional convention in my own lifetime concerns me.  In spite of that concern, I feel that we the people are running out of methods by which to keep the federal government under any sort of restraint.  With that point in mind, maybe the danger/potential for further government infringement of individual rights outweighs the risks associated with altering the Constitution.

Agreed.  However, I'd rather it happen in my lifetime than in my grandchildren's.  In other words, I'd like this generation to confront the problem, come what may.  However, I'm preparing my family for trying times because I'm convinced this generation, like many others before us, prefer the perceived comfort of inertia to the discomfort of attacking problems.  I suppose I'd rather have a go at changing the Constitution ... and if that were to fail or implode on us, then the implosion was going to happen sooner or later anyway, so why not bring it on? 

[tnguy]

I think we have to be careful to allow some variation in what are acceptable parameters for being on "our side". There are many things that reasonable, rational people can disagree on. On the other hand, it's possible to go too far the other way and many of those in power, including many of those "my side" votes for do nothing but wear the right clothes but in their hearts, they are not clear in their goals. I would estimate that 80% of the regulars on Fox News are not sincere or deep in their beliefs, O'Reilly seems to be the worst for this, unprincipled and as knee-jerk as any liberal. When I first came over in 2000, he was nowhere near as bad but now whenever I see him on, it is clear he has no aim other than to sell books, boost ratings and be a "personality".

 

Because of this and because the statists are running at full steam, the potential for disaster is immense. We are in no way close to being ready for this fight in this arena. If the statists are at 110%, we're running at about 10. Mitch McConnell, the leader of what is purportedly "Our side" in the senate sold us out for a dam in his home state. Talk to the people you know, conservatives, see how many would be happy with universal background checks and restrictions on magazines, semi-auto rifles and other "evil gun" features. Already the ATF bends the second out of recognition with their "regulations", effective laws which should have been written by the legislature (or not at all). Imagine the 2nd rewritten with that built-in. The first isn't safe either. The 4th will be disemboweled with a rusty spoon in the name of anti-terrorism. The 5th? Probably follow England's lead there. The 9th, already the red-headed stepchild, gone. Forget the USA, it won't be United States anymore, it will be the Central North American Republic.

 

Will all this happen? Probably not. But in the name of "Compromise", plenty will.

 

It just depends if you want it quick or slow and drawn-out.

[gun sane]

Well, it's a relief to read everyone's comments following my last.  I get a little tired of "seeing through a glass darkly" and clarification certainly helps illuminate meaningful rhetoric.  It's a mistake to confuse conservatism with strict constitutional constructionism.  Our cultures and opinions of "the way things ought to be" are much too diverse.  As a Christian, I firmly believe that this world is only temporary and I'm just passing through.  If I read my Bible right, everything physical will be on fire someday and the only thing we have that is permanent is our own soul.  It's that belief in my eternal destiny that helps me to keep my sanity in this daily flash mob of madness.  But I'm not so heavenly minded that I can't be of earthly use.  It is our vital duty to protect the blessings of liberty which we have, but as it's been said, liberty must have common limits, ie. "Your rights end where my nose begins."

 

When the Constitution was written, the founders knew nothing of worldwide terrorism, nuclear bombs or low flush toilets.  So they furnished us legal precepts and guidelines, not overly specific, to conduct our affairs as free individuals who appoint representatives of our interests.  They wrote phrases such as "provide for the common defense," and "promote the general welfare,"  with the understanding that there would be times when each and every citizen would be called to contribute or sacrifice for our mutual survival.  But the founders, even as we, were powerless to strictly regulate personal perspectives of how a person should live, except when that liberty trespasses upon the physical, spiritual and financial domain of another.  In those kingdoms we must be our own keepers.

Edited December 12, 2013 by gun sane

[Guest TNSovereignty]

It just depends if you want it quick or slow and drawn-out.

Your argument is very well stated ... and accurate.  I extracted your comment merely to say, "Give it to me quick."  I think that's what Patrick Henry was on to with his famous quote. 

[Oh Shoot]

Well my definition of a NeoCon is a conservative that promotes "democracy" and "national interest" by means of military force. 

 

Well, the word gets "defined" by everybody, but at heart, "neoconservatism" is simply a return to a more conservative viewpoint from a previous more liberal/radical one. Certainly Reagan was the epitome of neoconservationism, as he hadn't just leaned left, he was solidly left as only the president of a union can be.

 

First coined in the early '70s btw, and I still don't really understand what has often become the pejorative usage of calling a pol a neocon, except of course from the left, as they see the loss of one of their own.

 

At any rate, however you want to define it, I'll take any kind of conservative over a lib even narrowly measured on the balance beam, life long ("evercon"?) or more newly converted. :)

 

- OS

Edited December 12, 2013 by Oh Shoot