Two States Away from Constitutional Convention?

[Thin Black Line]

How possible is this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

What actually happened in OH this week?

Isn't then an old saying about an agreement only being as good as the paper
it's written on?

What happens when someone doesn't want to preserve the paper?

 

[Zundfolge]

There is zero way a new Constitutional Convention won't end in outright civil war.

 

[Thin Black Line]

At this point I just wondering about whether there will be a Con Con.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

This would cause no end of bloodshed, this is not the thing to do now, if ever

 

[Zundfolge]

What actually happened in OH this week?

That's my question. I don't really trust World Net Daily's journalist integrity (even though I often agree with their editorial positions).

Did something happen to cause this to come up?

 

[Cyborg]

I'm Not Surprised

Question: If a state has called for a convention, can it withdraw its call? I.e., could one of the states already on record as calling for a con con change its collective mind and resind the earlier call for a con con? Also, is there a time limit on getting enough calls similar to the time limit for ratification of an amendment? The so-called Equal Rights Amendment (which I GUARAN-FRAKKING-TEE would be in any new constitution written by the folks coming into power now) comes to mind. It failed to get enough states ratifying it in the required time.

On the other hand, as a friend of mine who teaches physics says "even protons decay". Protons are the most stable, longest lived things in the universe so far as we know. Even they decay over time. That's a science geek's way of saying "nothing last forever". I would hate to be in the U.S. Armed Forces if a new constitution were written the way most here expect it would be. Gonna put those brave folks in a real bind. It would definately be hard times. I only have 25 years or so - likely less - left to me so I don't expect to see all of it. My grandchildren, though.

DRAT!!!!



CACA!!!!



ORGANIC FERTILIZER!!!!



GUANO!!!!



HONEYBUCKET DUMPINGS!!!!




Boy I wish I wasn't a tea totaler. News like this'd be a good excuse to go on a 4 day bender.

 

[armoredman]

My, what vulgarities!

 

[Zundfolge]

I.e., could one of the states already on record as calling for a con con change its collective mind and resind the earlier call for a con con?

It is my understanding that a state CAN rescind its earlier call for a con con.

This site lists the states that have called for one http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

and it mentions that 3 states have rescinded their calls.


So since my state of Colorado is on that list of states with a standing call for a con-con, how do I as a Coloradoan get the state to rescind their call?

Certainly our leftist Governor won't do it, but could we get the state legislature to do it?

 

[Tyris]

There is zero way a new Constitutional Convention won't end in outright civil war.

What is the logic behind that statement?

As long as football, american idol, and beer flow freely nothing of the sort will happen. Think of them as adult-pacifiers.

We've just elected an openly socialist president, congress and senate have taken a sharp turn left, our country teeters on debt default with a president elect talking about "deficits dont matter". Bankers have just embezzled 700B of our tax dollars without any oversight. Corporations, states and cities deep in debt are going to washington hat in hand asking for dope money.

I've come to the conclusion we're diving head first into socialism mixed with great-depression-2. What difference will it make if we codify it into a new constitution? No one will lift a finger.

There will be no civil war, have you look at the list of states asking for the con-con ?? Who would fight back?

-T

 

[guntotinguy]

We should not consider Nevada's purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as a safety margin.

And why not?This is crazy...

 

[Zundfolge]

And why not?This is crazy...

The thinking there is that there is no provision in the bits of the constitution that are related to constitutional conventions to rescind a call once a state has made it.

So the thinking is that even if these states rescind their call for a con-con that they'll be forced into one anyway.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I, for one, am not overly concerned. Even if a con con is convened and even if a runaway convention does occur and they rewrite the constitution, totally eliminating the Bill of Rights and the other protections contained in the US Constitution, it still must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states in order to become valid. Dire predictions of woe are similar to "the sky is falling".

Sheesh, congress has the power to do exactly what a con con can do... Which is to propose changes in the Constitution, and although I have trepedations every time Congress convenes, their ability to propose wholesale changes in the Constitution is the least of my worries.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

legaleagle 45 is correct. A change (let alone a new constitution) isn't an easy thing to get, or for some fool to make happen.

The Constitution is deliberately dificult to change. That is on purpose. It was known by our founders that though you might want to tweak it, you wouldn't want to change it overnight with mere majority vote.

I agree, this would only end in Civil War II. And as much is known by the current crop of political leaders. Quite simply, we aren't Europe or Canada. We still care about sovreignty, and this is a center right country (still) politically.

Obama was elected because Bush erred, not because the majority of this country's citizens want us to become Sweden.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree. Even if some leaders WANT to write it out on a fresh sheet of paper, They aren't that stupid.

This is why I don't go to WND anymore, I get tired of avoiding the pieces of falling sky.

 

[DMF]

Why do some folks still put stock into information that comes from the World Nut Daily?

 

[Cyborg]

Civil War II????

this would only end in Civil War II

Actually it would result in the FIRST Civil War. The little set-to they had back in the 1860s was not a civil war. Civil wars are about who will control a country. The War Between The States - more properly known as The War Of Northern Agression - was a war of conquest pure, plain and simple. The CSA had no desire to do anything but go their own separate way. They did not wish to control the country. Only to be left to their own devices. Lincoln launched a war of conquest to forcibly reintegrate the cedeeding states back into the union. After the CSA was conquered, legitimate governments in the south were overthrown and troops of the victor garrisoned the conquered territory for years (decades?).

And lest you think I am making this up out of whole cloth, Michael Medved is the one who taught me the true definition of a civil war. The French had a civil war. The conflict in the 1860s was a war of conquest - not a civil war.

Funny about that word "civil". Funny how UNcivil anything styled "civil" usually is. Civil wars are usually as bloody as wars come. And how really civil are "civil court" proceedings? For that matter, how many "civil servants" have you ever met who were either?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Originally Posted by Cyborg:
The War Between The States - more properly known as The War Of Northern Agression

I prefer, The War of Southern Rebellion. After all them Northern dudes were merely sitting in a federal fort, bought and paid for with federal funds when them sneaky Southern dudes decided to try to steal federal property and started shooting at them!

 

[ArmedBear]

There is no reason the FedGov would do it. They can change the Constitution at will, in less time and with less effort than a literal change takes. Hell, they don't even bother with petty Amendments any more.

 

[SwearNoAllegiance]

Let's do it and dissolve the gov't.

 

[cbrgator]

Won't happen. It's a fear-mongering article to further enrage conservatives about liberal policies faced today and may soon face in the future. WND isn't exactly unbiased...

What we should be more worried about is SCOTUS denying certiorari to Philip Berg and not force Obama to prove his eligibility. I'm not hoping to see him removed (because I don't know how he'd be replaced and Biden scares me more than Obama) but I'd like to know that somebody cannot ascend to the Presidency without being properly vetted. The fact that we have no procedure in place to guarantee eligibility is absolutely beyond me. Same thing with Hillary. She is constitutionally barred from becoming Secretary of State, yet nobody is stopping her.

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't agree at all with the definition of a 'civil war' being exclusively to grab control of a nation. It was Americans killing Americans, the bloodiest war we have ever fought. That's a civil war.

 

[Audrey]

Anyone who thinks that elected US representatives are not looking out for the best interest of their constituencies is living in fantasy land. The problem lies in understanding that "we the people" are not the constituencies, but rather the global crime cartel known as the banks and their vast holding.

Don't believe for one minute that the Constitution isn't under threat. If the Supreme Court actually decides to uphold it against this syndicate and invalidate Obama you will see the Con-Con and can wave goodbye to life as you know it.

And World Net Daily was one of the only websites decrying the loss of civil liberties when the Patriot Acts were rushed through Congress, much as the Banker Bailout Bill was.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Again, status of Ohio?

 

[Art Eatman]

Either answer TBL's question or don't post. Most posts so far are more political than legal, which will get the thread closed.

 

[Audrey]

I assume since you are able to post on THR you also have access to search engines. The first response in Scroogle is this:

http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2181

The Judiciary Committe vote was scheduled for 10 December, but was postponed when opponents of the Con-Con attended and voiced their concerns.

If you would like to do further research, House Joint Resolution 8, or HJR8 is a decent search string.