U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

[Pilgrim]

Hope this wasn't posted before.

Please read the whole article.

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

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events..........................

 

[Skald]

Hope this wasn't posted before.

Please read the whole article.

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

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events..........................

that's only to call the convention. To make amendments they need approval from 3/4's of the states (which means they need to sway 38 states to be in favor of it). There also may be state regulations requiring that X % of them be in favor of adding the amendment.

 

[vellnueve]

I tend to take anything from WND with a very heavy grain of salt...

 

[Bob P]

From the US governement website:

Amending the Constitution
The recent Senate debate over a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with desecration of the U.S. flag raises the question of exactly how the Constitution can be amended. (See Anti-Flag Burning Amendment Debated in Senate.)

Article V of the Constitution provides two processes by which amendments can be proposed and approved

Congress proposes amendments.
As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.


The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process.

While over 10,000 have been proposed, only seventeen amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since final ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

 

[cyberlogicx]

Paranoia is hilarious! That was one of the funniest things I've read all day. Thanks!

 

[jhblaze1]

Still reading, but pretty early on something the author said made me want to write him off. He referred to them adding the "right" to abortion and euthanasia. I hate to point out to him that despite it not being written in law somewhere, we OF COURSE have the RIGHT to euthanasia. How anyone thinks the state should be allowed to compell people to live when they don't want to blows my mind.

Hope this wasn't posted before.

Please read the whole article.

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

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events..........................

 

[jdubois]

Still reading, but pretty early on something the author said made me want to write him off.

As soon as I got to "the non-existent separation of church and state" I knew the author was anti-freedom.

 

[M1911]

I tend to take anything from WND with a very heavy grain of salt...

Indeed. WND is useful mainly for lining a bird cage.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Indeed. WND is useful mainly for lining a bird cage.

I dunno. I find it amusing from time to time...sort of like Comedy Central for the tinfoil hat crowd.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As soon as I got to "the non-existent separation of church and state" I knew the author was anti-freedom.

No he's not; he just wants freedoms limited those he will personally use - a not uncommon trait on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[KilgoreTrout]

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Nuff said

 

[doobie]

As soon as I got to "the non-existent separation of church and state" I knew the author was anti-freedom.

I think we should have a state religon then everyone would be the same religion and that would cut half the hate crimes off the face of the earth!

Then we take away freedom of the press and speech. Only the government should be able to say what they want and we all have to nod our head and agree or watch it fall into a basket in front of our body.

At that point we won't need the second amendment because the only criminals will be the citiznes and we'll all be felons because of our thoughts.

The third isn't needed anymore either, it would save so much money if each of us took in a member of the military. Think of the bonding.

Fourth amendment, come on... if you have nothing to hide you don't need to hide it... and don't give me that privacy stuff, everything about you must be registered in a database somewhere!

Fifth.... you are always going to incriminate yourself, so give up now.

Sixth/seventh...trial by juries aren't needed, if the government says you are guilty, you must be. Jurys allow thought process to enter the equation which mess everything up and costs so much money

Eighth Bail is set too low these days and given out like it's nothing, so why have an amendment. And lack of cruel and unusual punishment makes for no reason for criminals to walk the straight and narrow. Torture, executions should be common place. Every town center should always proudly display 1-5 bodies hanging. I highly recommend changing them every few days especially in warm climates

Ninth/Tenth - If the government doesn't say you can do it, you can't. Don't think you can subvert the powers of your overlords

 

[Lucas McCain]

How anyone thinks the state should be allowed to compell people to live when they don't want to blows my mind.

If you are dead how can you pay taxes?

 

[jhblaze1]

If you are dead how can you pay taxes?

good point.

 

[doobie]

If you are dead how can you pay taxes?

Well, you can't die unless you filed out the proper gubermint paperwork. Me... I'm never going to fill it out!

 

[center442]

As Bob P pointed out, a Con Con can be called but it can only propose amendments. 3/4 of the states would have to approve any proposed amendments.

When the original Con Con was called its purpose was to rewrite/amend the Articles of Confederation. The Convention offered a virtual rewrite of the Articles. You can argue about whether this rewrite was an amendment or not, but it doesn't really matter at this point since it was accepted and passed by the states.

In simple terms, a Con Con could actually be beneficial. If you look at the division of so-called red states vs. blue states, there is a good chance that some welcome amendments could pass. For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the 2nd amendment rewritten to say "The inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, arbitrarily denied or arbitrarily regulated." The actual language would need to be tweaked, but you get my drift. IIRC, there are over 30 states that are already shall issue states; getting to the magic number of 38 shouldn't be too difficult.

Just my $.02....