Constitutional Convention?

#102
#102
Gramps said:
Are you sure you are okay with today's politicians from either side changing the Constitution? That is very scary , imo.
Click to expand...

It's going to change one way or the other. Isn't it better to have a chance of changing it back to what our founders intended than to let nature takes its course? Nature tends to be very brutal.
 
#103
#103
Sandvol said:
It's going to change one way or the other. Isn't it better to have a chance of changing it back to what our founders intended than to let nature takes its course? Nature tends to be very brutal.
Click to expand...

Sometimes brutality is the only way people learn.

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
 
#104
#104
Sandvol said:
It's going to change one way or the other. Isn't it better to have a chance of changing it back to what our founders intended than to let nature takes its course? Nature tends to be very brutal.
Click to expand...

I simply do not know who we could trust to make any changes that are not based on strickly political beliefs, instead of what is best for the country. It is a scary move imo.
 
#105
#105
Gramps said:
I simply do not know who we could trust to make any changes that are not based on strickly political beliefs, instead of what is best for the country. It is a scary move imo.
Click to expand...

you can trust me gramps. I'll accept the nomination :)
 
#106
#106
Gramps said:
Are you sure you are okay with today's politicians from either side changing the Constitution? That is very scary , imo.
Click to expand...

Rarely agree with you but you are right. I don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole. There are other more limited ways to alter the constitution that doesn't open everything up for change.
 
#107
#107
hog88 said:
Rarely agree with you but you are right. I don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole. There are other more limited ways to alter the constitution that doesn't open everything up for change.
Click to expand...

I knew if I stayed at it I could convince you to start thinking rational.. :crazy:

We dont agree on much but I do enjoy debating your ole foolish mind.
 
#108
#108
hog88 said:
Rarely agree with you but you are right. I don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole. There are other more limited ways to alter the constitution that doesn't open everything up for change.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the alteration and interpretation of the Constitution is what has gotten us into this mess to begin with.
 
#112
#112
hog88 said:
Rarely agree with you but you are right. I don't think we want to go down this rabbit hole. There are other more limited ways to alter the constitution that doesn't open everything up for change.
Click to expand...

If the states don't force a change, then it will never happen. That's a fact.

The Fed will continue to usurp more power and control. The Fed is not going to remove power from itself. Just as you won't get Congress to vote itself term limits.

If you don't trust the state convention process to attempt to address the imbalance, you may as well just throw your hands up and admit we're screwed.
 
#114
#114
DC_Vol said:
If the states don't force a change, then it will never happen. That's a fact.

The Fed will continue to usurp more power and control. The Fed is not going to remove power from itself. Just as you won't get Congress to vote itself term limits.

If you don't trust the state convention process to attempt to address the imbalance, you may as well just throw your hands up and admit we're screwed.
Click to expand...

:yes:

It's like a ratchet, only moves in one direction
 
#115
#115
Sandvol said:
Since he wasn't stating what he meant I had to guess. I guessed correctly.
Click to expand...

So....the answer is yes, your post was directed at one poster. Nothing you posted really changes that.

And again i fail to see how you missed what he meant, it was very clear.
 
Last edited:
#116
#116
Sandvol said:
For example?
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe claiming to be for small government and less government interface but want the government to "defend" marriage? Or by passing bills like the Patriot Act the restrict freedom? Or for continued massive spending on defense? Or by telling people they can't do drugs and they know what's best for them, meanwhile alcohol and cigs are readily available? I mean I can keep going on if you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
Burhead said:
I don't know, maybe claiming to be for small government and less government interface but want the government to "defend" marriage? Or by passing bills like the Patriot Act the restrict freedom? Or for continued massive spending on defense? Or by telling people they can't do drugs and they know what's best for them, meanwhile alcohol and cigs are readily available? I mean I can keep going on if you want.
Click to expand...

Don't forget usually a strong support for war efforts.
 
#118
#118
Gramps said:
I simply do not know who we could trust to make any changes that are not based on strickly political beliefs, instead of what is best for the country. It is a scary move imo.
Click to expand...

I think you could get a mix of successful businessmen/women, college professors and civic leaders from each state. While many would be partisan to a certain extent, many would be independent minded. The key would be the selection process.
 
#119
#119
YorkVol said:
I think you could get a mix of successful businessmen/women, college professors and civic leaders from each state. While many would be partisan to a certain extent, many would be independent minded. The key would be the selection process.
Click to expand...

Dem controlled states would send far left liberals, Repub controlled states would send no so far left liberals.

I just cannot see anything good coming from this with our current political climate.
 
#120
#120
YorkVol said:
I think you could get a mix of successful businessmen/women, college professors and civic leaders from each state. While many would be partisan to a certain extent, many would be independent minded. The key would be the selection process.
Click to expand...

The state legislature would appoint the committee's representing each state, correct ?

If politicians are involved in appointments we are going to get a group of partisan hacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#121
#121
Burhead said:
I don't know, maybe claiming to be for small government and less government interface but want the government to "defend" marriage? Or by passing bills like the Patriot Act the restrict freedom? Or for continued massive spending on defense? Or by telling people they can't do drugs and they know what's best for them, meanwhile alcohol and cigs are readily available? I mean I can keep going on if you want.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the "Defense of Marriage Act." No place in federal law. But, that was more a reaction to Federal Judges making law and not allowing the states to decide the issue. The Federal Judges have no basis to make law but do so anyway. But, you appear to have no problem with Federal Judges making law?
 
#122
#122
Sandvol said:
I agree with you on the "Defense of Marriage Act." No place in federal law. But, that was more a reaction to Federal Judges making law and not allowing the states to decide the issue. The Federal Judges have no basis to make law but do so anyway. But, you appear to have no problem with Federal Judges making law?
Click to expand...

How on earth did you get that from my post? I am against any level of government from dictating what people can or can't do behind closed doors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#123
#123
Burhead said:
How on earth did you get that from my post? I am against any level of government from dictating what people can or can't do behind closed doors.
Click to expand...

Well because you only stated your objections against the Tea Party because of their ties to social conservative issues but didn't say you had any problem with the liberal activist judges they are reacting too. The Tea Party is a reactionary movement. First it was about unconstitutional government bail outs of the banks and GM. Since then they have reacted to other issues like liberal judges circumventing state legislatures and declaring bans against gay marriage unconstitutional when it is nothing of the sort. There is no constitutional right to marriage that I know of. It is solely a states' rights issue. And, the Tea Party has remained mainly a reactionary grass roots movement.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top