Constitutional convention- leftist columnist scared of the possibility

[lowimpactuser]

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/hey-wouldnt-it-be-cool-to-have-a-constitutional-convention-oh-hell-no/

Paging Kcbrown...

For the rest of us, an article V would allow us to amend the constitution. Mark Levin, the conservative firebrand, called for an Article V in a book.

Our resident poster Kcbrown has been on the Article V train for YEARS as the only way to fix our problems.

I think if we got an article V, it would be VERY important to make it work for us- but clearly, NOT rewriting the 2nd amendment, as it's absolutely unequivocal, but the enforcement mechanism (courts) clearly has failed, and distinguished "shall not be infringed" away. So creating a mechanism NOT subject to elite control is crucial. Elites will ALWAYS loath the 2nd amendment because it's specifically meant to be a check on their power.

So- should we encourage the movement to an article V and push at least a dual use (not just balanced budget)? Should we stop it? And what should we push for, as a mechanism, to prevent elites from doling out and restricting rights as they see fit?

[capt14k]

Constitutional Convention could be dangerous (everything is on the table) and we are still short of the minimum states. However the threat of one should force Congress to act.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Battosai1]

True, But i would love to see article V used for something far more important. to abolish and repeal the 16th amendment to the US constitution federal income tax. if we were to take money out of the government their whole agenda would come crashing down, their would be no drive for crooks to go into politics if there was no money. and in doing so we wouldn't have to amend the 2nd Amendment. Besides the Second is very clear, its judges and politicians with an agenda that go against it.

[Frotz]

If an Article V convention is convened, then I'm sure there will be threats of assassinations and war if the Bill of Rights is tampered with. Perhaps that would suffice.

[ddestruel]

Anything done or voted on at an article V would require the states to still vote on and affirm

they cant toss out anything without the states voting to approve it just like they cant add anything without the states voting to approve it.


On a state level the uproar would scare most any (non CA democrat) legislator from removal of any existing right


so focusing on verbiage that protects and clarifies existing rights, limits government ability to confiscate, restrict, force you to engage in or ban things, is going to be an easier sell. including such things as like defining the balancing tests or levels of scrutiny. The balanced budget amendment is also an easier sell because its a restriction against what they as legislators can do. Very different perception by the voters than if the convention members proposed verbiage codifying legislators being allowed to force you to buy a product, or empowering them to confiscate property easily, restrict reading materials, or striking language regarding any amendment that currently protects anything



I think it is high time to reign in the courts and limit their ability to "INTURPRET" or to utilize a "BALANCING TEST" of their creation ect. I still think an amendment that focuses on eviscerating the ability of the government to exempt itself from its own rules or creating protected and unequal classes of citizens, government employees access and rights outside of international government defense. possibly a re-empowering of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th ........ blah blah blah

[franklinarmory]

Constitutional Convention could be dangerous (everything is on the table) and we are still short of the minimum states. However the threat of one should force Congress to act.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I don't believe it works that way. The only element ratified is the one that garnered enough state support to be eligible.

[capt14k]

I don't believe it works that way. The only element ratified is the one that garnered enough state support to be eligible.

Yes but once a Constitutional Convention is called they can pass any Amendment with enough support. In other words they don't need to only deal with the issue that caused the Convention to be called.

For example Constitutional Convention called for CCW Reciprocity. While there balanced budget is proposed. Enough votes and both pass. They can add other items as well.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[ddestruel]

Article V is a convention of the states for proposals, it still has to go through the rest of the approval process.


A blanket rewrite and jettison of what exists as you make it sound would not be utilizing the Article V mechanism from the existing constitution or abiding by the process laid out in the constitution because the constitution would not be the governing document instead your suggestion basically assumes that this would be a wholesale rewrite that wouldn't be an article V because if they jettison and rewrite then article V wouldn't exist anymore.

If they did operate as an article V, yes the representatives sent by each state can vote on rules and propose anything. but what is proposed by the convention vs what is voted on and possibly approved by the states later is the multi step process keeping within a challenging check and a balance.


As it is you have a mechanism to vote out a legislator and attack bad legislation or amendment before it gets implemented. With the courts look no further than dredd scott to realize the courts acting willy nilly and recent 9th circuit shenanigans in CA with our 2nd amendment rights point to this glaring problem that you have no recourse currently to correct or reign in bad operators or re-interpretative rulings. and those re-interpretative rulings are at teh root of many of our social battles now

[speedrrracer]

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/hey-...on-oh-hell-no/

Paging Kcbrown...

For the rest of us, an article V would allow us to amend the constitution. Mark Levin, the conservative firebrand, called for an Article V in a book.

Our resident poster Kcbrown has been on the Article V train for YEARS as the only way to fix our problems.

I think if we got an article V, it would be VERY important to make it work for us- but clearly, NOT rewriting the 2nd amendment, as it's absolutely unequivocal, but the enforcement mechanism (courts) clearly has failed, and distinguished "shall not be infringed" away. So creating a mechanism NOT subject to elite control is crucial. Elites will ALWAYS loath the 2nd amendment because it's specifically meant to be a check on their power.

So- should we encourage the movement to an article V and push at least a dual use (not just balanced budget)? Should we stop it? And what should we push for, as a mechanism, to prevent elites from doling out and restricting rights as they see fit?

We should encourage anything which leads to a Concon, imo, but unless a LOT more legislators come to the same realization as KC, it'll never happen.

I disagree about re-writing the 2A, it needs re-writing. Proof is in the pudding, and there's already too much anti-2A "settled law" (thanks, Nino!).
Shall not be infringed doesn't mean what 99% of Calguns thinks it means, anyways, it's actually very weak language.

Nobody should be worried about a Concon. This country disagrees on everything right down the middle so there isn't enough consensus to jump through the hoops required to get much done in a Concon. There is, however, enough consensus on the right to carry, removal of mag restrictions, elimination of rosters, etc, etc. However, most of the free states already have those things, so there's no reason for them to deal with the hassle of a Concon unless they're getting something out of it. As I said above, unless the free states realize the risk they're in from the spreading cancer of Californication AND have the foresight to take action now -- while they're still in the majority (from a Concon perspective) -- they won't act.

So what's the carrot to motivate the free states, since they clearly don't see what KC is seeing, or does someone have the requisite skills of persuasion to let them see the light?

[Jimi Jah]

Pipe dreams? The "system" isn't going to give up it's power, especially not to the people. What you see is what you get until this economic ponzi scheme comes crashing down.

[Oxnard_Montalvo]

Constitutional Convention could be dangerous (everything is on the table) and we are still short of the minimum states. However the threat of one should force Congress to act.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It's absolutely not something that should happen as the consequences would be horrendous for our society in general and especially for the firearm community specifically. Once the egg gets cracked open it will get hijacked by all sorts of 'behind the scenes' actors and it will end the country as we know it. The Young Pioneers (aka progressives) would pull out ALL of the stops to get their way by using the 'mainstream' media, the 'social media' kangaroo court of public opinion, and riots...err...'protests' like we've NEVER seen before.

[Blade Gunner]

The goal of this Article 5 Constitutional Convention is for a mandated balanced budget, an issue which sounds strait forward, but is so fraught with many fundamental problems and competing interests, that the outcome, if any, is extremely uncertain. The backers of a Balance Budget amendment are going to be too pre-occupied to deal with making 2A changes. The Progs have been pushing to dramatically reduce the protection of rights under 2A, and will certainly use s Constitutional convention as an opportunity to push for them. Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

[ddestruel]

The goal of this Article 5 Constitutional Convention is for a mandated balanced budget, an issue which sounds strait forward, but is so fraught with many fundamental problems and competing interests, that the outcome, if any, is extremely uncertain. The backers of a Balance Budget amendment are going to be too pre-occupied to deal with making 2A changes. The Progs have been pushing to dramatically reduce the protection of rights under 2A, and will certainly use s Constitutional convention as an opportunity to push for them. Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

And they haven't already accomplished that with the courts?


The number of states to enact broader and clear second amendment protections into their own constitutions has been a development to consider in the debate as to if this could be pushed. As the states would send their appointed representatives to the convention it would be peculiar for a state with its own state constitutional protections to send a representative delegation looking to propose something lesser than what they have enshrined.

We're pretty much watching as the courts eviscerate anything resembling the 2nd amendment's language with interpretations. interpretations that can be used as excuses to toss future cases out of court. Those who wear Black seem to think there is no recourse if they can give themselves future tools to toss future challenges out. In the case of the 9th circuit basically all hope now lays at the footsteps of 9 justices whom so far have shown strong reluctance to take anything even the Jackson vs SF case which was strikingly similar to Heller in its conditions inside the home. The blow back of poor civil rights rulings was the civil rights act. Gun rights it was the Fire arms owners protection act..... The courts gutted the latter and let the prior stand.....

[baggss]

I like how many of the commenters on that article are openly calling for Civil War if a convention were convened. The Peaceful and inclusive left is increasingly showing their true colors.

[lowimpactuser]

I disagree about re-writing the 2A, it needs re-writing. Proof is in the pudding, and there's already too much anti-2A "settled law" (thanks, Nino!).
Shall not be infringed doesn't mean what 99% of Calguns thinks it means, anyways, it's actually very weak language.

But why is the language very weak? Because shall not be infringed is weak? Or because it was interpreted by black robed politicians that have made the words weak?

The major issue for me is that people say a mere rewriting of the amendment is sufficient, when the evidence kcbrown presents is that no, it clearly isn't sufficient because judges can render even amendments null by refusing to apply term, then say because it hasn't ever been used it doesn't have any effect.