Feeling real gloomy about our future

Originally Posted by Tim Nunan

As I understand the system once a constitutional convention is convened all of the Constitution is subject to being changed, e.g., removing/changing the 2nd Amendment.

That is my understanding as well.

Changing the constitution is a bit more difficult then you guys make it out to be....

The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.

The 2nd Ammendment isn't going anywhere.


The above quote came from here...
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Yes, that has to happen, Muttling. The Constitution is still subject to being changed during a Constitutional Convention. It has to be approved, as in the janitor can't make changes during the night, but it is still able to be changed during the convention upon approval.

I wonder how much more people would freak out during a Constitutional Convention from reported attempts to change existing amendments.

if a Constitutional Convention is held yes any part of the constitution can be changed. Not only could certain ammendments be removed but they could be updated or just cleatified. For example they could actually spell out that the 2A means that ever person has the right to be armed when he/she feels appropriate. They could add term limits on congress or even remove the ones on president. The one thing that is good about a convention is that it is out of congress and POTUS hands. This would truley scare the hell out of them because thier fate would not be in our hands. A simple movement to convien would awaken many of them.

I think the credible threat of a constitutional convention would open a lot of eyes in Congress and the White House. Let twenty-five states pass a call for one, and you might see a lot more national leaders start reading the Constitution we have now and actually understanding and following it....

OMO, YMMV.

Originally Posted by Falcon1

I think the credible threat of a constitutional convention would open a lot of eyes in Congress and the White House. Let twenty-five states pass a call for one, and you might see a lot more national leaders start reading the Constitution we have now and actually understanding and following it....

OMO, YMMV.

When they start to realize that we have had enough and we are ready to go above their heads they will start thinking about it.

Originally Posted by USMCJG

The problem is that party politics are worse than they have ever been. I think a lot of moderate democrats would disagree(if they bothered to stop and think about it) with much of what is going on with the federal government right now. The problem is that no one votes their conscience any more. They vote their party. And the extreme "liberals"(big government and reduced personal and economic freedoms are not true liberal ideals, in today's world the word liberal is being used to describe fascists/communists/socialists) are in complete control of the democratic party.

The parties are so powerful that if you don't tow the line, you won't get the party nomination next time. It doesn't matter if you're acting in the best interests of your constituency or not. If you want to be a career politician, you have to play by the party rules. As long as we keep it where you can get rich being a politician, we will always have the wrong kinds of people after the job.

Cliff

Great post!! Move Cliff to the head of the class; he has nailed it.
Keep up the good work!! The character of your elected officials MATTERS!!
Keep up the great work!!
Kind regards,
LEROY

Originally Posted by 3pugguy

And VOTE. People in other countries (like Iran) have little chance of making change thru the political process, but we do and if we lay down and say, oh, it's all gone to , then politicians will just run us into the ground.

How long do you think that's going to last? Look at the MN Senate race. Only contested ballots that would help Franken were counted. Some counties had more votes than registered voters, but the court had no problem with that.

ACORN has already been sued by several states for voter registration irregularities in the last election. Does anyone really think that's going to get better now that their former "community organizer" is in the WH? How about then they are conducting the census next year, which will decide how voting districts are allocated and how many Representatives the States get in Congress. If you don't see this as a problem, your head must be in the sand. Funny how Mr. Election Watcher Jimmy Carter didn't have a word to say about the Iranian election. He won't complain about ACORN either.

Originally Posted by justme

The last time this nation was at a similar crossroad--It was in 1860...

And the outcome will be the same as well. Only this time it won't be geographical as much as ideological, although there will be some of those troublesome coastline states.

It's inevitable unless we're willing to live in a secular-progressive paradise.
</sarcasm>

It is not how many votes you get it is who counts the votes.
Qoute from Marcos during his reign in the Phillipines.

Seems that is beginning to appy to our new Banana Republic called the USA. and yes I am a veteran so it really gets on my nerves. Have people lost all sense of direction in this country?