“But, really, who isn’t in favor of the states marching up to the doors of Congress with a writ in their hand? The question is how? The Art V Movers make it sound so easy. Just get 34 states to sign up, then let Congress know you want a convention. No muss, no fuss... Well actually, it’s more complicated, and I’m not sure the Con-Con movers are all on the same page about how to iron out these complications, except to smear the people who keep bringing them up. To date smear and shut-out rules apply for anyone who raises questions or objections. We never get to see a side-by-side Q & A over these issues, because the Movers won’t appear with them. You can read their argument on one website, and the counter arguments on another, a practice Frederick Hayek lamented before he died, because it always suited the Left to debate in that fashion, for they never had to fear being exposed as wrong, or worse, liars, to their target audience. Shutting opposition out suggests all these people may not be honest brokers in this issue. Also, Article V doesn’t lay out that the 34 states can put a limitation on the convention agenda. Read the language. While it makes sense, I agree, there is no constitutional roadmap here, for this has never been tried before. But not to worry, the Movers say, the outcome will be as we have told you it would be, with 100% certainty. End of discussion, and oh, by the way, anyone who says we’re wrong here are hick rubes, when it comes to the Constitution and not suitable to be heard in any discussion about the Constitution. Well, those hick rubes actually have a fine pedigree in constitutional scholarship, including Phyllis Schlafley, Joe Wolverton, and Publius Huldah... We’re all being played here. The story is that no one is being told the whole story. Not the people. Not the legislators. Opponents, and there are some notable ones, are being pooh-poohed, and even lied about, even booed off the stage by plants. ... I don’t know any of these Movers personally, so can’t speak to individual motives, but as I said, can tell a horse from a mule, and vanity and ambition can always be a powerful anti-constitutional elixir in these serious times. And it never hurts to follow the money. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Constitution of the United States is as close to a secular Bible as you can find. But we are perhaps the last generation who will view it that way. In the final analysis, the Constitution as she stands, blooded and bullied, yet intact and as beautiful as the day she was born, is not worth the risk of showering her with such iffy language. She is already being ignored, circumvented, even discarded, with some thought to being shredded. But she is intact. To then change it with nebulous words that can make her, some day, the concubine of tyrants, with nothing left for the people to fall back on, no hope, no respite, is more then we can allow. In my view the Article V proponents have not overcome the burden of proof that she will be protected, and remain chaste, or convinced me she is even a central concern in their thinking, except as a platform.” unifiedpatriots/2014/12/19/the-article-v-convention-conundrum/
Posted on: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:33:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015