A JOINT RESOLUTIONLook guys, if they don't obey what's there now, if they twist and pervert plain meaning to produce the exact opposite of what the Founders intended, what the hell makes you think adding new verbiage is going to make a damn bit of difference?
Applying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments.
This action presupposes there's something wrong with the Constitution, as opposed to the criminals ignoring it.
And it further opens the door for just about damn near anything.
Dumb idea. Even dumber when you consider the Evil Party majority in the current congress, and then realize the proponents of this nonsense are Stupid Party members all.
This is bigger than Ohio. They deserve to hear from everyone.
Matt Huffman: district04@ohr.state.oh.us
Colleeen Grady: district18@ohr.state.oh.us
Tom Brinkman: district34@ohr.state.oh.us
Arlene Setzer: district36@ohr.state.oh.us
Clyde Evans: district87@ohr.state.oh.us
Gerald L. Stebelton: district05@ohr.state.oh.us
William G. Batchelder: district69@ohr.state.oh.us
Louis W. Blessing, Jr.: district29@ohr.state.oh.us
John Adams: district78@ohr.state.oh.us
Josh Mandel: district17@ohr.state.oh.us
Ross McGregor: district72@ohr.state.oh.us
Kevin Bacon: district21@ohr.state.oh.us
Joe Uecker: district66@ohr.state.oh.us
James J. Zehringer: district77@ohr.state.oh.us
Please join me in doing this today.
[Via Brian F]
UPDATE:
17 comments:
There have been 643 documented applications over the years already.
Every one of them has been ignored!
See here: http://article-5.org/
CIII
I read on one site that seemed to know what they were talking about that in this case, the Ohio petition would get us within one state of the required number.
Besides which, it is imperative that these creatures understand the damage they are capable of doing. That they're apparently oblivious is tantamount to negligence.
David, other than that one site (I saw it on WND, which isn't quite the Voice of God to me) have you seen any solid evidence that this is really true? Because I haven't, and am inclined to doubt it. You yourself pointed out the best reason: What's the point of a con con, from anyone's perspective?c
It just occurred to me what the people pushing this (the WND article mentioned some foundation, whose name escapes me) are thinking of. The article said more than 30 states have voted for a con con over the years, but that some unnamed number have retracted the vote. The article said the Constitution doesn't mention any provision for a retraction, so technically those votes could still be called valid.
Seems like pretty thin gruel, if that's all they're going on.
I think we were sold down the river back in 1913 with the federal reserve. We let them use our printing presses and we print the money and they charge us trillions of dollars in interest. They crash our economy and every other dirty trick they can pull to empower themselves.
JFK signed his own death warrant when he signed 11110. Who had the power to pull off the secrete service. Lets see, the secrete service is under the treasury department. Now who would have had the power to do something like that to stick it to JFK.
Follow all the wars and hard times and it goes right to the front door of the federal reserve. All other rights that get shitted on are petty(but for abortion) to what happened back in 1913.
Joel, I'm not gettin' it--did you click on the title link to this post? What more besides the Ohio Assembly website do you need to convince you this is true?
The more I think about it the more this bothers me. I believe they are going to do everything to push this forward because they feel they are losing. Losing because more and more folks are understanding what has been happening. People are waking up across this land like never before. Look at the numbers of what people think of the elected federal folks. Damn near zero. These people have their backs up against the wall and information of the crimes that they have committed are pouring out. They are losing time and this is an act of desperation which I see them carrying out as one of their last hopes to save themselves.
This is so problematic I don't know how to say it. I would love to have David Harding give his view/s on this matter.
The ONLY addition to the Constitution that would make any difference is adding a "penalty clause" to the Bill of Rights. Saying something along the lines of: "Any government employee who violates any part of the Bill of Rights in any manner, to be judged individually by each citizen's standards, will suffer a penalty, the extent of which will be up to the individual citizen's discretion, at the hands of any citizen who takes it upon himself to act, and who will never be subject to being charged with any crime for his service to the nation". Can't leave it up to the coyotes to discipline the fox who was raiding the henhouse, so the whole thing must be outside the reach of any court.
So what if it makes it too risky to be a politician?
Joel, I'm not gettin' it--did you click on the title link to this post? What more besides the Ohio Assembly website do you need to convince you this is true?
I see it, David. Some idjits in the Ohio Legislature drew up a joint resolution. Has it been voted on and approved? And if so, will it change anything in Congress? Political fools will be with us forever; I'm just asking for more evidence that this is anything to get our panties in a twist about.
I gave up worrying about what politicians do, a helluva long time ago. There's nothing I can do about it. And Bush was right about *one* thing in his life, you know: The Constitution really is just a 'goddamned piece of paper.' If it doesn't mean anything to them, I don't know why anyone thinks I'll be bound by it. I'll treat the next one with the same contempt my enemies show for this one.
I don't know, Joel. I juggled a dozen stories here today and you indicated the WND article was not compelling to you. It, along with some other sites I saw when deciding to post on this, were good enough for me to bring this subject up and do basic fact finding. It's always a judgment call. This blog, by nature, can only present a link, a central quote, and a few comments. If the subject matter interests you to look into things further and learn more, that's all I can give you.
My sense of things is the danger a con-con could pose are worth 5 minutes to send some emails and nip things in the bud no matter how far along they are. If you perceive that as getting panties in a twist, I just don't have time to persuade you.
Hell, Bill of Rights Day is coming up next week (Monday), and I bet they don't even know what the Bill of Rights is and what it does.
If the idjits in our governments (local, state, and federal) followed the Constitution and Bill of Rights like they're SUPPOSED TO, they wouldn't have most of these problems.
We don't need MORE government (and amendments), we need LESS!!
..you know: The Constitution really is just a 'goddamned piece of paper.'
Try picking some actual action or inaction to dislike, there are plenty of those. More than enough of to not have to use fantasy stuff.
On the topic; sure, they'll probably try it. Some people refuse to recognize their limitations.
"More than enough of to not have to use fantasy stuff."
Actions speak louder than words anyway.
I have to confess something here. I have advocated a Constitutional Convention as -- if nothing more can be achieved -- a means by which to codify a more-or-less amicable dissolution.
David's argument against it is the strongest I've seen, though, and if one wants to argue further that the Brave New Worlders won't take refusal to ratify for an answer, I have to say there might be something to that.
I just pointed out over at WRSA that this is an extremely dangerous idea. There are only two very narrow limitations on that procedure. There is no end of the hell that could be raised, and especially in this culture now. The whole Bill of Rights could easily be erased in one fell-swoop.
Now, I personally do not necessarily regard that as a bad thing. Once the dust settled, it might be possible that people might wake up, look around, and wonder what the hell happened and what they should do about it thenceforth.
That is a desperate hope.
This is not a good idea. At all.
Before they change anything, it would be nice if they would tell us what they don't like about the one in effect now.
If they can not tell us or will not tell us than we don't need any changes.
If they just want to talk about the Constitution, fine that would be covered under the First Amendment which proves the Constitution needs no changes with the Bill of Rights. I can think of two that have been added in the early part of the last century that we could live without.
Just think about it. What if every state sends a Ted Kennedy wannabe to the convention? You will be disarmed, Congressman will have armed protection, and also have the right to drunkenly drive off bridges, drowning passengers in the process. Utopia!
Post a Comment