I keep getting these:
 |
| [Click to enlarge] |
Got a link to a credible source? Can the veracity of the claims be proven? No? Then why forward it and ask for me and others to do the same?
And the "solution" is a Con-con? (And by the way, the 2/3 requirement is met before 38, so this even fails at fourth-grade math).
It takes literally seconds to see this is BS that's been around for a while. Meanwhile, how many have been sucked into believing it and wasting their time and the time of others that could have been spent on productive pursuits? And why shouldn't someone's credibility be shot if they do as asked?
This kind of gullible pseudoactivism is irresponsible and destructive. It doesn't help, it hurts.
Please pass that on to anyone asking you to blindly follow them over the cliff.
You are spot on. And most people do not know how bad a state called Article V would turn to a disaster. One of our founders (Madison), in the 1840 release of the Minutes of The Federal Convention, stated his concern for a run away one because of how the process worked,. But hey what did they know?(
ReplyDeleteI think I may have started this '28th amendment thing' a long time ago. At least, I have a text file dated 11/11/2000 at 9:40a that reads
ReplyDeleteThe 28th Amendment
Restoring Sanity to The Law
1. Congress may not exempt itself or its agents from compliance, in whole or in part, with any Federal law or regulation, nor allow regulations which do so, nor shall it encourage state or local jurisdictions to exempt it from compliance with their laws.
2. Any existing Federal law or regulation which exempts Congress from compliance with its provisions, in whole or in part, is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
There's a big difference between the two. Did you notice? The one I wrote 17 years ago undoes all the historical damage caused in its absence by automatically revoking all laws currently in existence that violate it. Leaving that part out is really very 'conservative': it freezes the current situation in place. I suppose that makes my version 'regressive' although I personally think of it as 'progress'.
There are many now calling for a con-con, a constitutional convention, to remedy what they see as myriad ills plaguing our nation. I truly believe most of those ills would evaporate if we were merely to prohibit past, present, and future acts of discrimination by our Congress.