Amending the Constitution

[Salty]

I found this on the page of the Constitution Party of Wyo.

We favor amending the Constitution of the United States through the traditional congressional method that has protected our freedoms for more than two centuries. We oppose the calling of any constitutional convention(s) by Congress by application of state legislatures.

Why would the CPWYO be against something that is in the Constitution?

 

[JonC]

Many who support the US Constitution do so only if it is in their favor.

The last Presidential election is evidence. Many who claimed to be Constitutionalists denied the legitimacy of Biden being inaugurated as President based not on the US Constitution but on what they considered fraud in state elections (regardless of election fraud the Constitution sets forth the standard by Congressional acceptance of certificates).

We already had the DNC downgrading the US Constitution, and after 2020 we had a substantial portion of the Republicans doing the same.

The Constitution is all but dead. We are effectively in a two part system concerned about their own power, not the Constitution. It is about control.

 

[Reformed1689]

Many who support the US Constitution do so only if it is in their favor.

The last Presidential election is evidence. Many who claimed to be Constitutionalists denied the legitimacy of Biden being inaugurated as President based not on the US Constitution but on what they considered fraud in state elections (regardless of election fraud the Constitution sets forth the standard by Congressional acceptance of certificates).

We already had the DNC downgrading the US Constitution, and after 2020 we had a substantial portion of the Republicans doing the same.

The Constitution is all but dead. We are effectively in a two part system concerned about their own power, not the Constitution. It is about control.

I don't think you understand the 2020 issue at all.

 

[Salty]

I don't think you understand the 2020 issue at all.

IF you want to go in that direction - start a new link
LETS KEEP THIS THREAD ON OP!

Jon made an excellent example:
Many who support the US Constitution do so only if it is in their favor.

 

[Reynolds]

Many who support the US Constitution do so only if it is in their favor.

The last Presidential election is evidence. Many who claimed to be Constitutionalists denied the legitimacy of Biden being inaugurated as President based not on the US Constitution but on what they considered fraud in state elections (regardless of election fraud the Constitution sets forth the standard by Congressional acceptance of certificates).

We already had the DNC downgrading the US Constitution, and after 2020 we had a substantial portion of the Republicans doing the same.

The Constitution is all but dead. We are effectively in a two part system concerned about their own power, not the Constitution. It is about control.

I disagree about the past election, but agree COTUS is dead. Lincoln killed it. He proved it could be userped and defied without consequence. After his administration, COTUS is merely a guide with no teeth.

 

[Salty]

I disagree about the past election, but agree COTUS is dead. Lincoln killed it. He proved it could be userped and defied without consequence. After his administration, COTUS is merely a guide with no teeth.

This is going off OP a bit - (and I already deleted one post)

But this could be a bit interesting - - so there is a new thread for this:
Is the COTUS dead?

I just sent the WYO Constition Party directer, an E-mail - I asked him why:
"We oppose the calling of any constitutional convention(s) by Congress by application of state legislatures."
I also stated - that it is in Article V of the original Constitution.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Reform Groups Strongly Oppose Constitutional Convention

From the Feb 2016 article:

A USA TODAY editorial (January 6, 2016) has observed that a constitutional “convention is an invitation to constitutional mayhem.”

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, has stated that a constitutional convention could not be limited to a single issue if convention delegates decided to pursue other agenda items. According to Tribe, a constitutional convention would put “the whole Constitution up for grabs.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, “[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”​

 

[JonC]

I disagree about the past election, but agree COTUS is dead. Lincoln killed it. He proved it could be userped and defied without consequence. After his administration, COTUS is merely a guide with no teeth.

I'm not sure of all the reasons. But I agree that the US Constitution is taken merely as a guide (with no teeth).

I suspect that is why WY holds the position it does.

 

[JonC]

This is going off OP a bit - (and I already deleted one post)

But this could be a bit interesting - - so there is a new thread for this:
Is the COTUS dead?

I just sent the WYO Constition Party directer, an E-mail - I asked him why:
"We oppose the calling of any constitutional convention(s) by Congress by application of state legislatures."
I also stated - that it is in Article V of the original Constitution.

Cool. Let us know their response.

 

[JonC]

Reform Groups Strongly Oppose Constitutional Convention

From the Feb 2016 article:

A USA TODAY editorial (January 6, 2016) has observed that a constitutional “convention is an invitation to constitutional mayhem.”

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, a leading constitutional scholar, has stated that a constitutional convention could not be limited to a single issue if convention delegates decided to pursue other agenda items. According to Tribe, a constitutional convention would put “the whole Constitution up for grabs.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, “[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”​

Would the duty of the SCOTUS to interpret the US Constitution insofar as legality come into play?

And, could the SCOTUS declare a State Constitution unlawful and unconstitutional?

 

[Revmitchell]

I found this on the page of the Constitution Party of Wyo.

We favor amending the Constitution of the United States through the traditional congressional method that has protected our freedoms for more than two centuries. We oppose the calling of any constitutional convention(s) by Congress by application of state legislatures.

Why would the CPWYO be against something that is in the Constitution?

The answer to your question is found in the statement you posted. The first sentence answers any questions about the second sentence.

Since there is a constitutional amendment process they see no need for a convention of states. They suggest just following the amendment process.

I disagree with them. The convention of states is available for a reason. When our representatives have become so corrupt then its time for a convention of states to right the ship

 

[Salty]

The answer to your question is found in the statement you posted. The first sentence answers any questions about the second sentence.

Since there is a constitutional amendment process they see no need for a convention of states. They suggest just following the amendment process.

I disagree with them. The convention of states is available for a reason. When our representatives have become so corrupt then its time for a convention of states to right the ship

I agree totally with what you say.

BUT - the name of their Party is 'CONSTITUTION PARTY" Yet - they disagree with a part of the Constitution! Just because, it never been used - does not mean that it is wrong.

As I mentioned before, I have sent an email - specifically asking the details.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree totally with what you say.

BUT - the name of their Party is 'CONSTITUTION PARTY" Yet - they disagree with a part of the Constitution! Just because, it never been used - does not mean that it is wrong.

As I mentioned before, I have sent an email - specifically asking the details.

Nothing on their site says they disagree with any part of the constitution. They just dont see it should be done at this moment

 

[Centrist]

Jon, I must be a minority. I know that I'm not the only person in America, therefore the rights and liberties of others also must be protected, not just mine. However, before we can justify revising the Constitution, we need to start enforcing it.

Our forefathers wrote the Constitution, focusing on what may happen in the future. They received no pay for their job. Today, we have congresspersons and senators that make it a lifelong career. Can we truly trust them with wise judgement and discernment, protecting the interests of everyone?