Convention of states would empower the people

[Revmitchell]

In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call “messing with the Constitution.” A recent proposal by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal USA Today.

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of “reforms” the progressive movement wanted and urged judges to “interpret” the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges – especially Supreme Court justices – to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the Fifth Amendment’s protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment’s provision of “equal protection” of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of “affirmative action.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/convention-of-states-would-empower-the-people/#A5WCzs1BJJMvT5KO.99

 

[righteousdude2]

It would, but don't look for it to happen any time soon.

 

[Zaac]

Pure foolishness. Ain't nobody run roughshod over the Constitution except the radicalized right and its warmongering legislation. If you want to bring together a convention of states, bring them together to undo the right's Patriot Act and the rest of the mess that came with it.

 

[Salty]

Messing with the Constitution - -yea it must have been that radical right that figured out that a mother has the constitutional right to murder her baby

 

[Crabtownboy]

Rev. shows a total lack of the knowledge and understanding of the US under the Articles of Confederation and the problems they faced because of those articles. I'd suggest you do a bit of study before posting such nonsense? I don't believe even you want to go back to anything looking like the Articles and those problems.

 

[Zaac]

Messing with the Constitution - -yea it must have been that radical right that figured out that a mother has the constitutional right to murder her baby

Perhaps it was. Just as you have a Constitutional, God-given right to do whatever YOU want to do with your body. Constitutional right doesn't make it beneficial.

The radicalized right decided a long time ago that it was okay for them to support the murder of adults. So they shouldn't be surprised that folks got to the point of feeling it's okay to murder babies.

 

[Salty]

Its interesting - its legal to murder your baby - but it is against the law to attempt/commit suicide.
Why is it the Pro-death group have not fought for the right of those who want to commit suicide - remember -- the SCOTUS says a person has a right to do whatever YOU want to do with your body.

 

[Zaac]

Its interesting - its legal to murder your baby - but it is against the law to attempt/commit suicide.

Couldn't you likewise say it's legal to put someone to death. But it's against the law for them to attempt/commit suicide?

And exactly what states is it illegal to attempt/commit suicide? Seems it would be a bit counterproductive to charge someone for trying and if they succeeded, it would be a wasted charge.

Why is it the Pro-death group have not fought for the right of those who want to commit suicide -

Why hasn't the pro-death group fought as hard for the rights of those adults they want to murder as they do for the unborn babies they don't believe should be murdered?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Pure foolishness. Ain't nobody run roughshod over the Constitution except the radicalized right and its warmongering legislation.

The SCOTUS and BHO say "Hi".

 

[Zaac]

The SCOTUS and BHO say "Hi".

Tell Mitch and Paul and Clarence and Antonin that I said hello too.

 

[poncho]

The problem isn't with the constitution. The problem is a federal government that is acting above and beyond the law.

 

[Zaac]

In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call “messing with the Constitution.” A recent proposal by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal USA Today.

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of “reforms” the progressive movement wanted and urged judges to “interpret” the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges – especially Supreme Court justices – to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the Fifth Amendment’s protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment’s provision of “equal protection” of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of “affirmative action.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/convention-of-states-would-empower-the-people/#A5WCzs1BJJMvT5KO.99

And another thing, with the way Prosecutors and judges are bypassing due process to protect police officers, every single person on the radicalized right who hasn't called for a convention of states to amend for that unConstitutionality needs to go have several seats.

 

[poncho]

Where are you getting all this "radicalized right" stuff from lately Zaac? You watching the racial dividers at MSNBC again?

 

[Salty]

Why hasn't the pro-death group fought as hard for the rights of those adults they want to murder as they do for the unborn babies they don't believe should be murdered?

If you are talking about the Death penalty as prescribed by law - that is NOT murder.
You need to understand the definition of murder.

 

[Zaac]

Where are you getting all this "radicalized right" stuff from lately Zaac? You watching the racial dividers at MSNBC again?

I've been calling them the radicalized right for years. Other folks just started calling them that. As I've said repeatedly on this board, for all the talk that gets bandied around about Sharpton and Jackson pimping black people, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what they do and what Limbaugh, Hannity and the folks on Fox News do to white people.

That's why you've gotten a certain level of acrimony coming from the right so much more in the last 7 or 8 years. They've been emboldened by the radicalized right talking heads.

Some have taken to mass shootings.

And MSNBC is one station I don't watch.

 

[Zaac]

Why hasn't the pro-death group fought as hard for the rights of those adults they want to murder as they do for the unborn babies they don't believe should be murdered?

If you are talking about the Death penalty as prescribed by law - that is NOT murder.
You need to understand the definition of murder.

Apparently you need to understand the definition of murder yourself. Awfully convenient how the pro-death group can try to make it murder for one group of people, but try to make it palatable for their own bloodlust.

And in case you're confused, if you're talking about abortion, as prescribed by law---that is not murder either.

 

[poncho]

I've been calling them the radicalized right for years. Other folks just started calling them that. As I've said repeatedly on this board, for all the talk that gets bandied around about Sharpton and Jackson pimping black people, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what they do and what Limbaugh, Hannity and the folks on Fox News do to white people.

That's why you've gotten a certain level of acrimony coming from the right so much more in the last 7 or 8 years. They've been emboldened by the radicalized right talking heads.

Some have taken to mass shootings.

And MSNBC is one station I don't watch.

You do realize that it's the "radicalized left" (SPLC) that is training the police to shoot first and cover up later right?

The SPLC program to demonize Christians, libertarians, gun owners, pro lifers and constitutionalists and paint them as "terrorist threats" benefit when blacks are killed by police.

You do realize that right?

 

[Zaac]

You do realize that it's the "radicalized left" (SPLC) that is training the police to shoot first and cover up later right?

You do realize that the radicalized right is training far more folks than the SPLC could ever dream of? They wish they could get the money that the radicalized right is bringing in.

Example:

Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later

WASHINGTON — The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.

The driver was unarmed.

Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.

“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”

“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.

When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.

His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.

He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=0

Completely foolish. We'll train you to murder. And then come back and testify that you were right in murdering.

This article starts with a story that tells why folks don't do what police officers said. They are apparently trained to give you an order so that they can then justify murdering you.

Just shameful.

 

[poncho]

I don't like how this guy is training the police any more than you. This is a training problem not a racial or political problem.

It strikes me that if you valued black lives half as much as you claim you'd be helping to close the divide between the races instead of widening it with your radical anti white rhetoric.

IMHO Zaac you're just like those folks who love to dance in the blood of victims to push an agenda. Do you think you'll receive some kind of reward for helping to start a race war in this country?

I got news for you Hillary and the democrats aren't going to pin a medal on your chest for helping them to start race war. They're going to paint you as a radical religious nut and put you on a watch list, and that's just for starters.

Like it or not you're one of us (Christians) and that makes you just as guilty of being a "radical right winger" to those who you're siding with as the rest of us.

 

[Zaac]

I don't like how this guy is training the police any more than you. This is a training problem not a racial or political problem.

It is a training problem AND a racial and political problem as the training leads to a police culture that polices people differently.

It has been said for YEARS that this is systemic and that officers are being trained to do this. When you are trained to expect the worst and you already expect the worst out of certain demographics and your department already polices them differently, you can guess what happens.

It strikes me that if you valued black lives half as much as you claim you'd be helping to close the divide between the races instead of widening it with your radical anti white rhetoric.

And it strikes me that you're just a radical pro-white man who doesn't want to admit that angry white men on police forces have been radicalized by angry white men outside the police departments who want to place the blame on the racial divide on everyone in the country but themselves.

IMHO Zaac you're just like those folks who love to dance in the blood of victims to push an agenda. Do you think you'll receive some kind of reward for helping to start a race war in this country?

IMHO opinion Poncho, you're just like the folks who during slavery and Jim Crow stuck their heads in the ground and looked the other way as the police murdered black people. Then those same folks would take their heads out of the ground and try to blame all the mad black people for the racial divide.

You sound like the old plantation masters who would chastise and whip their runaway slaves after they, the gentile and kind slave asters had "clothed, and fed and housed them". "Didn't I always treat you fairly?" they say.

Your skull and the skulls of every like minded white person in these grand old United States has got to be as thick as a brick if you think black people and the rest of the world can't look at this country, it's history and it's present, and see EXACTLY who is causing a racial divide.

I got news for you Hillary and the democrats aren't going to pin a medal on your chest for helping them to start race war. They're going to paint you as a radical religious nut and put you on a watch list, and that's just for starters.

I got news for you. Donald and the rest of the radicalized right would gladly pin a medal on your chest for helping them push their race war agenda.

Like it or not you're one of us (Christians) and that makes you just as guilty of being a "radical right winger" to those who you're siding with as the rest of us.

Nice try, but you get to shoulder that radical right winger burden all by yourself.