Petition to call a constitutional convention!

It is the right of the people of each state to call for a constitutional convention. This convention could be used to propose amendments, or even, if enough people supported it, rewrite the constitution as a whole.

I am starting a petition in Indiana to call for a convention and am urging all of you to do the same in your states.

 

And what is your purpose in calling for a Constitutional Convention?

 

I'd be all for a CC if it meant limiting government to the intent of the constitution, getting rid of welfare in all forms and setting term limits. But the risk of calling for a CC today in the Obama era is that it could result in a total rewrite and the whole idea of freedom could be thrown out. We could go completely socialism, social justice could be the basis. Even the idea of ownership could be eliminated. It could open a can of worms that would change our country for centuries to come.

 

A CC would make sense if everyone agreed on what to do. Or, rather, if 3/4 of the people agreed on the purpose. But if you call a CC and have half of the population there to rewrite the Second Amendment and another half there to limit the Commerce Clause, the end result is going to be nothing. These things might make sense for extremely popular and limited ideas, but a general rewrite is pretty well out of the question.

 

And who decides what that intent was? The constitution was written in pretty vague terms and it often comes to the interpretation of the reader.

 

A couple things....

1; An amendment abolishing the legal institution of marriage and barring local, state, and federal government from dictating whether consenting adults are allowed to marry each other. The government's only authority would be deciding tax rates for filing joint returns, and setting the age of consent.

2; An amendment requiring congress to balance the budget every year, or receive a pay cut the following year.

 

If you use contemporary meaning to the text it is more difficult to understand. Those who want to bend the meaning use your argument. But there are dictionaries of common word usage, Blacks is a legal dictionary that is useful. "The Original Constitution" by Natelson tracks the meaning very well.

For instance, the idea of promoting the general welfare, for the first 100 years of the constitution, did not mean to provide welfare, food stamps, etc. The intended meaning was changed as to what it "could" mean and ripped apart from there. Talk about a slippery slope.

 

But the door is open when the CC is called. The outcome that would eventually be ratified is the question. In these liberal days when following the constitution is a joke, the likelihood of the intended limits placed on government stand a higher chance of failing.

 

No matter who you talk to, no one can know with 100% certainty what the original intent of the constitution was, unless they were there when it was being debated and saw it being written first hand.

 

I have a whole thread going on (Entitlements keep you down and destroy families ) but I don't agree that we should do away with all forms of welfare. All the rest you said I totally agree with.

 

100%, I would have a hard time arguing that. 95% I can see. Point is we often use modern views to overlay over top of meanings we could otherwise understand if given effort. More effort is given to twisting meaning rather than grasping intent.

 

Intent does not matter. The constitution was designed to be altered to meet the needs of the people through amendment. If OT was the only thing that mattered...
No bill of rights, slavery still legal, women can't vote, etc....

 

If the States wanted to provide for their own that is their business. I'd still have issue with it when I see all the waste, neglect, laziness and corruption associated with welfare.

 

And I will vote against it.

 

I don't believe we have what it takes to do a better job, today.

 

If intent didn't matter any law could be ignored so why even pass a law or pretend a constitution matters?

Completely agree. But it has been found in recent years it is easier to write laws than to amend the Constitution. It is designed to expand or contract as times change. The intent of the Constitution was to protect freedom by making sure government did not become too powerful. It contains enumerated powers to restrict what can be done. That is all but ignored today. The pioneer spirit that fueled such a masterpiece is long gone and has been replaced with what you see today in America.

 

You do not vote against a petition dude. You either sign it, or you don't.

 

Why?




.

 

The Constitution already has a process in place to alter it. It's called the Amendment process. IMO a Constitutional convention is a dangerous idea in this day and age. Given the control that the Left has on the media and the willingness of many to accept what the media puts out as fact, not a good idea.

 

The best way to color one's "interpretations" of the Constitution...
(though it's quite simple...unless one's agenda surrounds subverting it)...

is to read it with the understanding that this new nation was established by not only declaring independence from....but waging war against the tyranny of an authoritarian British Crown.

Predictably, we've come full circle....
and now...again, predictably..... America's elite authoritarians and their dull-eyed, subservient sheep
want us disarmed.

 

Dag, I know what the process is, I'm just telling you I will do what ever it takes to keep people from throwing open the Constitution which in effect would destroy everything we have left at this time in history.

 

I don't think the constitution is any great mystery. I think an average person could understand 99% of it if they would just read it and refer to the Federalist Papers.

 

its a great idea save I want a socialist state with the banks taken over by the government, all utilities, any company getting government funds in a bailout we should get comparable stocks and control, rights for the people including rights to all citizens to free them from needs including assuring every american has a job that wants one. for me I want bigger not smaller government and an end to states rights for federal control. and a ban on deploying reserve forces, national guards and regular military unless to counter an invasion in force or for humanitarian mission.

and i would clear all our debts by raiding 4101k plans, put everyone on social security with some modest enhancements for the sacrifice then reset the currency from scratch with then a balanced budget clause once we have a clean slate.

that will do for now.

 

The amendment process requires a convention dude. It's how they are proposed.

 

Hell no. The current crop of power mongers have destroyed most of the protections of our rights that are in place now. I can only imagine what these ignorant, self-righteous pricks would implement if given a free hand. I wouldn't be surprised if we came out the other end of that tunnel with a Queen and immediate nationwide conscription.