Virginia moves to call a Constitutional Convention
This is a discussion on Virginia moves to call a Constitutional Convention within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp...112HJ0542+RREF
The bill has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. The purpose of the convention would be to allow the ...
January 26th, 2011 10:15 PM
Virginia moves to call a Constitutional Convention
The bill has passed the House and is on the way to the Senate. The purpose of the convention would be to allow the states to invalidate any federal law. It states that the application will be withdrawn if the convention acts on any other measure. However I doubt that approval can be pulled once the party has already started. If enough other states get on board with this, EVERY PART of the Constitution is subject to debate. The Second Amendment could be strengthened, or it could be removed. Every state would have input into the convention's actions.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
January 26th, 2011 10:31 PM
Very very bad idea. There is no way to predict the scope or outcome of a constitutional convention, once called. This idea has cropped up from time to time and fortunately for us all has never gotten the required number of states to get on board.
Also, the premise of the purpose, to allow states to invalidate Federal law, would if realized destroy the country once and for all. It would take it back to the incoherent mess that existed at the time of the Article of Confederation. This one is not a patriotic move. It is mischief.
January 27th, 2011 01:17 AM
Any amendments proposed by a constitutional convention has the same ratification requirements of an amendment proposed by congress. 3/4 of the states still needed. We don't worry much about congress proposing amendments - why is this any different.
Before direct election of senators they were appointed by the state legislatures and were the state legislature's agents in the senate. The proposed amendment is meant to put some of that state/fed balance back. It would still require a super majority of states to vote down a federal law. A federal law would have to be extremely unpopular with the states for it to be invalidated by 2/3d of the states and if it was that unpopular it should never have been passed in the first place.
January 27th, 2011 11:47 AM
Changing the Constitution is (obviously) a big deal. But something needs to be done to give the States back some kind of voice at the Federal level. We should be cautious though and remember that the Convention that drafted the Constitution was originally called to revise the Articles of Confederation and wound up throwing them out and starting over from scratch...
January 27th, 2011 12:28 PM
I second this....despite good intentions (we all know where that road leads to...) there is NO good that can come from this. The "hate/blame/loathe America first" crowd has too loud of a voice and the political opportunists (NOT leaders) will use every option to weaken our states rights and enhance federal governance. This can impact future SCOTUS rulings (and undo past ones?...not in the way it's intended)...Who would be the "re"-founding fathers to draft/amend our Constitution? Who do you trust in today's political environment?
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I'd rather trust in those who signed their name and put their lives on the line and fought for the freedom we enjoy (and are the envy of around the world)....none of these political cowards we have today have the guts our true founding fathers had 220+ years ago...
- know the differencemartyr
is a fancy name for crappy fighterYou have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
January 27th, 2011 03:09 PM
Hopyard - Once more we find common ground.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Once a constitutional convention is called, everything, and I mean everything, is on the table. Yes there is a ratification process, but a constitutional convention could totally rewrite the constitution. I would be much more in favor of the states suing the Feds to get them back in the bottle outlined by the enumerated powers clause. You would, of course, also have to put John Marshall's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause back in the bottle. This is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
On a more actionable level, repeal the 17th amendment, then the states will have the leverage over the senators that the founders envisioned. Then real change that empowers the states could occur.
"I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.
January 27th, 2011 08:06 PM
Extremely bad idea. Want to destroy the country in a hurry? Put a bunch of politicians who don't care about the long term results of what they do, and don't feel accountable to the people in a convention where they can change everything. There are no procedures for this, it has never been done before. I serously doubt there are many, if any individuals in public service today who have the education, reasoning, abiltity, and willingness to sacrifice that our founding fathers had.
January 27th, 2011 11:50 PM
There are some things that must be done in order for CC to work.
1- We must invoke term limits permanently, no more lifers.
2- We must have atleast 5 generations of term limited politicians filter through to completely get rid of the old sick bad idiots that are in congress.
3- We must have constitutional oath keeping patriotic leaders once again, not republicans or democrats but constitutional believing individuals free from partisan bias.
4- Defund big government so they do not hold the influence and power they currently have.
5- Probably a whole lot more.....
Then we can have a CC. Because then there will be people who might actually care.
So we are atleast 20 - Never years away depending on how things move.
I just dont feel that CC is necessary right now. I want to see more states trump Federal power by invoking states rights and sovereignty as being above the Feds as per our constitution. The states have seem to forgotten this and have played the "No highway funding if you dont abide by our federally mandated bill"s... for toooooo long.
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan
January 28th, 2011 05:25 AM
SIGGuy229 & tangoseal--I don't want leaders in Congress. I don't want lawmakers. I want representatives. Of course, that would imply that the people would do their job and rein in an out of control gov't.
Hopyard--a big +1
Virginia had already called for a Constitutional Convention, along with 31 other states. 3 have rescinded their call, but Article V of the Constitution doesn't mention recission. Bottom line, we are 2 states away from having proponents go forward and challenge the validity of a state "rescinding" its call.
I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen
By Pro2A in forum Member Meeting Place
Last Post: May 10th, 2008, 06:59 PM
By p8riot in forum Member Meeting Place
Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 01:10 PM
By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 4th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Search tags for this page
2004 virginia repeals call for constitutional convention
constitutional convention big deal
constitutional convention call for usa
should we hold a constitutional convention in virginia?
states.sueing for constitutional convention
virginia constitution call for convention
virginia constitutional convention call
Click on a term to search for related topics.