Tag Archives | Constitution

Does An Orderly and Safe Way to Fundamentally Change the U.S. Government Exist?

This article below is a sequel to my essay,Defeating the New World Order and Creating a New Society That Allows Capitalists and Communists to Live Together in Peace After Establishing a New Constitution,” posted previously to disinfo.com.

Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If you look at the Constitution of the United States, there is only one paragraph (Article V) that tells how we can change our government. But Article V only discusses how to propose and then ratify amendments.  It does not say anything about the procedures to rewrite the entire Constitution.   At their website, an organization called Friends of the Article V Convention has verified that there have been over 700 petitions for a constitutional convention from state legislatures, but Congress refuses to grant that right, which is an inherent right of “The People.”  [1]

The Friends of the Article V Convention insist that the constitutional convention that is now demanded by the states, based on Article V, can be only for proposing amendments, not about rewriting the US Constitution.  They want a constitutional convention to discuss any amendment issues (like requiring a balanced budget, term limits, and so forth) as they are submitted by the states–amendments which later must be ratified by ¾ of the states.  Read the quote below from their website:

“Constitutional scholars agree that an Article V Convention is limited strictly and exclusively to proposing amendments to the Constitution, which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states before taking effect.  The Convention itself possesses no legislative or taxing authority: it can only debate, formulate, and propose amendments.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger [2] is a constitutional scholar who does not agree with the constitutional scholars above:

“…The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.  After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose’.”

Organizations like the John Birch Society [3], the American Policy Center [4], and no doubt millions of other individuals, on the right, left, and in the middle are very fearful of a constitutional convention which has never been tried since the first one in 1787.  Conservatives are sounding the alarm that a constitutional convention would take away the Bill of Rights (especially their gun rights), encourage abortions and euthanasia.  Radicals on the left are also apprehensive about what conservatives might do at a constitutional convention.  And apparently, for different reasons, the US Congress also dreads a constitutional convention, and refuses to turn over any power to the various states to either amend or abolish the constitution.  Here is what the Constitution itself states:

Article 5.… Read the rest

Continue Reading

Defeating The New World Order and Creating a New Society That Allows Capitalists and Communists to Live Together in Peace After Establishing a New Constitution

The bureaucracy, inefficiency, waste, national debt, loss of states’ rights, erosion of individual rights, my experience in the public schools, and the military interventionism of our government caused me to become a libertarian capitalist, until recently.  In my younger, college days, I was very concerned about poverty and world hunger.  My parents were quite alarmed when I told them I was a democratic socialist.  I also believed that a democratic, world federal government would abolish the foolish wars that result from national rivalry.  My favorite expression was from Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Years later, my concern about environmental degradation motivated me to attend the first national conference of the Green Movement in 1987. [1] Six people from Indiana attended, and I was one of them.

So whether it is the result of being wishy-washy or seeing the limitations of various political ideologies, I can say I have been on both sides of the fence.… Read the rest

Continue Reading

Senator Orrin Hatch (R) Says, If You’re Out Of Work, You’re A Drug Addict

Orrin Hatch

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

What is it with morons from Utah getting all up in other people’s business? Here’s the latest stupidity to emanate from that part of the country, from Raw Story:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment Tuesday that would require drug tests for those who seek welfare and unemployment benefits. States have the authority to enact drug testing requirements for their welfare programs under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but they are not mandated to conduct tests under current law.”

Now it was lame enough that the moderate Republican (no, he WASN’T a Liberal), Bill Clinton, allowed this invasive nonsense to be pulled on welfare recipients (Why in hell aren’t we drug-testing bankers? You MUST be high to think some of the gambles those idiots took were a great idea.) just to placate the insane-o hard right Republicans. However this Orrin jerk from Utah wants to expand it to say to millions of law-abiding citizens who are merely down on their luck that, “If you’re poor, unfortunate, or unemployed even due to circumstances beyond your control, you’re obviously a drug addict as well, and should be treated as such.

Read the rest

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Set To Extend Gun Rights

Handguns. Photo: Joshuashearn (CC)

Handguns. Photo: Joshuashearn (CC)

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a landmark gun rights case that could apply the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to both cities and states. Warren Richey reports for the Christian Science Monitor:

The US Supreme Court appears to be on verge of extending the constitutional protection of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to every jurisdiction in the nation.

During an hour-long oral argument at the high court on Tuesday, several justices exhibited a willingness to enforce their landmark 2008 gun-rights decision at the state and local level.

If they do so, the decision may doom not only the Chicago handgun ban at the center of Tuesday’s case, but other handgun bans and some of the toughest state and local gun-control laws in the country.

The only remaining question in McDonald v. Chicago was which constitutional mechanism the majority justices might use to apply the 2008 holding to state and local governments.

Read the rest

Continue Reading