So...let me get this straight. Various factions want to have a constitutional convention, where the entire ball of wax is basically up for grabs.
The separation of powers, limitations on government infringement of natural rights, branches of government, requirements for the office of president (not that they matter now anyway), all of that, is on the drawing board.
Ok...answer me this: Once the constitutional convention is in progress, and it's being 'rewritten', legally, it has no force. And, even though the States might send delegates, the new one will have to be ratified, and those states that don't ratify it are no longer bound by the union.
Hey! That means WE won't be bound by the new and improved version, either. Millions of vets who took an Oath to the old one will not be bound to protect, defend and support the new one. Active duty, too.
This might get real interesting in terms of 'unintended consequences'....
Doc Enigma writes: "Once the constitutional convention is in progress, and it's being 'rewritten', legally, it has no force."
Why would this new constitutional convention have no legitimate legal force, when you believe the last one does? Either you believe some small subset of the population such as rich white landowners are allowed to morally bind the rest of the population and all their descendents, or you don't. The moral legitimacy of all Majority Vote/Might Makes Right regimes rise or fall as one.
Moral principles are universal and apply to all humans everywhere at all times. If you accept the legitimacy of a small elite lying about a majority supporting it in the 1780's, then you have no basis to object to the legitimacy of a 2011 small elite ACCURATELY claiming a majority supports it. If you support the legitimacy of the US Constitution as understood in 1780, then you are claiming that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lincoln were morally right, simply because they got away with dictatorship for a while.
So...let me get this straight. Various factions want to have a constitutional convention, where the entire ball of wax is basically up for grabs.
ReplyDeleteThe separation of powers, limitations on government infringement of natural rights, branches of government, requirements for the office of president (not that they matter now anyway), all of that, is on the drawing board.
Ok...answer me this: Once the constitutional convention is in progress, and it's being 'rewritten', legally, it has no force. And, even though the States might send delegates, the new one will have to be ratified, and those states that don't ratify it are no longer bound by the union.
Hey! That means WE won't be bound by the new and improved version, either. Millions of vets who took an Oath to the old one will not be bound to protect, defend and support the new one. Active duty, too.
This might get real interesting in terms of 'unintended consequences'....
They better be careful what they wish for....
I hope Codrea chooses to expose Newt Gingrich as a "Tea Party" manipulator and Transnational socialist that he is.
ReplyDeleteNever Forget: The Newt advocates for a Constitutional convention - for a "budget amendment".
-- Oh really? Is that all you want Newty old pal? What else do you have up your very long slithery statist sleeve?
I once was bitten by a copperhead in southeast Texas, I'm now not so trusting of the family Viperidae, of which Newt belongs.
Doc Enigma writes: "Once the constitutional convention is in progress, and it's being 'rewritten', legally, it has no force."
ReplyDeleteWhy would this new constitutional convention have no legitimate legal force, when you believe the last one does? Either you believe some small subset of the population such as rich white landowners are allowed to morally bind the rest of the population and all their descendents, or you don't. The moral legitimacy of all Majority Vote/Might Makes Right regimes rise or fall as one.
Moral principles are universal and apply to all humans everywhere at all times. If you accept the legitimacy of a small elite lying about a majority supporting it in the 1780's, then you have no basis to object to the legitimacy of a 2011 small elite ACCURATELY claiming a majority supports it. If you support the legitimacy of the US Constitution as understood in 1780, then you are claiming that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Lincoln were morally right, simply because they got away with dictatorship for a while.