Constitutional Convention

[Teresa]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83837

Could it be there is no push for gun control because....the nation is only two votes away from calling a Constitutional Convention?  Ohio is considering calling for it...which would be state number 33 calling for a Constitutional Convention.  One more state, then the Congress has no choice it must call a Constitutional Convention.  The apointees/delegates to it (unelected) would be more powerful than the Congress.

We could have a new constitution.  No Bill of Rights, certainly no 2nd Amendment and I'm certain only accepted free speech...no hate speech as defined by the thieves and corrupt politicians who would attend a modern Constitutional Convention.

Word on the street is that state number thirty-four is only two years away.

While we've been focusing on current framework...the insidious thing is that the current constitution can go away rather quickly leaving us empty handed.

Can you imagine what type of constitution we would have that sprouts from the twisted and perverted minds of the like of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, BHO, et. al.

And no, I'm not going to be having "sweet dreams"  tonight after learning of this consideration.  

[Catwoman]

I have a feeling that there is coming a time when we're going to be ruing the recent past.  This is exactly what I was afraid would happen. 

[Kjell H.]

It's not so much that we need a NEW Constitution.........it's just that the ORIGINAL needs about 200 years of added B#*&@!*^  trimmed off of it to get it back in shape again.
We need to trim about anything that happened after 1900 off.  That's from 16 on. The first amendment ratified in the 20th century was the income tax.  
If you read the original Bill of Rights, and then read the remaining amendments, look at how the language changed. From 11 to 26, you can't understand them at times. But for someone to go back in and try to put them in 'laymans terms' you open up a problem.
It is,  you can't be deceived by judges who think laws are not absolute but that a law's meaning and content must change with the times (should reflect the current society's values).  A turning point of which occurred with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the Supreme Court who, if not first, most loudly espoused that belief.  My understanding is that Holmes is the turning point when the guidance of Blackstone (absolute interpretations based on actual meanings) began to be phased out.

[Teresa]

Well................... Did you know that Oliver Wendall Holmes was a proponent of the same euthanasia laws that Hitler implemented ?

And who pulled your political chain Mr  Kjell...............?
 
Ya been hanging around with me too long....   

[redcliffsw]

Kjell-

Excellent points you've made about the Constitution & Bill of Rights.