Scalia and the Article V movement

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.


Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?
He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...


And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.
Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...


There you go again, and I quote---------> "Constitutional Convention." Get it correct, this is an article 5!

RED HERRING, and until you come up with article 5 over reach, our conversation is over. Can't waste my time on someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or purposely attempting to push an agenda through obfuscation.
 
Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?
He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...


And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.
Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...


There you go again, and I quote---------> "Constitutional Convention." Get it correct, this is an article 5!

RED HERRING, and until you come up with article 5 over reach, our conversation is over. Can't waste my time on someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or purposely attempting to push an agenda through obfuscation.
con-con.PNG
con-con.PNG

Care to show us where that doesn't say Constitutional Convention? Oh wait, that's exactly what it says.
 
Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?
He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...


And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.
Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...


There you go again, and I quote---------> "Constitutional Convention." Get it correct, this is an article 5!

RED HERRING, and until you come up with article 5 over reach, our conversation is over. Can't waste my time on someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or purposely attempting to push an agenda through obfuscation.
View attachment 63475 View attachment 63475
Care to show us where that doesn't say Constitutional Convention? Oh wait, that's exactly what it says.


You are using SEMANTICS, and it is beneath you.

It is plainly spelled out below, that it is an article 5 convention, and the reason it is being called. Tell us in the reasons for it being called, you disagree with their request?

And if you tell me one more time because it is a CON-CON that can get out of control, I am going to hammer your ass with links.

Nah, waste of time, you already know I am correct, you are just trying to obfuscate the issue. That is all you people have is propaganda, and spin. I don't need to convince anyone about it until it happens, but you need to convince people to stop it. Have at it-)
 
He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...


And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.
Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...


There you go again, and I quote---------> "Constitutional Convention." Get it correct, this is an article 5!

RED HERRING, and until you come up with article 5 over reach, our conversation is over. Can't waste my time on someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or purposely attempting to push an agenda through obfuscation.
View attachment 63475 View attachment 63475
Care to show us where that doesn't say Constitutional Convention? Oh wait, that's exactly what it says.


You are using SEMANTICS, and it is beneath you.

It is plainly spelled out below, that it is an article 5 convention, and the reason it is being called. Tell us in the reasons for it being called, you disagree with their request?

And if you tell me one more time because it is a CON-CON that can get out of control, I am going to hammer your ass with links.

Nah, waste of time, you already know I am correct, you are just trying to obfuscate the issue. That is all you people have is propaganda, and spin. I don't need to convince anyone about it until it happens, but you need to convince people to stop it. Have at it-)
It would be a Constitutional Convention, one limited to just making Amendments has never been called, or tried, and Congress has no ability to limit the scope of it once called. The last time, and the States had placed limits on it, the limits were utterly ignored.

"Opponents to a convention counter that the only national amendments convention, held in 1787, tells a very different story. Of the 12 states that sent delegates to the 1787 convention, only 2 placed no restrictions on the power of their delegates. The other 10 states, Congress, and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation all gave very specific restrictions and rules for the convention, yet none of these were apparently honored. Proponents note that the delegates observed the amendment procedures detailed in the Articles of Confederation and that they were faithful to their instructions from the states as expressed in the Annapolis Convention and state resolutions "to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union." The delegates did, however, disregard Congress's recommendation to "solely amend the Articles."[36]"
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Following the rules, but ignoring the intent, they Amended it alright, right into the history books. History supports me, not you.
 
The thing that always boggles me is that people complain about the courts overturning unconstitutional laws, but nobody has the first idea what alternative there can be.

"Well, the defendant definitely burned the flag so he's guilty. We'll uphold the conviction and recommend that the legislature change the law because it's unconstitutional, and we'll recommend the President pardon him for the same reason."
 
And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.
Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...


There you go again, and I quote---------> "Constitutional Convention." Get it correct, this is an article 5!

RED HERRING, and until you come up with article 5 over reach, our conversation is over. Can't waste my time on someone who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or purposely attempting to push an agenda through obfuscation.
View attachment 63475 View attachment 63475
Care to show us where that doesn't say Constitutional Convention? Oh wait, that's exactly what it says.


You are using SEMANTICS, and it is beneath you.

It is plainly spelled out below, that it is an article 5 convention, and the reason it is being called. Tell us in the reasons for it being called, you disagree with their request?

And if you tell me one more time because it is a CON-CON that can get out of control, I am going to hammer your ass with links.

Nah, waste of time, you already know I am correct, you are just trying to obfuscate the issue. That is all you people have is propaganda, and spin. I don't need to convince anyone about it until it happens, but you need to convince people to stop it. Have at it-)
It would be a Constitutional Convention, one limited to just making Amendments has never been called, or tried, and Congress has no ability to limit the scope of it once called. The last time, and the States had placed limits on it, the limits were utterly ignored.

"Opponents to a convention counter that the only national amendments convention, held in 1787, tells a very different story. Of the 12 states that sent delegates to the 1787 convention, only 2 placed no restrictions on the power of their delegates. The other 10 states, Congress, and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation all gave very specific restrictions and rules for the convention, yet none of these were apparently honored. Proponents note that the delegates observed the amendment procedures detailed in the Articles of Confederation and that they were faithful to their instructions from the states as expressed in the Annapolis Convention and state resolutions "to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union." The delegates did, however, disregard Congress's recommendation to "solely amend the Articles."[36]"
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Following the rules, but ignoring the intent, they Amended it alright, right into the history books. History supports me, not you.


Oh, so you don't trust your state? Where you from, New York or California? Hey, I don't blame you, I wouldn't trust those leftists either. But then again, I didn't vote them in, you did-)

Point is, the original intent of the Constitution has been turned upside down, the Feds were beholden to the states, not vice,versa.

Are you against our constitution-) Just tell these nice people you are. You like it better where Washington can tell everyone what to do, yes-)

You do not trust our states? Which ones? Tell everyone who you don't trust-) I make it perfectly clear that I don't trust Washington, I am not hiding there, I trumpet it.

Now it is your turn! You don't want to reinstall the constitution as written? Praytell, why not? You think states are dumb? Tell us which ones-) Why-)

You like EOs, tell us which ones have peaked your fancy! Oh yes, the brilliance of ONE person, is so much more logical than the BRILLIANCE of a bunch, especially when that one man, was a community organizer.

Just admit it! That is why you fear an article 5. No way in hell you are going to let the "rube-dummies" have a say in re-establishing equalibrium. No, oh hell no. You pointy heads know better, and how dare they even SUGGEST you return a little power to them.

Good luck selling that one. You just can't leave people alone, now can you, lol!
 
Just admit it! That is why you fear an article 5. No way in hell you are going to let the "rube-dummies" have a say in re-establishing equalibrium. No, oh hell no. You pointy heads know better, and how dare they even SUGGEST you return a little power to them.
Answer this, honestly if you can. Knowing that the Founders feared democracy, I shouldn't even have to quote that but I can if necessary, and set up a Constitutional Democratic Republic instead, who, in essence, did they not trust?
 
Scalia was a self described "originalist" which means he relied on what was written in the Constitution, not Jefferson's letters or Abigale Adams correspondence or wishful thinking or some invention by the left that suggested that the Constitution should "evolve. Many of the major decisions by SCOTUS we live with today are based on fantasy rather than Constitutionality. FDR's nominee and former KKK member, Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion that created the modern version of "separation of Church and state" but the decision was based on an interpretation of a Jefferson letter and possibly influenced by Justice Black's personal bias against Papists. It had no foundation in the Constitution. The decision that allowed abortion was based on a "privacy" issue which did not exist in the Constitution. As long as Justices of the Supreme Court are required to review the Constitutionality of laws we are stuck with their personal biases and all we can do is hope that Barry Hussein doesn't nominate someone versed in Sharia law.
 
There are those within the Article V movement that would like to restrict the power of SCOTUS. Like all other branches in the Federal government, they have assumed too much authority and answer to on one.

Case in point, in Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, one the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement.
Standing in your way is hundreds of years of legal precedent and of course that the SCOTUS is typically apolitical.
 
Scalia was a self described "originalist" which means he relied on what was written in the Constitution, not Jefferson's letters or Abigale Adams correspondence or wishful thinking or some invention by the left that suggested that the Constitution should "evolve. Most of the major decisions by SCOTUS are based on fantasy rather than Constitutionality. FDR's former KKK justice wrote the opinion that created the modern "separation of Church and state" but the decision was based on an interpretation of a Jefferson letter and and possibly Justice Black's personal bias against Papists. It had no foundation in the Constitution. The decision that allowed abortion was based on a "privacy" issue which did not exist in the Constitution. As long as Justices of the Supreme Court are required to review the Constitutionality of laws we are stuck with their personal biases and all we can do is hope that Barry Hussein doesn't nominate someone versed in Sharia law.
Since the Constitution could be amended it has "evolved", and the problem with just reading what it says is half the time the meaning isn't clear, and in reading the convention notes and later writings of the Founders it turns out that is wasn't clear to them either. Regardless, keep this in mind:

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
 
For those who don't know what the Article V movement is, it is a movement for states to rise up and amend the Constitution devoid of any input from the corrupt and overreaching Federal government. It is the only way to save a system that needs an intervention, much like a drunk, before that drunk kills himself and the nation.

Scalia was the most vocal proponent of Originalism and - by that measure - the greatest defender of the framer's vision.

Scalia is also a strong proponent of State's Rights, which is in accordance with his Originalism, which seeks to clearly define the limits of the Federal Government in relation to the States.

Problem is: Scalia is far more committed to Republican activism than the Constitution. He only used Originalism when it furthered his partisan agenda for remaking the nation according to Movement Conservatism. This is why he co-opted the power of the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 and disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of American citizens. He clung to both an arbitrary Safe Harbor date and an Equal Protection law that he said could not be used as a precedent for any other election. We understand why he didn't want Rehnquist's activist ruling to count for any other election - because standards are different across nearly every county and nation - and, thus, no election would or could be certified under the precedent the Rehnquist court used to steal the election.

Meaning: Scalia was the most vocal supporter of an activist court that destroyed the Constitutional powers granted to the Florida Supreme Court. Scalia only supported State's Rights when it benefited his political agenda. Put simply, Scalia's partisanship was so toxic that he was willing to destroy the Constitution to honor it. History will judge him harshly as a shill for a radical political movement not a noble defender of the Constitution.

Secondly, Ted Cruz, Scalia's intellectual and moral clone, is not a Natural Born Citizen according to the Framers. IRONICALLY, according to Liberals, who believe in a Living Constitution, Ted Cruz should not be bound by the limited vision of the Framer's, whose concerns that a candidate be tied to the Land is dated. According to Originalism, Ted Cruz is strictly bound by the meaning of the language of the Framers, who did not support the maternal transfer of birth rights. Maternal birth rights were not established until the activist court of FDR in the 30s. Translation: Ted Cruz and Scalia are bound by Constitutional Originalism to reject the candidacy of Ted Cruz, but we all know that they don't care about the Constitution when it is inconvenient. Scalia believed that achieving his political agenda for this country was more important than the Constitution, and History will judge him as one of the greatest judicial Activists this nation has ever seen.
 
Last edited:
Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.



As expected, you care about your silly party above all
 
Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.



As expected, you care about your silly party above all

I have no party. I just consider the Democratic Party as I would any foreign interloper, domestically produced or not.
 
Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.



As expected, you care about your silly party above all

I have no party. I just consider the Democratic Party as I would any foreign interloper, domestically produced or not.


Amazing how many teabaggers are embarrassed to admit they are republicans, but you can count on them to vote for the R beside the name
 
Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.



As expected, you care about your silly party above all

I have no party. I just consider the Democratic Party as I would any foreign interloper, domestically produced or not.


Amazing how many teabaggers are embarrassed to admit they are republicans

Not being one, I don't care.

but you can count on them to vote for the R beside the name

Provide a viable alternative, and I'll consider it.
 
Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

Every amendment is a rewriting of the Constitution. All the Art. V convention does is take it out of Congress's hands and let's the states do it themselves.
 
Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.



As expected, you care about your silly party above all

I have no party. I just consider the Democratic Party as I would any foreign interloper, domestically produced or not.


Amazing how many teabaggers are embarrassed to admit they are republicans, but you can count on them to vote for the R beside the name

How many out-and-out Communists pull the lever for D candidates?

That's what you get in a two-party system.
 

Forum List

Back
Top