Why Are Conservatives Always Trying To Change The Constitution They Say They Love?

[Avatar4321]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.

The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.

Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them say it.

With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.

Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.

Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.

But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.

Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.

Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.


1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState


Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?

Awful long winded for wanting to keep it short. Liberals are the idiots who want to change the constitution. Obamacare comes to mind.

Obamacare doesn't change the constitution because it doesn't amend it!

your right. It doesn't change the constitution. It ignores it.

 

[koshergrl]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief.

TOO LATE!

 

[Avatar4321]

Conservatives like the constitution. They just don't like the Bill of Rights (other than the 2nd amendment). But don't tell them. Most conservatives are not even aware that the things that they advocate are outlawed by the Bill of Rights. For example, denying people of being illegal immigrant suspects of a right to a trial. And, of course, they all hate the American Civil liberties Union.

um they already get hearings.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.

The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.

Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them say it.

With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.

Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.

Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.

But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.

Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.

Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.


1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState


Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?

Awful long winded for wanting to keep it short. Liberals are the idiots who want to change the constitution. Obamacare comes to mind.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to not come to the conclusion that ignorance and stupidity are prerequisites for being a conservative, this quoted post from an ignorant rightist being one such example.

I used to take all the 'hyperbole' in stride until I finally came to fully appreciate that there are far too many people out there who believe all kinds of nonsense just because it reinforces their fears which are already being stirred up anyway. Unfortunately, many people on the right exploit those fears solely in an effort to undermine a democratically elected gov't just so they can eventually point to falling poll numbers to say "SEE, Obama is no longer popular."

You're the dumb ass who said guarding our border is unconstitutional.

I never said that.

Unless this was taken out of context:

"Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeus corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one."

So, putting troops on the border to guard it is apparently outside the bounds of the Constitution. Nobody is denying anyone the writ of habeus corpus (even though illegals don't deserve it), you are full of it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Conservatives like the constitution. They just don't like the Bill of Rights (other than the 2nd amendment). But don't tell them. Most conservatives are not even aware that the things that they advocate are outlawed by the Bill of Rights. For example, denying people of being illegal immigrant suspects of a right to a trial. And, of course, they all hate the American Civil liberties Union.

um they already get hearings.

...and they have a Constitutional right to a trail if they so desire.

I rest my case.

 

[OKTexas]

Conservatives like the constitution. They just don't like the Bill of Rights (other than the 2nd amendment). But don't tell them. Most conservatives are not even aware that the things that they advocate are outlawed by the Bill of Rights. For example, denying people of being illegal immigrant suspects of a right to a trial. And, of course, they all hate the American Civil liberties Union.

um they already get hearings.

...and they have a Constitutional right to a trail if they so desire.

I rest my case.

And you would lose, illegal immigration is a violation of civil law, not criminal. The right to a trial applies to criminal law, illegals get an administrative hearing.

 

[martybegan]

Strict Constructional Federalists want to restore the document to its original intent. Mark Levin's proposed amendments don't change the constitution per se, what they do is restore it back to it's original intent, in such a way that small groups of people can't make "changes" via the courts.

At least you have something to say.

Nothing better than a back-handed compliment.

 

[martybegan]

Strict Constructional Federalists want to restore the document to its original intent. Mark Levin's proposed amendments don't change the constitution per se, what they do is restore it back to it's original intent, in such a way that small groups of people can't make "changes" via the courts.

At least you have something to say.

Which, as always, you cannot refute.

It must suck to be as wrong as you are.

Sure I can. Original intent is not always clear and is sometimes in dispute.

But Levin's so-called Liberty Amendment (Ironically named seeing as how some of them restrict some liberties) do more than just try to restore original intent. It's an attempt to remake the constitution more to Levin's liking in order to increase the power of conservative states which are far more likely to view issues from his perspective.

It actually returns a lot of power back to the states, so if libs want to ruin their own states, they are free to do so. Just get ready for most of your productive citizens to pack up and move.

 

[Mustang]

Strict Constructional Federalists want to restore the document to its original intent. Mark Levin's proposed amendments don't change the constitution per se, what they do is restore it back to it's original intent, in such a way that small groups of people can't make "changes" via the courts.

At least you have something to say.

Which, as always, you cannot refute.

It must suck to be as wrong as you are.

Sure I can. Original intent is not always clear and is sometimes in dispute.

But Levin's so-called Liberty Amendment (Ironically named seeing as how some of them restrict some liberties) do more than just try to restore original intent. It's an attempt to remake the constitution more to Levin's liking in order to increase the power of conservative states which are far more likely to view issues from his perspective.

It actually returns a lot of power back to the states, so if libs want to ruin their own states, they are free to do so. Just get ready for most of your productive citizens to pack up and move.

Blue states generally have a more diverse economy where the average person has a better education, has more economic opportunities, makes more money, and is less likely to divorce than their red state counterparts. In fact, many red states find themselves in the unenviable position of having to go outside their own states to find qualified applicants to fill jobs that require skilled workers with specialized training because their own educational system is doing such a poor job at even getting their own citizens all the way through high school, let alone providing them with an opportunity to advance their education beyond high school.

 

[LeftofLeft]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.

The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.

Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them tell it.

With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.

Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.

Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.

But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.

Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.

Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.


1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState


Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?

The only fundamental contradiction is among Liberals who state the Constitution is not valid because it was written by a bunch of white guys that owned slaves; yet, the same guys recognized that they were not perfect and put in processes to correct flaws (such as abolishing Slavery despite the fact that the nations they traded slaves still practice it) as well as make changes. Since Liberals have no problem stepping outside the Constitution, watching them call out Conservatives who love the Constitution is simply another Alinsky tactic to make other people adhere to their own standards and rules as Liberals see it while Liberals, by choice, hold no standards or accountability.

 

[Mustang]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.

The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.

Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them say it.

With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.

Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.

Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.

But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.

Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.

Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.


1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState


Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?

Awful long winded for wanting to keep it short. Liberals are the idiots who want to change the constitution. Obamacare comes to mind.

Obamacare doesn't change the constitution because it doesn't amend it!

your right. It doesn't change the constitution. It ignores it.

Your post (not to mention the OP, itself) makes me think that a new forum subform topic should become a regular part of USMB under US Discussion. They could call it the Constitution/Unconstitutional. There's no doubt in my mind that conservative self-avowed 'constitutional scholars' would post on it regularly like conservative self-avowed 'climatologists' post comments in an effort to refute the science of climate change. There's no doubt in my mind that it would be one hell of a busy forum.

 

[martybegan]

Strict Constructional Federalists want to restore the document to its original intent. Mark Levin's proposed amendments don't change the constitution per se, what they do is restore it back to it's original intent, in such a way that small groups of people can't make "changes" via the courts.

At least you have something to say.

Which, as always, you cannot refute.

It must suck to be as wrong as you are.

Sure I can. Original intent is not always clear and is sometimes in dispute.

But Levin's so-called Liberty Amendment (Ironically named seeing as how some of them restrict some liberties) do more than just try to restore original intent. It's an attempt to remake the constitution more to Levin's liking in order to increase the power of conservative states which are far more likely to view issues from his perspective.

It actually returns a lot of power back to the states, so if libs want to ruin their own states, they are free to do so. Just get ready for most of your productive citizens to pack up and move.

Blue states generally have a more diverse economy where the average person has a better education, has more economic opportunities, makes more money, and is less likely to divorce than their red state counterparts. In fact, many red states find themselves in the unenviable position of having to go outside their own states to find qualified applicants to fill jobs that require skilled workers with specialized training because their own educational system is doing such a poor job at even getting their own citizens all the way through high school, let alone providing them with an opportunity to advance their education beyond high school.

and blue states due the red states a favor by making it more favorable for their most productive citizens to move to better pastures.

Most ghettos are in the blue states. What do these surveys do? Not count them?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why do you liberals always ignore the Constitution?

At any rate, nobody can change anything in the Constitution without an act of Congress or a convention of two thirds of the states.

By the way it's "phase" not "faze."

Links?

LMAO at the SSDD lies.

 

[EriktheRed]

Why do people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about start threads based on absurd propositions that dont even resemble the truth?

Saved me the trouble. Tune in next week when the left updates on their made up wars, the war on women, the war on minorities, the war on (fill in the blank).

The Rabbi has an inferiority complex. Understandably so.

I feel grossly inferior to your level of stupidity, ignorancem and partisanship.

Your attitude and your personal attacks clearly indicate your inferiority complex. The hostility is a tell.

Ask him how long David Stockman worked for Pres. GW Bush.

 

[Mustang]

This OP could easily be several pages long, but I'm going to keep it brief. So, bear in mind that it will by no means be complete.

The US Constitution is one of those things that generally doesn't seem to get a lot of attention from average people most of the time. My take on the reason why that's probably the case is because it's like owning a pretty darn reliable car; every time you get in, it starts right up. Consequently, since it works, aside from putting gas in it, you tend not to think about it too much.

Be that as it may, I have heard plenty of people who are more politically attuned than the average person say that they love the US Constitution. I understand perfectly since I'm one of those people who falls somewhere on the center/left. But with all due respect to anyone and everyone's political leanings, I don't think I've ever heard any group say that they love the US Constitution more often than conservatives. Hell, Junior High School girls don't love horses (or even unicorns) as much as conservatives love the US Constitution to hear them tell it.

With that said, A few years ago, I started to notice that the number of conservative complaints about what was and wasn't constitutional seemed to going up...sharply. It seemed as if when they didn't like something, it wasn't merely "a bad thing" in some way, deserving of some kind of policy solution. It wasn't even simply illegal as in some kind "this-is-a-violation-of-the-law." Neither was it some kind of a jurisdictional oversight or conflict of some kind where one legal authority might be "dropping the ball" in some way, thereby allowing a problem to go unsolved. No, to listen to conservatives tell the tale, X (whatever that X happened to be) was CLEARLY unconstitutional as far as they were concerned. This list just seemed to grow, and Grow, and GROW until it seemed as if the charge was automatic anytime conservatives discovered something they didn't like. This seemed to happen whether it was something that was being done that they thought should NOT be done, or it was something that wasn't being done that they thought SHOULD be done. As a result, within a few short years it seemed as if everyone who considered himself to be a conservative was suddenly a constitutional scholar who was eminently qualified (at least as far as they were concerned) to look at any law or any governmental practice to determine whether it passed constitutional muster.

Oddly enough, right around the same time it seemed as conservatives wanted all kinds of things to be done that clearly fell outside the bounds of the US Constitution. I'll just list a few in order to make the point. Extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeous corpus, deploying US military troops on the border all come to mind although I don't have any intention of getting into a long drawn out discussion on each and every one.

Now, I sit back and I take this all in over the course of a few years, and I try not to get TOO worked up about it because I kinda know how people are in general. People get a bee in their bonnet about something, and they generally look for an avenue that will allow them to get what they want. To that end, they can come up with any number of arguments (justifications) that will allow them to get to point B (getting what they want) from point A (not having what they want). The arguments don't even have to make sense half the time because people are more interested in having A rationale for something than they are in what IS actually a rational argument.

But it's just gotten so damn silly in the last few years following the election of Barrack Obama since it seems as if anything the President does gets the full blown constitutional argument.

Okay, that's the history. Now for the premise of the thread.

Now the conservative debate seems to have entered a new(er) phase. It's the faze where the US Constitution MUST be changed. I'm not talking about some kind of restoration of constitutional principles as was previously the argument (regardless of how meritorious it may or may not have been). Now the argument is that we've got to CHANGE the constitution. One of the biggest purveyors of this idea is conservative hero, Mark Levin, who is pushing hard for a Convention of the States under Article V of the US Constitution for the purpose of amending the constitution. He's even written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments which doesn't just propose one or two changes. He envisions TEN Amendments to the Constitution. I'll even list them for the sake of simplicity without offering comments about any of them.


1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

Mark Levin s Liberty Amendments RedState


Okay, it's been a long haul. But after all this time (I mean the last few years, not the length of this OP), how can conservatives honestly say that they LOVE the US Constitution if they're so set on making so many fundamental changes to it? Doesn't that seem like a fundamental contradiction?

The only fundamental contradiction is among Liberals who state the Constitution is not valid because it was written by a bunch of white guys that owned slaves; yet, the same guys recognized that they were not perfect and put in processes to correct flaws (such as abolishing Slavery despite the fact that the nations they traded slaves still practice it) as well as make changes. Since Liberals have no problem stepping outside the Constitution, watching them call out Conservatives who love the Constitution is simply another Alinsky tactic to make other people adhere to their own standards and rules as Liberals see it while Liberals, by choice, hold no standards or accountability.

Can't say that I've ever heard anyone, liberal or otherwise, say that the constitution is not valid. However, I HAVE heard a lot of conservatives claim that our country was established as a Christian nation which is clearly not the case since the framers not only didn't establish a state religion but also intentionally left out any mention of Christianity, or Jesus, or anything to do with the Christian faith.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives like the constitution. They just don't like the Bill of Rights (other than the 2nd amendment). But don't tell them. Most conservatives are not even aware that the things that they advocate are outlawed by the Bill of Rights. For example, denying people of being illegal immigrant suspects of a right to a trial. And, of course, they all hate the American Civil liberties Union.

um they already get hearings.

...and they have a Constitutional right to a trail if they so desire.

I rest my case.

No they don't. They are entitled to a hearing before they are deported. If they are caught in the act of crossing the border, they can be returned to the other side of the border forthwith.