• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New Zealand Shooting

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
Life goes on to the disgust of the doomsayer(s) and oftentimes the outcome change isn’t the complete collapse of civilization as the doomsay(s) foretold.
We ran out of peaceful recourses on April 19, 1775. That war did not come out well for the oppressors. However, when the oppressors lose, new oppressors usually take over. The war to expel the British usurpers was an anomaly.

There is one other peaceful recourse, one that I believe has a far better chance of avoiding an other-than-peaceful recourse: The Convention of the States.

It is the only remaining chance to save the Repubic. Democracy will kill it.
Spoken once, belabored twice...

Why don’t you start a thread on the subject in lieu of arbitrarily interjecting this scheme into off topic threads..
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,515
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A Convention of the States or a Constitutional Convention is a bad idea. That process could place us into a worse position than we already are.

By exercising its power in determining the constitutionality of federal and state government actions, the Supreme Court developed a large body of judicial decisions, or “precedents,” interpreting the Constitution. The Court’s treatment of precedent implicates questions about how the Court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions. In other words, the Court believes maintaining the system is more important than upholding the Constitution.

This attitude can be fixed by placing pressure on the Court to clean-up their act. It is doable. The Court needs to:
  1. Enforce their decisions on the lower courts.
  2. Interpret and enforce the Commerce Clause as written.
  3. Adhere to the actual wording in the Constitution. It means what it says.
The three branches of government have joined hands with purpose to control "The People" to serve their wants and needs.

Accomplishment of the above mention points would place this republic back inline with our founding fathers decree. Or very close.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
A Convention of the States is very different from a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention would be extraconstitutional, while a Convention of the States is defined by the Constitution.

It is merely an alternative process to propose amendments to the Constitution. All other amendments have been proposed by Congress. Unfortunately, Congress is predisposed NOT to propose amendments like the Balanced Budget Amendment or term limits.

A supermajority of States is required to call one, and an even larger supermajority is required to ratify each and every individual amendment—the exact same process as is required for amendments proposed by Congress.

There is no logical reason to think that the process for proposing amendments via a Convention of the States would be any more dangerous than the process for proposing amendments through the Congress. Any amendments proposed by either would still be subject to the ratification process.

There is only the mistaken conflation of a Constitutional Convention with a Convention of the States.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,515
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A Convention of the States is very different from a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention would be extraconstitutional, while a Convention of the States is defined by the Constitution.

It is merely an alternative process to propose amendments to the Constitution. All other amendments have been proposed by Congress. Unfortunately, Congress is predisposed NOT to propose amendments like the Balanced Budget Amendment or term limits.

A supermajority of States is required to call one, and an even larger supermajority is required to ratify each and every individual amendment—the exact same process as is required for amendments proposed by Congress.

There is no logical reason to think that the process for proposing amendments via a Convention of the States would be any more dangerous than the process for proposing amendments through the Congress. Any amendments proposed by either would still be subject to the ratification process.

There is only the mistaken conflation of a Constitutional Convention with a Convention of the States.
Sorry, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The 16th. and 17th. Amendments were never actually ratified by the states. The Supreme Court ruled that since the Sergent of Arms declared those amendments ratified by the states they were ratified. In other words, form over substance. The Court back then lived by the rule, as they do now, intregraty of the system is more important than the actual demands or requirements of the constitution.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The example you cite has nothing to do with a Convention of the States.

The question remains: How is a Convention of the States any more dangerous a tool for proposing amendments than Congress itself is?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,515
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The example you cite has nothing to do with a Convention of the States.

The question remains: How is a Convention of the States any more dangerous a tool for proposing amendments than Congress itself is?
Wrong question. The question is will the courts enforce the mandates of the conventions. They will NOT. That is the part that you don't want to understand. You continue to live in a fantasy world. Force is power. You and whose army is going to enforce the conventions dictates?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is the precise correct question. You asserted that a Convention of the States (in addition to the unrelated Constitutional Convention) was dangerous.

I am asking you, “How so?” considering that the Convention of the States is merely a method of proposing amendments, just as the Congress is.

Anyway, barring a direct answer to the above question, I have refuted your contention. So, barring that answer, I will not bother replying again.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
i refuted you, so now your rebutting is for naught as eye95 now doesn’t wanta directly play any more even after asking a question of ‘how so?’ ~ gheeee is thick
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,515
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It is the precise correct question. You asserted that a Convention of the States (in addition to the unrelated Constitutional Convention) was dangerous.

I am asking you, “How so?” considering that the Convention of the States is merely a method of proposing amendments, just as the Congress is.

Anyway, barring a direct answer to the above question, I have refuted your contention. So, barring that answer, I will not bother replying again.
Excuse me, you are the very one that ALWAYS accuse others of putting words in your mouth. Where in my "quotation" do I say a "convention" was "dangerous"? Lets see, I didn't, I said it was a bad idea. It is quite clear that you have a problem living within your own standards. You are a hypocrite. And, you show your true colors every day on this forum.

Your turn Mr. wordsmith.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Excuse me, you are the very one that ALWAYS accuse others of putting words in your mouth. Where in my "quotation" do I say a "convention" was "dangerous"? Lets see, I didn't, I said it was a bad idea. It is quite clear that you have a problem living within your own standards. You are a hypocrite. And, you show your true colors every day on this forum.

Your turn Mr. wordsmith.
A Convention of the States or a Constitutional Convention is a bad idea. That process could place us into a worse position than we already are.
...
I’d say that declaring that a Convention of the States could place us into a worse position than we already are is rhetorically equivalent to saying it is dangerous.

If you don’t, meh. Others will.

BTW, the name-calling (which I bolded) qualifies your post as yet one more jerk post from you.

Post like an adult, and I will react to you in an adult fashion.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
I’d say that declaring that a Convention of the States could place us into a worse position than we already are is rhetorically equivalent to saying it is dangerous.

If you don’t, meh. Others will.

BTW, the name-calling (which I bolded) qualifies your post as yet one more jerk post from you.

Post like an adult, and I will react to you in an adult fashion.
Please eye95 follow your own advice especially since your “equivalencies rhetoric” is what is trully dangerous.

Oh eye95 “meh...I don’t

Therefore, please do not speak or lead anybody to believe this member follows your constant unintelligible & moronic logic stream from your posted manifesto, to the DNA tirade, to this off topic blathering of incoherent nonsense as worthy of making sense, especially as you get caught in your own “equivalencies rhetoric” conscious stream and falter!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
661
Location
Kentucky
Personally I'm all for a article 5 constitutional convention.
Any action that puts the Supreme Court and the Fed in the corner with dunce hats on is a good thing.

While little would actually get ratified it would put the fed on notice its NOT the all powerful entity it mistakenly thinks it is.

Maybe disband the SCOTUS ?

Some founders were not comfortable with the idea of a court whose decisions could not be appealed .

They were right.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I think the point of failure will be convening the COS. If the effort to convene is successful, I think that several amendments will be proposed and later adopted, among them the balanced-budget amendment and term limits.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,515
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Personally I'm all for a article 5 constitutional convention.
Any action that puts the Supreme Court and the Fed in the corner with dunce hats on is a good thing.

While little would actually get ratified it would put the fed on notice its NOT the all powerful entity it mistakenly thinks it is.

Maybe disband the SCOTUS ?

Some founders were not comfortable with the idea of a court whose decisions could not be appealed .

They were right.
But they can.

Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998)
¶53 Moreover, certain deterrents to legislative abuse may be greater at the local level than at other levels of government. Municipalities themselves can be held liable for constitutional violations, whereas States and the Federal Government are often protected by sovereign immunity. Lake Country Estates, supra, at 405, n. 29 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978)). And, of course, the ultimate check on legislative abuse-the electoral process-applies with equal force at the local level, where legislators are often more closely responsible to the electorate. Cf. Tenney, supra, at 378 (stating that "selfdiscipline and the voters must be the ultimate reliance for discouraging or correcting such abuses").
In addition to the above, it is well-established that a judicial interpretation of a statute, accompanied by substantial legislative inaction for a considerable time, may be understood to signify the legislators’ acquiescence and agree with judicial interpretation. If a line of decisions has given a statute the same construction and the legislature does not choose to change the relevant parts of the legislation, the usual reasons supporting adherence to precedent are reinforced by the strong probability that the courts have correctly interpreted the will of the legislature.

The courts can be fixed by the legislators. But, only if they choose to.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
Mr pierce how bout the concept of staying on the thread's topic as has been previously raised in previous posts in this thread by all by the agitator?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
Seems the NZ PM has been swift in her cause...laws allegedly have been changed!
NZHERALD, Quote
Military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned under stronger new gun laws announced today.

Jacinda Ardern [PM] has just revealed the changes in a press conference.

The country's rules around guns have been in the spotlight since last Friday's mosque shootings in Christchurch.

Attorney-General David Parker said over the weekend that semi-automatic guns would be banned and 70,000 people have signed a petition against these types of weapons.


PM says there will be a gun buyback scheme and those who already own such weapons will have to turn them in, but they will be offered "reasonable compensation," the Guardian reports. The New Zealand government believes the scheme will cost up to $150 million. There are believed to be up to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand, which has a population of around 5 million. Officials estimate there are 13,500 semi-automatic weapons in circulation, but they can't say how many assault rifles might be out there.

Actually, quite inpressed on the PM’s governental swiftness , but easily understood since the tragedy is less than a week olde so the emotionalized stories/fotos could be used effectively. [think back to 911...did/could/would our legislative body function that smartly?]

There are a million stories in the naked city...this is just one of them...
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
New Zealand has been held up as a beacon of Liberty. Several times, I have heard or read a Liberty-lover pine for the level of freedom found in NZ.

Bravo Sierra. NZ is proof-positive that and “Liberty” granted by the government are merely privileges that can be revoked at the government’s whim.

The only system that has a chance of protecting Liberty is ours—at least as it was originally framed. We have our Rights. We enter into a collective agreement with the specific intention of protecting those Rights. In that effort, we give a limited set of authorities to the entity We the People create and own, that entity being the government.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,544
Location
here nc
It is interesting when the mood suits, some articulate their understanding of the constitution, etc., from different perspectives...
Originalist
Textualist
Intentionalist
Pragmatist
Natural Law Theorist

Most of the time switching amoungst the perspectives in the same sentence/paragraph/manifesto...
 
Top