Dumbing down of America or showing sensitivity?

Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed. Originally Posted by The Atlantic

This point is irrelevant. The Constitution that was read, instructs how to change it -- and its not with a one vote cram down. Its a deliberate process that goes back to the states.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see movement to change it very soon: http://www.repealamendment.org/

When you swear on the bible in court to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and you are caught in a lie, it's called perjury. When you swear an oath to the Constitution, in it's current form, and usurp it's authority, it's called congress in session.

When you swear on the bible in court to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and you are caught in a lie, it's called perjury. . Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Depends on your perspective, one might call it trying to save ones skin. We all lie, some just get caught more than others.

The purpose of reading it was to remind the Congress of the limits of their power. Hence the only logical draft is the one they read - the Constitution as now in effect with all amendments in place. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The main purpose was to throw red meat to a certain segment of society. Congressmen and women do everything in their power to stay elected...that is all they were doing.

What IB was getting at I suppose was the irony of the some, who think the constitution should not be changed , yet have no problem reading from a changed constitution. That probably went over the head of the group that was thrown the red meat. IB if I misinterpreted , my apologies.

There is a method for changing the Constitution. Its not a one vote cram-down.

PC run amuck?

New edition of Huckleberry Finn which substitutes the word *edited by staff-derogatory racial remarks DED* with slave

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/books/05huck.html?hp Originally Posted by discreetgent

Twain's opinion:

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see movement to change it very soon: http://www.repealamendment.org/ Originally Posted by pjorourke

Interesting approach. Doubtful you could get 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass that - after all it affects Congressional power; also not sure enough states will want it. I can think of 13 state where passage might be dubious - all that is needed to block it.


As far as healthcare law, etc being unconstitutional. A number of interesting interviews and comments from Scalia highlight the issue the Supreme Court might have. Scalia makes it fairly clear that he doesn't think that the 14th amendment protects against sexual discrimination; that chunks of the New Deal do not necessarily pass Constitutional muster. OTOH - unlike Thomas - he doesn't see that the Supreme Court should roll back and negate these laws and programs. Yes, the Supreme Court does at times overturn its own rulings but tends to be hesitant to do so.

Interesting approach. Doubtful you could get 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass that - after all it affects Congressional power; also not sure enough states will want it. I can think of 13 state where passage might be dubious - all that is needed to block it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yeah, it may take a CC to do it.

What does it take to call a constitutional convention?

What does it take to call a constitutional convention? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

50 states x 2/3 = 34
50 - 13 = 37 = not quite a block

What does it take to call a constitutional convention? Originally Posted by discreetgent

One semi-Hot bear shoot'n MILF and a bunch of anxious white middle aged men scared their reign about to end!

I meant to ratify the amendment you eventually need 38 states whether it is passed by Congress or by a CC.

thats 75%

So to call a CC requires 2/3 of the states, but to then ratify any amendments passed by it requires 3/4

Please,correct me if I am wrong....

Isn't the whole Constitution up for change at a constitutional convention?
(all articles and amendments,including The Bill of Rights)