Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, The Drunk Senator from Wisconsin's School of Creative Writing & Fear Mongering.
I would agree- this is definitely fear mongering. It is totally and utterly non-specific. That should tip anyone off. And to be honest, I am little surpried there are people that have bought into it. Makes me this of the thread about Americans being too stupid. I mean, good heavens, this is just about as blatant as propagande gets! Also, it was written by someone who clearly knows nothing about Harry Reid.
Adittionally, I think it's a bit rich that there are people who think democrats are so upset over Limbaugh and Hannity that they would revoke the right to free speech over it. Get real. And get over yourselves.
I think it's a bit rich that there are people who think democrats are so upset over Limbaugh and Hannity that they would revoke the right to free speech over it. Get real. .
They've been talking for a long time about doing just that. They ARE upset, and don't know what to do about people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and Levin, et al. Behind closed doors, they are trying to find a way to silence them, I have no doubt of that.
They've been talking for a long time about doing just that. They ARE upset, and don't know what to do about people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck and Levin, et al. Behind closed doors, they are trying to find a way to silence them, I have no doubt of that.
Okay, that is fair enough, but do you have anything to actually connect that to a constitutional convention. Because if you can't, then you also can't argue that this isn't propaganda. To say A = B therefore B = C is a logical fallacy.
And there are other ways they could go about dealing with the people in the media who purposefully misrepresent them. Really, the issue is that no matter what they do, the result will people people like Limbaugh will find a way to work it to their advantage. Sue them for slander? They'll just complain they are being oppressed by the government. The same for what is proposed here. There would be a huge backlash against something that rash, and in the end, it wouldn't solve anything.
It really is highly, highly unlikely that this would happen. How does this piece of propaganda address this? By telling you that if you think it can't happen, you're WRONG! No evidence as to why you're wrong, just you're wrong. I would expect any adult to know that pretty much any time that is the crux of someone's argument, that the argument is total ant utter crap.
Personally, I think we would be better off bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Thanks, Regan!
It's "ironic" you would pose such a possibility relative to President Obama, OP. What is it about President Obama, his past or present actions/words, background, character, or ethics that would even prompt you to imply or believe-even for a moment-that President Obama would betray the American people by supporting any effort that would take away their, and eventually HIS, HIS WIFE'S AND CHILDREN'S, right to free speech? Let's go back: Is it his tenure as a well-respected, informed and passionate CONSTITUTIONAL LAW professor? No...Well, how's about his numerous stops on the campaign trail in representation of and encompassing every segment of society so that EVERYONE would feel they had a VOICE and REPRESENTATION in his Presidency-you know, representative of the "melting pot" in which we live? Not that...What about President Obama's current goal and determination to include the American people in his Presidency by affording them the opportunity to reach/speak to him utilizing a variety of means-websites, phone, letters, etc.?...I'm still cold...Well, what about his attendance at town hall meetings to hear attacks...I mean uninformed, unsubstantiated and biased opinions...on an issue, despite the fact he's aware he's viewed as a target and enemy merely because of the color of his skin, the power he possesses and what he represents? Not that either...Well, I'm just baffled in trying to figure out how you can REACH so far in opining President Obama would fight to take away the free speech of the same people he strives so vehemently to protect and extend himself. I forgot; that's what it is: More unusbstantiated and unfocused rambling and ranting!
Well, there has always been ways to amend the Constitution but it's not an easy process. Even Article Five requires that the legislatures of three-fourths of the states ratify the proposed amendments. That's a pretty tall order when you consider that this country is pretty much evenly divided between conservative and liberal. I can't remember any president winning an election recently with much more than 50% of the vote. I also believe that this country leans a little right of center for the most part. I really don't see how you could think that Obama and his fellow democrats would be successful changing the Constitution in any significant way.
The bigger danger is the president doing things that are unconstitutional and the legislature passing unconstitutional laws. These things would be the law of the land under they are challenged in court. The federal courts and the Supreme Court with judges that serve for a tenue of 'good behavior', i.e. for life, and are an independent branch of government would hopefully overturn these unconstitutional laws.
The men who came up with this form of government were about as intelligent as they come. They considered things such as that suggested by the OP. The executive and the legislature simply cannot hijack our constitution as suggested here.
- Reel
Do you know what that Constitutional Convention was called to do? How about the single most important decision they made at the beginning of their meetings?
They were called by the Congress to consider some amendments to the Articles of Confederation but only some. The first thing they did was to agree that they would just write a new Constitution. What happens if we use this method of amending the Constitution again? I think there is a very good chance that they would just write another new one.
It is those things that have always made me think there would never be another Convention called. How do we know what will happen if we do it?
So many things are unknown here because of no rulings about the situation. Do we know whether the requests for rescission will be allowed by the Supreme Court or are there people keeping score and not allowing it? This is wholly unexplored territory and who know what may happen? If the Court got the case after Obama makes another appointment, especially like the first one, I am sure the Court would rule exactly opposite on this question to what they would before that appointment.
The group that put this out is a group of lawyers that are about 180 degrees from the ACLU and the two groups are always at odds about something. I have supported them with money but not in the last few years.
This is, as they say, something that none of us think could happen but after thinking about it a little bit I realized that the area is so fuzzy that I don't really know.
Thanks for the reply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.