Potential Election Results On Our Constitution [Reader Post]

Loading

More is at stake in this election than you might be aware. One item I’ve heard nobody discuss is the potential harm this election could do to the document we hold most dear to us; Our Constitution.

Should the Democrats win a majority 60% of both the Senate and House of Representatives and claim the presidency, it would virtually negate checks and balances with an already left leaning Supreme Court (Which is entirely possible). What is not being discussed is they not only would have a veto-proof super-majority, but also the power to hold a Constitutional Convention and transform that most supreme law of our land and to transform it to suit their own desires. This Democratic majority could render Republicans powerless to stop them.

How is this possible? It’s set forth in Article V of our Constitution:

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, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Granted their alterations would also require ratifications of 3/4ths of the states. Democrats have already thought of this. That is why the DNC has so ernestly involved itself in supporting Democrat Governors and State legislatures and will continue to do so. As of the 2006 elections Democrats held 56% of the gubernatorial positions. 11 of those elections are currently up for grabs (6 Dem/5 Rep). However, state ratification of Constitutional changes may take several years. Once proposed changes passed a Constitutional Convention, proposed changes do not just, “go away” if they do not receive the 3/4 states needed to ratify. A later change in polical party in control of the state could return to the changes and ratify. There are no deadlines to the ratification process. Here is the list of Governor party affiliations following the 2006 election.

IMHO it is the intention of the DNC to radically change the make-up of this country. Could a single party change our country from a Republic to a Socialist nation?

Obama was very clear in a 2001 radio interview in another thread on this site that he does not like how our Constitution is worded. He has also been quite vocal in speaking out against Justices who interpret law according to our Constitution.

Our Supreme Court only has the power to interpret our Constitution as it is legislated. They cannot and would not be capable of declaring legislated changes to that document as un-Constitutional.

Can we trust the unchecked powers of an Obama, Pelosi, Reid triad?

This is the single most important vote of your entire lives. Possibly the most single important vote since this country was founded.

Every vote you cast for every candidate, from President, to Senate, to House of Representatives, To Governor, State Legislature, and even justices is more important than ever. How you vote next week will effect the future lives of every American for generations to come.

Don’t screw it up. Vote wisely.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

on a thread locally a moron was saying it was impossible to change the constitution and that obama would never be able to do it when i suggested it could happen. i remembered from civics class that it could be done but i couldn’t remember how. thank you rocky. obama and his buddies could really screw this country up. god i hope he is’t elected.

It is amazing that you bring this up Rocky. I read about that in a Canadian magazine or newspapers a while ago. This is the whole plan of Ayers, Resko, Farakkan, Wrights and Obama. And Obamatrons don’t give a shit. This is why I say that someone who votes for Obama has to hate his country. Changing the Constitution has been planned years back with those U.S. Haters. And they are on the urge of succeeding. God bless America! Vote McCain/Palin.

@luva

Just to clear things up a little. Even if the Dems do get the super majority they still can NOT “change” the Constitution. All they can do is call the convention to amend the Constitution. These amendments can make changes to our society like the 18th amendment and then repeal that amendment like the 21st amendment. To make these changes 2/3 of the houses must approve the amendment to be ratified, and 3/4 of the states must ratify for it to become permanent.

@SimplyLurking: thank you, but i do hope you know what i meant. but this idiot was sure you couldn’t do anything, and i was pretty sure you could. what a mess if obama is elected, i know he will run into some opposition from his own party even if he is elected, but i still fear him. not a real good feeling. i remember when i was little i had a friend whoes parents were democrats and i had no idea wha tthat meant at the time, but her parents said that if raegan was elected he would kill all the kids. not sure what that was about, but i remember being scared as a little kid.

Fear is the mind killer and you obviously didn’t have much going on upstairs to start with. Remember that all politicans will be starting their re-election campaigns on Nov. 5th. No one’s going to be pushing a radical socialist overhaul of the United States. This is what happens when you start believing your own BS.

A couple of points.

What needs to be looked at by many is just where the power levers are at the moment in the Dem party.

Part of what we see unfolding in front of us is an under the radar civil war in the Dem party for who will control it.

The power right now lies mostly with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The is the most far left faction of the party that is driving the agenda even over the less than full support of the classic Dems who are the opposition in this internal struggle for control of the party.

The CPC is only 73 members of the house and the founding member Sen Sanders from the other side of congress.

If you look at the projected down ticket races and the slate that the nutroots are pushing , even with Dems taking seats for gain in the House, there will only be a few of those who will be added to the CPC. The vast majority are more in the mold of classic Dems and the ‘Blue Dog Coalition or Caucus’.

Part of the issue is the CPC is composed of many House members with seniority and they are the chairman of 11 of the standing committees of the House.

Because of their seniority they are also able to control which Dems get floor time for many of the debates on legislation as it passes through the House.

Our best alternative is to each election concentrate on a few of the weakest positioned members of the CPC and demand the Republicans recruit and support quality candidates to run against the targeted group from the CPC.

Sure there are old guard types from the deepest blue states we likely will never be able to unseat , but if we can chip away at their number each two years when the entire House stands for election, even if we have to grit our teeth and support a more classic dem in the process we can eventually cut their numbers down so that they are not such a unified voting block with power beyond their numbers.

As much as they wish to talk of veto proof majorities I believe that gains they are going to make in the House look to be 80% or more classic Dems and not CPC hard core left types and they may be open to reaching across the aisle to fight the CPC on many issues.

Luva,

do you really believe that the democrats will screw this country up?? take a look at what has happened with Bush and six with six years of a republican congress..
They screwed this country up.. it will take years for the democrats to fix the mess!!!

JustADude makes some good points I can only hope the voting public takes in to consideration, but, seeing how far over the edge the Obamabots have gone and judging from some of the comments we see on a regular basis, careful thought is not in play.

Democrats that are in control of both Houses are about to embark on social spending like we’ve never seen as well as cutting one fourth of our defense budget in time of war. Thinking that Obama is going to stick to his proposals and not allow the Dem Congress their long awaited power binge would be foolish. Wait till they start the hard ball with the young man child, they know what he is, ain’t no amount of talking that’s going to reign in the fanatics that would be in control.

What will take place in a Dem trifecta will finally put President Bush on the list of Best Presidents, just watch.

I Am a Constitution Voter

I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
I oppose warrantless spying.
I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
I believe that the Constitution protects every person’s rights equally — no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

sign the pledge…

http://www.aclu.org/transition/

SimplyLurking;
Yes they can change the Constitution, through the amendments. Here’s a more detailed take on how it can happen.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Could our Constitution be wholely thrown out and replaced by another? Yes, there is precedence. It was done once before with our country’s previous Constitution; the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced with the one we know now. Many were outraged over this change and the new powers it gave our government. The Bill of Rights was drawn up to answer opponent concerns that the new Constitution might ignore the rights of people and replace a monarchial dictatorship with mindless bureaucracy which might wrest power away from the people and states. Hence the checks and balances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Fit Fit;
You are the one who is delusional if you think a 2/3 Democratic Congress would not radically change our Constitution. That or you’re blowing smoke up our fannies and secretly want them to. Through amendments, Congress can redefine and place limitations on our rights. It’s been done before and it can be done again. The 16th amendment transformed the taxation powers of Congress. The amendment process was attempted to change our Bill of Rights and failed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

You will note on the later link, the 106th 2005-2006 Congress wanted change Article 1 as follows; To allow non-natural born citizens to become President if they have been a citizen for 20 years (I can only imagine who this was intended for, cough*-Obama-cough*). Will the old-timers in Congress block the CPCers? Let’s look at what’s been proposed in the past:

– 108th Congress (2003-2004); To place Presidential nominees immediately into position, providing the Senate with 120 days to reject the nominee before the appointment is automatically permanent.
– 107th Congress (2001-2002); To specify that progressive income taxes must be used & To allow for any person who has been a citizen of the United States for twenty years or more to be eligible for the Presidency.
– 106th Congress (1999-2000); To provide a new method for proposing amendments to the Constitution, where two-thirds of all state legislatures could start the process.
– 105th Congress (1997-1998); To define the legal effect of international treaties (like L.O.S.T. and other U.N. treaties.
– 104th Congress (1995-1996); To repeal the 16th Amendment and specifically prohibit an income tax & To permit the States to set term limits for their Representatives and Senators
– 103rd Congress (1993-1994); To define a process to allow amendments to the Constitution be proposed by a popular (“grass-roots”) effort, To provide for the recall of Representatives and Senators, To remove automatic citizenship of children born in the U.S. to non-resident parents & To enable or repeal laws by popular vote
– 102nd Congress (1991-1992); To repeal the 22nd Amendment (removing Presidential term limits), To repeal the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms), & To repeal the 26th Amendment (granting the vote to 18-year olds) and granting the right to vote to 16-year olds.

It is this very notion that Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists have been warning about for years; The steady decline and erosion of our rights and priviledges. How about if your freedom of speech was abridged to make it illegal for the people to be critical of politicians. Or the repeal of the 2nd amendment and a round-up of all legal firearms.

It doesn’t matter who is in the Executive Branch at the time, the president has no say or veto power. It doesn’t matter how much the people scream about it. Just see what that got them in the $700+ Billion dollar bailout? The people were calling their Congressmen demanding they vote against it in numbers up to 1000-to-1. And as I stated, there is legally nothing the Supreme Court could do to overturn changes to our Constitution. The only check and balance on Constitutional change is with the states.

– Liberals view our Constitution as a living breathing document that can and should be revised with changing times.
– Conservatives view it as doctrinal dogma where changes are an extremely serious matter and should be approached carefully and with extremely clear intentions.
– Libertarians and Constitutionalists believe in strict adherance to our original unedited Constitution and see any tampering as an attack on our rights.

Only in the case of legislative changes to alter the meanings and definitions of the words in our Constitution are such changes subject to Judicial Branch review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution.

I can only imagine who this was intended for, cough*-Obama-cough*

You really are paranoid. You don’t think that was for a certain popular California Governor?

>>take a look at what has happened with Bush and six with six years of a republican congress..>>

Actually, Bush and six years of a republican congress did pretty well.

It has been the last two years of a democrat congress when the whole thing fell apart.

People wanted _CHANGE_! and in 2006, voted _CHANGE_! into the Congress.

Do you like what you got? If so, by all means, vote Democrat.

The test Biden was talking about will probably come from Congress. Obama’s fellow Dems must be licking their chops. Also wouldn’t it be ironic if we had to re-fight the Revolution to reinstate the original Constitution? I think the warning by the poster here is well-taken. The truth is, the Constitution and our real American way of life has been under attack for years. The opposition has been plunking away, gradually, at every chink in its armor (activist judges being the most potent threat). So at some stage soon, there probably will be a tipping point. This type of thing never looks plausible — until it happens and you look back on it.

There are no polls that show the dems will get sixty two or more Senators, to come close to the number needed to support Constitutional Changes (even with a couple of RINOS). And if Dems don’t play their cards right, they may flip Joe Lieberman to caucus with the Republicans and who just out of pique at his treatment by the Dems, might vote against any such amendments sponsored by the dems. While the dems could get a filibuster proof Senate, that doesn’t equal a VETO proof senate (67 dem votes).

Oh yes the whole problem started when the Democrats got elected in 2006. What about the mess Cheney and Bush put together. GEE, lets see… Not one veto in Bush’s first 6 years. I think that pretty much means a blank check from his Republican controled congress. The blunders in Iraq and Afganistan. The NO bid contracts that were handed out with no controls. Haliburton has totally ripped off our country. Hmmm, wasn’t Cheney their CEO before being Vice President? There was alittle mess called Katrina. Talk about blunders. I never thought we would see a day with Americans laying dead in our own streets. The energy costs that got and are out of control. Many years ago, this happened and the President put a freeze on all prices. Bush said he couldnt’ do anything. Not true, he could have. It is easy for Republicans to tell you what you want to hear and then do what they want. They look out for their rich friends and lobbys. They like to scare people in thinking that the Democrats will lead us the wrong way. It isn’t the party. It is the person that leads us. We need someone that truly cares about our country and wants to give us something to believe in. We need to become Americans again and less Republicans and Democrats. It should be what is best for the country and not the party.

Amidst that potpourri of BS in your post above, Gary, you have a few sane sentences…

It is the person that leads us. We need someone that truly cares about our country and wants to give us something to believe in. We need to become Americans again and less Republicans and Democrats. It should be what is best for the country and not the party.

Which, of course, makes me wonder why you’d want to vote for Obama.

But then spare me your parroting of Obama talking points. I don’t really “wonder” that much. I can already tell by that pile of manure ahead of those sentences that you are clueless to the specifics and rarity of Haliburton’s services (ie perhaps Home Depot should have put in a bid too, eh?), that Bush is somehow responsible for FEMA being a screwed up govt agency for years (and now you want to give more power to the govt under Obama…), and that you haven’t a clue how many American’s die daily for sundry reasons.

That’s the short and sweet version…

Thanks for the link Missy;
I see we’re not the only people who have realized the Dems have cards tucked up in their sleeves. It would be nice if Fox would do a story on this before the election.

Gary;
I agree with you that Bush was absolutely ineffect with the line item veto pen. Aside from the “War on Terror”, IMHO he has been pretty much a lame duck president much of his eight years. He allowed the Dem & Media insults to get under his skin and cowtowed to their “populous” politics to try to salvage his popularity and legacy. It was a lost cause, as it had little effect. Even when Bush went along with Dems, they cut him no slack. Yet we still would have been a lot worst off under a Gore or Kerry “poll driven” administration. Nevertheless, I am happier to be able to display a Bush signature on my retirement discharge papers than one of those losers.

I absolutely disagree with your opinion that Iraq and Afganistan were blunders. That is one thing Bush did right. Going into Iraq, Democrats in Congress and our NATO allies were fully aware Iraq had WMDs. They received the same intelligence as to what America had supplied Iraq with during the Iran/Iraq war to defend themselves. And the same people saw the intelligence reports of Saddam persuing ties with Al Qaeda. As much as you would like it to be, it wasn’t hoax initiated by Tony Blair and Bush. Clinton had this information as well. That’s why he and Hillary did NOT question Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq and helped push Congress to fund it. The Iraq war only became unpopular AFTER the Dems started getting pressure from their anti-war base. The Media also did it’s part to transform Iraq from a national security issue into, “Bush’s Folly”. Yes there were WMDs. Some WERE recovered and destroyed by our military. Congress received the daily military briefings, then conveniently ignored what WAS found and pointed only to those WMDs that were still unaccounted for; primarily mobile missiles. It was disingenuous for them to claim those items must therefore have never existed. Our military also knows they existed and had lists of what they were to look for. They found some easily (the chemical labs). Some were found buried in the sand (I saw photos before I retired), some components (missile warheads and triggering devices) were used against our military as IEDs in road-side bombs by insurgents. Where did the rest of the WMDs go? Probably Syria. Saddam had learned his lessons from Desert Storm and did not send weapons systems to Iran like he did his aircraft, during Desert Storm. Iran accepted his aircraft and shot the Iraqi pilots after they got out. I also have a problem with the number of military deaths in Iraq the media just loves using as a propadanda tool. Why don’t they compare those number of deaths to our losses in one day on the beaches of Normandy or at Pearl Harbor during WWII. I’ld say we’ve done damned good.

As you point out, Bush got a lot of grief over Katrina. Mostly undeserved. What you may not know…:

FEMA can prepare to act in anticipation of a disaster, but cannot go in to aid in a disaster until THE STATE effected declares a disaster and requests aid. The director of FEMA called the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of the state, both Democrats, numerous times asking if they wanted to declare a disaster so they could help. The response was, “No, we’ll manage.” Part of our military’s job is domestic disaster preparedness and response. I worked logistics for several of my years in the military and called friends on base long before the levees broke to ask if they were preparing to send help. They confirmed they were and only awaiting clearance orders to proceed down. Like FEMA, our military cannot just move forces into a state until requested. It has to do with state sovereignty. Once requested, aid doesn’t magically appear. It takes time to plan, gather, load, and deploy personnel and supplies (absolute minimum 12 hours, but often 24-48), and travel time to get to the destination. Sometimes they have to travel from several states away (my Wing departed from Virginia). The evacuation was a mess, the Mayor was negligent in providing transportation, sent people to a sports arena built on below sea-level land, and the arena was not prepared and stocked with needed supplies. Then while the Governor was schmousing it up at a dinner party, the levees failed. Only then did the mayor call to request aid and within 24 hours was calling FEMA back demanding to know why they weren’t there yet. Aid was already enroute or arriving by that time. Admittedly, there were a few semi tractor-trailers of ice that headed in the wrong direction during the confusion and rush. Being retired, I followed the news reports and recall the phone conversations with news correspondants with the mayor. It went from (paraphrasing), “It’s okay, we have a handle on it, the levees are holding and the great city of New Orleans is just fine”, to “OMG where are those FEMA F^ckers” in no time flat. Then when our Army Corps of Engineers arrived, the mayor wanted to tell them how to do their job and started criticizing them. I know people love to rewrite history, but facts are facts. Since then, the rules of engagement has changed for FEMA, processes have been stream-lined, and they no longer have to wait for local politicians to “pull their heads out” to start the ball rolling. Net results? Bush and FEMA were painted as the “bad guys” and an incompetent mayor was re-elected. Go figure. Had you been a fly on the wall at my house, you would have been in a continuous state of shock by the obsenities I was yelling at the smarmy news coverage over the two weeks that followed.

Energy? Where were the Dems on energy costs when Republicans were sponsoring bills for off-shore drill rigs and nuclear plant construction proposals for the last 25 years? MIA in the far-left environmentalist lobbiest pockets blocking every one that came across the aisle, that’s where. California and Florida were so worried that it might hurt their tourist industries if someone spotted an oil rig off in the horizon. Others were concerned over another Chernoble accident.

However, I think your post was intended to take us off topic, eh? Typical Democrat bait and switch, when something comes out you can’t deny. What’s the matter? Oh that’s right; No talking points have been issued by the Obama campaign yet to counter a suggestion they desire to change our Constitution? THAT is the topic of this post. Seuk answered your post before you even posted. This thread is not about Bush, not taxes, and not voter fraud. So let’s get back on topic. The previously posted audio file made Barry’s position very clear. He doesn’t like how our Constitution is worded, he wants it changed, and that is exactly what “Change” means in his platform. I took an oath to protect our Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic. Though retired, I am still a member of the military as an inactive reservist. Therefore, my commitment to that oath still stands. This thread is an intention to honor that pledge. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid took the same oath. Yet I doubt they take that oath seriously.