Beware Article V part 2 of 4 An FOAVC Rebuttal Part 2 The Phony Burger Letter

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Beware
• Article
• V
• part
• 2
• of
• 4
• An
• FOAVC
• Rebuttal
• Part
• 2
• The
• Phony
• Burger
• Letter

[Foavccoordinator]

So now the great Mark Affleck well known constitutional scholar who tells us about the founders and what kind of republic they created, when confronted by one of them in a quote which refutes him, without any proof or referenced by the great Mark Affleck says that founder is balderdash. He ignores the fact Sherman does not say one of two methods but refers to Article 5 as a whole meaning both methods are so limited and tells us, again without reference, he knows better than a man who wrote it.

[fleck140]

Call me a cynic, but I do not believe you, your group, or any of the idiots in power today posess the necessary understanding, moral character, proper motive, or proper disposition to improve upon the document as it is written, nor do I believe a real need has yet arisen.

[Foavccoordinator]

Cynic? No. So let's see. The government has now acquired the power to veto the Constitution. The government is in complete runaway mode. Everyone says its being violated. States are discussing nullification laws, one state possible session from the union, we're going trillions in debt, and you say you see no need for change because no real need has yet arisen. Cynic? No. The image of a large bird with its head in the sand comes to mind actually.

[fleck140]

Do you even understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The founders did. They rejected the notion of Democracy and created a Republic. They chose the Roman model over the Greek model. This is precisely why a Convention is a bad idea. Want a budget vote? Convince congress to adopt an Amendment. They love to pass off their responsibilities to others.

[Foavccoordinator]

And as part of that republic they created two methods of amendment proposal. A convention is not an "idea". It is part of the Constitution. You demonstrate why the founders put it there in your own statement of "convince" Congress. If Congress doesn't want to propose amendment we still can propose an amendment. You cling to something you can not prove with documentation or even logic: that all of the Constitution should be obeyed, except the part you disagree with. See second reply please.

[Foavccoordinator]

"By the present Constitution, we, nor all the Legislatures in the Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is granted us by the 5th Article is, that whenever we shall think it necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution; not that we may propose to repeal the old, and substitute a new one." Roger Sherman, 1787 Constitutional Convention delegate.

I assume Mark that as a convention delegate from 1787 has directly answered your concerns this puts it to rest.

[fleck140]

That's balderdash. If you ammend any statement with the word "not" you negate it. What constitutes amend and what constitues replace? I contend you can amend the constitution to such a degree that you render it totally incapable of providing for the comon good. The common method of amendment is very difficult ans should be. The convention route makes it a whole lot easier to establish a whole host of changes. See next reply.

[Foavccoordinator]

Because in 2006 the court ruled under the political question doctrine Congress may refuse or veto the Constitution and not call a convention. That was based on an earlier 2000 decision. Where do you think all this about the gov't vetoing the Constitution got started? As to making them obey it, you take away their choice to do so by putting amendments where the people make the choice rather than Congress. Example: a vote on the budget, done by the people, not Congress. It can be done.

[fleck140]

Well, if the Supreme Court agrees with your position, why hasn't a convetion been called? And How is changing the constitution supposed to make congress obey it? I am obviously wasting my time with you. We disagree. You're never gonna see it my way, and I am never gonna see it your way.

[Foavccoordinator]

You try the old "same subject" argument. The Constitution requires a simple numeric count of applying states regardless of any amendment issue or issues the application contains. The purpose of the application is to cause Congress to call a convention, not to gain a "consensus" as to any amendment proposal. We don't twist. We quote the Supreme Court. Take it up with them and their four decisions to the effect I've stated if you have a problem with this point.