Thursday April 24, 2014
Jump to content
Well, folks, I hope you’re right. I surely do. Although I read the King's English (Used by all educated colonists, thus those who wrote the Constitution) fairly well. The "or" is simply contrasting the two methods. The sentence starts out saying what congress can do, one the one hand, then the "or", then the contrasting method of what they can do:
"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"
In that second option, the comma after the word states, shows the words between the "or" and "shall" are a conditional phrase. The word "shall' without the insertion of 'the congress' or 'the states' indicates that the congress, and not the states in this complicated sentence will be the one to do the calling.
Now, I don't expect you to accept that, since you've both expressed how you see it. But, if I can see it worded differently than you, don't you think that slick politicians, bent on their own purposes of keeping the money coming into their own pockets, can do the same? Thus, leaving the interpretation to the courts, when the congress refuses? And, I suggest that the courts will come down on the side of the government, just as it did for Obamacare, regardless of the will of the people; and certainly regardless of the will of the states.
Worse yet, they can drag it out, in court, to the point that it would be moot; and by then we will already have been dominated beyond our ability to recover.
I, for one, am prepared stand in the streets, or on the rim, or make a last stand up near Apache Butte. But, I pray this convention of states will pull the fat out of the fire.
Best regards, and thanks for you different insights.
Well, reading what you supplied here, I see the statement I'd referred to, wherein it says:
" 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"
It says, (Dropping out those parts not relative to this particular question.) “The Congress…shall propose…or on the application of the legislatures…of the several states…shall call a convention…”
Thus, that means that it is congress that calls the convention, not the states themselves. The states must apply for congress to call that convention. They can merely apply for it. They (themselves) cannot legally convene without the congress calling the convention. Now, maybe I’m reading that incorrectly, and surely hope I am; but I don’t think so.
If I read it correctly, it would be a slight effort on the part of congress to refuse the states the right to convene; and if the states did so without that consent, it would be a small step to consider such move a treasonous act, would it not? And, I suspect our ‘friend of the people’, President Hussein … would be delighted to arrest those subverters, who attempt what could be classified as ‘insurrection’ wouldn’t you think?
Now, I’m all for the convention, and think it the last great chance we have to recreate the great nation (That has so recently passed away), without blood and carnage. I simply think the convention may never take place because of this technicality in the law; leaving either servitude or death in a gutter somewhere as the last breath of freedom.
Since I don't live in the area anymore, I'm posting as an outsider. So, pardon the intrusion, and possible ignorance. :-)
But, if I'm not mistaken, the congress has to call the proposed convention.
What happens if they don't, or won't call it?
Is it legal if our states just do it on their own? Would our dictator accept it, if it isn't officially called by the congress? And, if he doesn't, what then?
I want to talk to the state folks here in Texas and get their take on this, as well. If I find out anything, I'll be glad to let you know.
What an inspiration!
Sounds like his has polite bulls to not jump the fence. (:-)) They are naturally more cautious than the cows, and besides, why enter into a confined space if those very nice people will bring the food to them? (:-))
I live in the country near Waco. Draw a triangle between McGregor (West of Waco), Hewitt (South of Waco) and Lorena (Further South of Waco). I live in the center of that triangle, deep in the heart of Texas.
That's about half way between Wichita Falls and Port Arthur, then a bit west. (:-))
Yeah, I was house hunting in Pine awhile back and run across about 4 or 5 cows in a back yard. You see that in Estes too, but quite often you will also see 50 or 60 standing in the park downtown. And, I have this magnificent picture off the internet showing over a hundred on the Estes school ball field, which is a natural grazing area for them.
As for buffs, I remember barreling along a lonely twisting road in the Black Hills late one evening, and a large bull was standing in the middle of the road as I careened through a hairpin turn. I was in a small Volvo, and wound up looking up at the bull's face literally over my hood, when I stopped. He wasn't too impressed with me, and if I hadn't grabbed reverse, doing a high speed turnaround, there would have been squashed Volvo all over the road.
Imagine meeting a 2,000 lb. bull and some buff cows crossing the road in those tight turns above Strawberry, or between Pine and Payson. (And, that at night.) Could you stop before you trashed your car and maybe killed yourself? It's bad enough to hit a deer or an elk, but you'd lose big time if you hit a buffalo.
Duty calls, gotta go. Hope to talk again in the future.
Greetings from the great state of Texas. (:-))
Finally came up for enough air to at least say that.
I don't feel right in posting much, since I am not living there at present, but at least I can let friends know they are thought of.
God Bless and carry on. It's great to grab a peek at the rim country through your eyes once in awhile. I miss it so.
BTW, it wouldn't be hard to visualize cattle and buffs grazing together, but as supply increases, so do predators, and the cattle make easier pickings. So, I can't see cattlemen being happy about that. And the ladies would not appreciate them trampling their flower gardens. (:-)) Have you seen the elk herds in Estes Park? Hundreds, all over town.
Hi, Tom. Sorry to not be responding as I should.
I'm out of state right now, and holding down two jobs. Life is short, and burning the candle at both ends isn't conducive to good correspondence. (:-))
And, it seems wrong to continue to post here, as long as I'm out of state. No real reason for that, but that is how it strikes me.
As soon as this glut of work subsides, and I can get back, I'll sure pick it up.
Until then, amigo, Via Con Dios!
Frankly, I think you are exactly right in that last post. And, I don't have the time. I signed on today to tell someone in a roundup blog that I was having to bow out for awhile due to time constraints. I'm out of state right now, and holding down two jobs for some indefinite time.
So, first, I'm short of time, and second, if I'm not in the vicinity, why should I continue to post here? When I get back, that will be a different thing. (:-))
God bless and hope to be back soon.
"What "red tape?"" Look at it this way, I sell guns to friends and so forth from time to time. Not enough to be considered a dealer. I also buy guns. I've given some away, and have been given several.
Pass your law. I will not pay any attention to it. I will continue to buy, trade, sell and give away as I see fit. I will not run down to the post office to get the latest form, nor will I seek it on the internet. I will not file any document tracking those actions. It is the epitome of stupidity to think people will do such a thing for what otherwise takes 5 minutes to transact. The goal behind this push is to stop individual trafficking in guns. Not only me, but almost anyone with a lick of common sense will ignore it.
All you do is push more guns into the criminal hands to use against those who don’t have them. The free market now soon become a black market. And, that market will become much more susceptible to criminal control. If I can’t sell my gun that I want to sell to my next door neighbor (Because he says it’s too much trouble) guess who I’ll sell it to. I’ll sell it to ol’ Jim down the street, because everyone knows he traffics in guns without the red tape.
When you say “come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier?” You purposely misconstrued what I said. Which was “How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape?”
Re-read what I’ve said above. I won’t go to the trouble to get a form. They may not go to the trouble to get the gun. The odds are that out of those people who say the paperwork is too much (As many do now) some may be victims without the gun they would otherwise buy. And, that is part of the intent on the restriction. Make it too hard for the average person to want to own a gun. The result is less guns. That is the ultimate goal of the liberal agenda. This is step 21 in a 100 step process to become a gunless society.
And, your rationale about the buyer maybe going around on a rampage is rather foolish. The stats are highly against that, and you want all citizens burdened on this highly misguided idea that a piece of paper will stop the insane from their goal of mayhem. That isn’t only illogical, but borders on the irrational.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but the death rate there is horrific. Children shot down in the streets, store owners murdered for $25.00 or less and the average citizen lives in abject fear. And, you want to see us take one step closer to that? If the restriction is successful, in 6 months it will be another step. ‘Oh, it’s just another document. What’s another week? Why do you need that type gun, anyway? And on, and on.
This push is not just despicable, but is an affront to honest people presumed dishonest because you are looking for the needle in the haystack.
He calls their influence "undue". That means that those groups take unfair advantage, does it not?
On the one hand, you defend this man's attempt to reduce the "undue Influence", and in the next breath say "each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations" wherein you acknowledge the rightful position that such organizations play.
When he says " we, the electorate, can neutralize the undue influence exerted by the organizations mentioned above" he isn't saying just a few of them. (If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)
And, yes, we should all do our homework. We should also be ready to defend our First Amendment rights, whenever well intentioned folk, (Like Mr. Meszar) make statements that sound great, until you see the damage that type of thinking can have on the First Amendment rights we hold so dear.
Last login: yesterday