Barack obama and his allies are trying to change the constitution:
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Barack obama and his allies are trying to change the constitution:

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Barack obama and his allies are trying to change the constitution:

    Not good!



    BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
    TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
    HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!


    Dear Friend,

    Barack Obama and his allies are trying to change the U.S. Constitution WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- in fact, they're trying to rewrite the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- and they're close to succeesing!

    What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?

    What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)

    "That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...

    Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?

    IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!

    One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

    That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

    BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.

    In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!

    WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
    AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
    CLICK HERE NOW!
    Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!

    The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.

    We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.

    We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!

    And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?

    Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?

    WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
    AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
    CLICK HERE NOW!
    The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!

    Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda."

    The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."

    This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!

    Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.

    Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.

    Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!

    Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!

    You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!

    You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!

    Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

    It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!

    Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!

    WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
    AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
    CLICK HERE NOW!
    The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

    We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

    THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

    There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!

    WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

    There's very little time to ramp this project up to FULL SPEED -- we need to raise at least $100,000 to prepare and distribute legal opinions, lobby state legislators and begin our grassroots activism campaign this coming month. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to make your best possible donation, and let's STOP Obama, Pelosi and Reid from ripping our Constitution to shreds, and re-writing it to their own socialist goals!

    Sincerely,

    Gary Kreep, Executive Director
    United States Justice Foundation

    P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

    In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

    Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.

    That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms. Please, CLICK HERE NOW to help us STOP them. Thank you!

    WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
    AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
    CLICK HERE NOW!

    To donate by check, make payable to:
    United States Justice Foundation
    932 D Street Suite 1
    Ramona, CA 92065
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    Just a few years ago the right-wing was jumping up and down screaming for a Constitutional convention. Warnings that such a gathering could get out of control went unheeded. Now that the left is interested it's suddenly a bad idea.


    I think the Republicans and Democrats both need a trip to the woodshed.
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  4. #3
    I agree. No matter if you think what you are trying to change is a good idea or not once this happens it opens up a Pandora's Box of things that can happen and with what is apparently a majority of Marxists in office what comes out of the box can't be good.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    I think that most Red Blooded Americans would stand in defiance if that were the case. I was reading an article in an old Newsweek magazine that was in the break room at the office that was an indication of the climate of the USA with regard to the 2nd amendment. Here it is for a good read. Meacham: Guns, Liquor and the Age of Obama | Newsweek Nation | Newsweek.com.
    More folks are looking to keep and exercise their rights it seems, as we feel that they may be threatened. Hum. We all saw it coming. Obama and his cronies are turning this country into a give-away-free-for-all. Auto makers, illegal aliens, folks with old cars, Line up and “come and get it”… “That’s OK more money where that came from”, “Right tax payers”? The country will be so much better when all the guns are gone and we all have to keep our mouths shut… I hope I’m long dead before that ever comes to pass…If not I’ll keep one gun and one bullet…
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  6. Couple of points. First of all, if you go to the website of this organization you'll find there is not one word about opposition to an Article V Convention. The email is a phoney and scam. If you click on the links you'll find it leads not to more information but a "donation" page where you can give as much money to the "cause" as you want and care to have scammed from you.

    The information is also a scam. It is long been proven out of date and inaccurate. In the first place, Congress has the same power as a convention so if the politicians named above wanted to do what is said, all they would have to do is do it themselves; they don't require a convention. Second, they are on public record as opposing a convention. Third, all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention, far more than the 34 applications/34 states required. You can read the texts of the applications at Welcome to Friends Of the Article V Convention.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Walker View Post
    Couple of points. First of all, if you go to the website of this organization you'll find there is not one word about opposition to an Article V Convention. The email is a phoney and scam. If you click on the links you'll find it leads not to more information but a "donation" page where you can give as much money to the "cause" as you want and care to have scammed from you.

    The information is also a scam. It is long been proven out of date and inaccurate. In the first place, Congress has the same power as a convention so if the politicians named above wanted to do what is said, all they would have to do is do it themselves; they don't require a convention. Second, they are on public record as opposing a convention. Third, all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention, far more than the 34 applications/34 states required. You can read the texts of the applications at Welcome to Friends Of the Article V Convention.
    I clicked on it and noticed there is a pace to donate to this scam. You stick with your scam and I will stick with what you think is a scam. I am not a friend of article V thank you very much.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #7

    Don't get too concerned just yet.

    I'm not a fan of fear tactics or "the sky is falling" attitude. Before we get too bent out of shape, please realize that even if a Con Con is requested by 34 states, any amendments that are approved by Congress still need approval by 75% of the states. This is not an easy task. If you don't believe me look at this from the Constitutional Rights Foundation.

    The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.


    A link to this information can be found by clicking below.

    Constitutional Rights Foundation

    Steve

  9. To HK4U-- It's your money. FOAVC checked the URL on this site and it does not match the donation page URL of the gentlemen whose name appears at the bottom of the page. It's very close but not the same. Also we contacted USJF and they know nothing about this email or any opposition by their organization to an Article V Convention. Indeed, the person I spoke to stated that if USJF was to take a position, it would most likely be in favor of an Article V Convention.

    As to not "being a friend" of Article V, that means that you oppose obeying the Constitution, in short scrap it. Either the Constitution is obeyed or it is not. The states have applied. The Constitution mandates a convention be called. You oppose doing that meaning you support establishing the government can veto the Constitution. If so, how can you then support, and I assume you do given the site of this post, the Second Amendment? After all, you support vetoing the Constitution and once given, what is the difference between vetoing one part of the Constitution, Article V, or the 2nd Amendment? Absolutely none. A veto is a veto.

    As to the information about a convention, it is entirely correct. It is under the same ratification procedure as an amendment proposed by Congress meaning there is plenty of protection written in the Constitution to prevent rash acts. However, as the government has admitted as a matter of public policy, a convention must now be called, the issue should be how to resolve questions about holding a convention, not to find means to justify vetoing the Constitution so as to permit the government the power to veto it. And for the record, as the Welcome to Friends Of the Article V Convention site proves, the states have applied in sufficient number to more than satisfy the two-thirds requirement of Article V to wit: all 50 states, 750 applications well over the 34 states/34 applications required. This requirement in the Constitution is like any other, it must be viewed as such. To do otherwise invites more constitutional mischief than any convention could ever dream of doing.

  10. #9

    Angry

    It took a lot of research, but I figured out why they want to raise to taxes so much. It's the new Whitehouse toilet paper they need to have. It'll be printed up with the US Constitution on a loop all the way to the end!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast