Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution Freedom alert! Rick Perry wants to alter the balance of power in the Federal Government in the USA by reducing the power of the Judicial branch of government, take away voters' right to elect their representatives, iconify his absolutist extremist policies into the Constitution, and in a perverted, illogical, stupidity of an idea Perry wants to pass a balanced-budget amendment while, at the same time, take away the federal government's ability to collect tax. Now guess what? This is what I, a leftist, see: The so called reformed Republicans who want to "return to their root, conservative values" really mean to say: They want to continue what Bush started: the loss of rights, grab for dictator-like power, and continue the destruction of America.
oh God...... If there is even much of a America left to destroy by 2012 And you are the second one to post those same 7 reasons from a kook Yahoo blog.
So how are you able to see it so clearly with Perry........ ......and yet unable to see Obama--The Biggest Destroyer of the Constitution in US History? .....or the Democrat Party and their hate affair with the Constitution in general? . . . .
The Democrat Party has been shatting all over the Constitution for the better part of the last 100 years......... .......where was your concern then? . . . .
3, 4, and 5 are good. 6 and 7 would centralize more power on the federal government; this from a guy who kept yammering about how the federal government was too powerful? 1 and 2 would weaken the checks and balances within the federal government. I think anything Perry says or does is pure grandstanding.
I'm not a Perry fan and don't support the social conservative agenda, but there's nothing unconstitutional about amendments. That's how changes are supposed to be made.
LMAO You realize that Constitutional Amendments require 35 States to ratify the thing right? I would argue, that if a Constitutional Amendment allowing a "Republican Power Grab" managed to score 3/4ths of the State legislatures to ratify, then I would call that the People speaking their mind in support of it. Democratic politics can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) huh?
Because I was not alive 100 years ago? But, seriously, you are thinking of one or more specific examples, yes?
Yes, however, it wouldn't be the people who vote for it. It depends on the party who fills the states' equivalent of the House of Representatives. If voters stack the house with Republicans it's basically a done deal. Because then it goes to the States' senate, and even in the supposed liberal land state of New York, The state senate is by no means Democrat land and, currently, is majority Republican.
I think that honor would belong to Ole Honest Abe, our original 'Big Brother'. He turned the Constitution on its head in his zeal to consolidate power within the Federal government. He took the creation of the Founders (the Union) and made it supreme over the creators (the states). We have not yet recovered the liberties lost due to his machinations. He also has to his credit the blood of over 500,000 Americans on his hands. Not to mention the 1,000's of civilian deaths due to the war crimes of his Generals. He accomplished this by provoking an illegal war on sovereign states. To maintain control over the people in the North, he resorted to suspending the writ of habeas corpus, had civilians tried by military tribunals, arrested newspaper editors, a former governor, police chiefs, mayors etc.. Here's how his provoking the war was viewed in the North.... "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861 "We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861 "If this result follows and follow civil war it must the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter. "The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861. "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861. .....and, in his own words, an admission of provoking the war. "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." ~ Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, in a letter dated May 1 1865. ..And here's one that takes the cake. Francis Howard Key, the grandson of Francis Scott Key and editor of The Baltimore Exchange, was arrested for writing against Lincoln and was held at Fort McHenry.. Surely the irony wasn't lost on Lincoln himself. Key wrote the following on Sept.13, 1861. "When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed." When he was finally released on November 27, 1862 he wrote: "We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort." From......"Fourteen Months In the American Bastiles" by Francis Key Howard It's not rocket science to fast forward and look today at how our country is being run. The parallels between the 1860's and today are obvious. The Federal Govt has gone beyond being supreme in a republic to micro-managing our lives as a Socialist country would. And, let's not forget about the Patriot Act and even more of our remaining liberties lost with that. Also, the White House, beginning well before Obama, has legislated through the use of Executive Orders. This is why we MUST elect leaders who respect the Constitution, understand it and will bring us back to the republic that were created to be. Someone has to get in there and undo the many wrongs that are destroying our country from within. Anything less is the illusion of liberty....the illusion of freedom.
Amendments are voted on by the people. The current King's abuse of power, and in fact the liberals in general, avoid Constitutional amendments like the plague. They know people wouldn't have voted for abortion at will so they use a political Supreme Court decision. Why haven't we seen an amendment to cancel the 2nd Amendment? Why haven't we seen an Amendment eliminating the free speech provision in the 1st Amendment in favor of dictates from the King? Because, they wouldn't have gotten what they wanted with Amendments.
Adding an amendment to the Constitution is like playing with Pandora's box. Once you open it up all the evil inside escapes into the world. Haven't we learned anything from Califonia's Prop-8 and similar anti-gay amendment votes to states' constitution? People vote for the moment, not for future generations, not for freedom. After the so-called enlightened USA, one of the countries who helped Japan transition from imperialism through constitutional freedom and to later become a passive techno-geek nation, was the same USA who wrote the Iraq and Afghanistan Sharia constitutions, and in today's polarized environment, I wouldn't be surprised if the creation of a Christian Theocracy amendment would pass with a large majority of US voters, after-all today in the USA people are brain-drained and radicalized.
Democrats wouldn't alter the 1st Amendment. Are you kidding? Also,Democrats won't alter the 2nd Amendment because we know what it really means. In case of emergency, such as WW3, the Goverment can send its citizens into conscription. The draft would become unconstitutional otherwise. Although I doubt the Democrats are looking to start WW3 and restart the draft, we Democrats also know there is a real possibility that another world war will be fought. Especially if Republicans keep on antagonizing Russia with missile shields. After all, human rights are on the decline throughout the world. It is out of living memory in the Western nations: the atrocities committed and suffered endured during the first 2 WWs that sent us on the path to human rights, Geneva convention, the UN. Now diplomacy is considered the week path, by Republicans, who view any kindness as ushering in their biblical doomsday one-world-government.
Pot calling the kettle black. Proposing changes by way of Constituional amendments is a legitimate way to grab power. Contrast that with the Obama administration that allows the government bureaucracy to write and enforce regulations without the use of Congress, and that allows the military to attack sovereign nations without asking Congress about it, or that gives exemptions to regulations based on whims, rather than law. That is a power grab. All the changes Perry wants to make are by changing the Constitution. If he can do that, then, that is what the people want. Constitutional amendments are not easy to achieve. If he can achieve them, he's got consensus not only in Washington but in the 50 states. It takes 2/3 majority of Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. I agree with him 100% on the 17th amendment. The Senators were initially supposed to represent the states, not the people. That is why every state has the same number of Senators. It is part of the balance of powers.
OK, not a Perry fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I can see that the Dem propaganda machine is in full force.
