Indiana calls for U.S. Constitutional Convention

[rambone]

David Long (R-Fort Wayne) leads the charge for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. As if the current slime in Washington D.C. produce improvements over the original constitution. Nothing good can come from this.

He's the same guy who wants to "decide what is constitutional" and opposes state nullification of Obamacare.


Ind. Senate calls for U.S. constitutional conventionhttp://www.indystar.com/article/201...nd-Senate-calls-U-S-constitutional-convention

 

[CarmelHP]

David Long (R-Fort Wayne) leads the charge for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. As if the current slime in Washington D.C. produce improvements over the original constitution. Nothing good can come from this.

He's the same guy who wants to "decide what is constitutional" and opposes state nullification of Obamacare.


Ind. Senate calls for U.S. constitutional convention

That's why he doing it. It's a Trojan Horse to give cover to RINOs and take out the pesky parts of the Constitution.

 

[jgreiner]

I like the idea of LIMITING the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't think you have much to worry about. No way 38 state legislatures will approve of the convention.

 

[CarmelHP]

I like the idea of LIMITING the interstate commerce clause.

Do you expect any Constitutional Convention to actually improve the Constitution? I sure don't. It's political cover to take out the parts that limit government power.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, this is - at best - a "be careful what you wish for" moment. Let's just say, by some miracle, a new constitutional convention is convened. ALL the states, not just the ones we like, would send representatives.

Do you really think California and New York will share "our" ideas on constitutional values?

 

[88GT]

I like the idea of LIMITING the interstate commerce clause.

That can be done without a convention. Of course, SCOTUS could throw us a bone, but can't count on that.

 

[khickey3492]

Do you expect any Constitutional Convention to actually improve the Constitution? I sure don't. It's political cover to take out the parts that limit government power.

A constitutional convention would be the worst idea in 223 years. There is NO WAY that the current group of "scholars" and "lawmakers" is superior to the Founding Fathers.

Do you think any recent president would step down voluntarily after 2 terms? Neither do I!

 

[cosermann]

There's a process for AMENDING the Constitution. It's been done many times.

So, why have a con con when we can simply AMEND the Constitution?

The whole con con thing makes me nervous. Opens the door up for anything. And, it simply smells fishy.

 

[Liberty1911]

There's a process for AMENDING the Constitution. It's been done many times.

So, why have a con con when we can simply AMEND the Constitution?

The whole con con thing makes me nervous. Opens the door up for anything. And, it simply smells fishy.

This is one of the ways to amend it as stated in the Constitution. We've only ever used the second way. It doesn't make this way any less legitimate.

 

[87iroc]

They'd be looking to do away with parts of the first 10 ammendments. They would be wolves circling for the kill.

 

[CarmelHP]

That this is proposed by Long, a notorious anti-gunner, makes it even less appealing.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you expect any Constitutional Convention to actually improve the Constitution? I sure don't. It's political cover to take out the parts that limit government power.

Yeah, this is - at best - a "be careful what you wish for" moment. Let's just say, by some miracle, a new constitutional convention is convened. ALL the states, not just the ones we like, would send representatives.

Do you really think California and New York will share "our" ideas on constitutional values?

A constitutional convention would be the worst idea in 223 years. There is NO WAY that the current group of "scholars" and "lawmakers" is superior to the Founding Fathers.

Do you think any recent president would step down voluntarily after 2 terms? Neither do I!

Guys, pretty much sums up my thoughts.

We've given up abiding by the original intent of the constitution already. A convention would be a waste of time and would produce a revised document that would likely be ignored by whomever would have the most votes.

 

[rambone]

Here is the Senate voting record, for those keeping score. This passed 32-18.

Indiana State Senate - SRJ 18

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Here is the Senate voting record, for those keeping score. This passed 32-18.

Indiana State Senate - SRJ 18

My guy (Steele) voted yea.

I guess as a protest kind of thing, I'm ok with it. Good thing is, a bunch of legislators wasted time, doing what they do, that won't cost me any more money.

 

[Expat]

How many states would send "dependable" small government delegates? I would be afraid of that answer.

 

[mrjarrell]

This is a door we don't need opened. You think things are bad now wait till they get their hands on the 2nd Amendment and finally do it in. I see my local "representative" voted Yea. Figures he would. He's as big a tool as Long is. Here's hoping no other states sign on for this travesty.

 

[BogWalker]

I could just see gun control being stuck right into the constitution. We'd be sunk then.

 

[rambone]

Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said he found it ironic that the Senate was genuflecting for states’ rights on the same day that it honored the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.

LOL...

 

[SSGSAD]

JMHO, but somebody, in Ft. Wayne, better start waking up the "rest of the sheep", and start voting for the "RIGHT" people .....