A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society." [bold added, link dropped]The message is, unfortunately, made to look ridiculous by its messenger, which warns not only of the legitimate threats to freedom of speech this could unleash, but also pretends that we do not (and should not) have separation of church and state. I would not want conservative theocrats holding such a convention any more than I would the socialists now in power.
Alan Sullivan, who notes that the left is suddenly talking about pushing for this in Ohio, comments that -- surprise! -- certain elements of the conservative movement helped push us to this brink some time ago: "[T]he Reagan-era drive to launch a new constitutional convention ... began with a revolt by disgruntled deficit hawks, who were horrified by Cold War deficits, and failed to get a balanced-budget amendment through Congress."
Let us hope that this does not occur, so that we can profit by this object lesson in substituting the point of a government gun for rational persuasion. The ultimate problem lies not with Congress, but with a public that is all too happy to accept trinkets in the form of welfare state programs from the government in exchange for little pieces of its freedom.
What were those fools thinking? That Congress would fail to find a way around their amendment if it was passed? Or that a nation that elected such a Congress in the first place would outdo the Founding Fathers as authors of a constitution?
-- CAV
Updates
12-16-08: Follow this link for a more detailed discussion of Constitutional Conventions.
Wow, a constitutional convention in this day and age. What a perfect way to completely obliterate everything the constitution stands for!
ReplyDelete"The message is, unfortunately, made to look ridiculous by its messenger"
ReplyDeleteThis pretty much applies to anything in WorldNetDaily. Unfortunately, their articles occasionally do have some good points buried under all of the conspiracy theories and pining for theocracy.
I think, over the years, that it has been my occasional encounter with articles like this that have not caused me to make the connection that, as Wikipedia puts it, "WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a socially conservative news and opinion website". That and, for whatever reason, I never went slumming there, as I so often do Townhall.com.
ReplyDeleteWell, now I know!
I think you and your readers would be interested to know that Peikoff commented on Alan Greenspan on his Dec 8 podcast. He also has a comment on Obama's "virtue of selfishness" comment. Very interesting podcast!
ReplyDelete" . . . but with a public that is all too happy to accept trinkets in the form of welfare state programs from the government in exchange for little pieces of its freedom."
ReplyDeleteI would change that to "giant chunks of its freedom." These days, we are worse than the "noble savages" who sold their lands for shiny beads.
I'm glad "z" mentioned that. I had just finished listening to it. He's right about Obama and it's something I've said about him as well. You gotta give him credit in an ironic sort of way, 'cause at least he's consistent.
ReplyDeletez,
ReplyDeleteThanks for mentioning the podcast.
Chuck,
I am quite inclined to agree with you. In fact, I recall an LTE about twenty years ago that equated slavery and having to abide by the limits of reality. It was titled "We are all slaves." People like that will either say, "What freedom?" or "What do I need freedom for?"
Those of us who know better will have to keep people like that from making us all learn first-hand.
Gus