Article

2011-07-04 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2011-07-04 07:43|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 No, our Constitution begins with the words "We the Preferred Politician People" not "We the States."

As usual the man is full of himself. There was no plebiscite for ratification. If he continued to read the document it required ratification by states.

Article 7 - Ratification

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The document still requires that states ratify any Constitutional amendments, although that approach has been undermined by the judiciary which has decided simply to 'redefine' by interpretation what the printed words say thus usurping the states.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-07-04 09:02|| 2011-07-04 09:02|| Front Page Top

#2 E. J. Dionne is not just being foolish, he's desperate. He sees the writing on the wall in the 2012 election. Not just that Bambi could go down, but the Dhimmicrats could lose the Senate and more Dems could leave the House.

Why, imagine what a President Bachmann could do in such a situation.

Dionne has imagined precisely that, and he's scared silly.

Posted by Steve White 2011-07-04 09:39|| 2011-07-04 09:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't forget that the original Consitution had the State Legistatures electing the Senate and not direct representation. There was a very good reason it was setup that way - so the states can assert their rights.

When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights.

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-07-04 09:41|| 2011-07-04 09:41|| Front Page Top

#4 E.J. Dionne (D- hack) is one of those reliable weathervanes of Donk politics. You can bet if he's against something, it's likely good for America. If he has advice for the GOP or Tea Party, do the opposite

Posted by Frank G 2011-07-04 09:41|| 2011-07-04 09:41|| Front Page Top

#5 When the states ratified the 17th Admendment making senators elected directly by the people - they essentually gave up their representation and states rights.

Comparing how IL filled the vacant seat when Obama became president with the manner that MA filled the seat of the deceased Kennedy, we might be able to grasp why the 17th Amendment was passed.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-07-04 09:51|| 2011-07-04 09:51|| Front Page Top

#6 ^^^^^That

Posted by S 2011-07-04 11:00|| 2011-07-04 11:00|| Front Page Top

#7 Nervertheless - the states gave up their representation and their rights - even to make stupid, corrupt, moves like that - when they ratified the 17th.

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-07-04 13:23|| 2011-07-04 13:23|| Front Page Top

#8 the states gave up their representation and their rights

The political machines that owned and operated the state governments weren't concerned about "states' rights". Most of the 'states rights' have been hobbled by the judiciary, using inventive interpretations of things like the commerce clause, in the latter half of the twentieth century with little noise from the Senate because those in the office were more interested in promoting the agenda of the courts than the integrity of the Constitution.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-07-04 16:02|| 2011-07-04 16:02|| Front Page Top

23:09 JosephMendiola
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:43 trailing wife
22:32 RandomJD
22:23 texhooey
22:06 JosephMendiola
22:00 tipper
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:51 Barbara
21:45 Barbara
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:42 Barbara
21:41 Barbara
21:19 JosephMendiola
21:06 Procopius2k
21:04 JosephMendiola
20:56 CincinnatusChili
20:52 Pollyandrew
20:44 Procopius2k
20:40 Procopius2k
20:20 trailing wife
20:14 texhooey
19:58 Mike Kozlowski
19:48 Secret Asian Man