Comment: Funny How Those Opposing The Constitution Say They Love It

(See in situ)


Funny How Those Opposing The Constitution Say They Love It

I've read the gist of these comments and one message comes through: Nearly all of them say they support the Constitution then urge its veto. The author fails to mention the states have already applied in sufficient numbers to cause a convention call. You can read the 748 applications from 49 states at www.foavc.org. So, when all on this site who commented suggest no convention, what they are really saying is they support veto of the Constitution. So how do they explain this obviously contradictory position? They can't.

Now as to those who say Social Security is unconstitutional and so forth, I put a challenge to them. PROVE IT. For example, Social Security is a tax. Congress has the right to determine how taxes are collected and spent. No question about it. SS is constitutional. I could take every example I've read and do the same. Universal health care which I oppose by the way, constitutional. Congress has the power to regulate commerce not to mention the power of tax and as the courts recently pointed out that makes it constitutional. Bad policy but constitutional.

So the challenge is this. OTHER than refusing to obey Article V and call the convention as mandated, show any other action of the government which is either not authorized by the Constitution or in which the text of the Constitutions says the government shall do "X" and it has done "Y". Not your opinion, but a factual statement in writing by use of the public record. Now I'm not discussing court decisions where the courts have so ruled, I'm talking about issues where you believe such a violation has occurred and there is no constitutional support for that action. I'll give you a hint. You'll have to go back to Lincoln to find examples.

It's funny how many so-called conservatives hold they "love" the Constitution and support it and then when it comes to obeying provisions they do not agree with suddenly see no problem in urging that provision not be obeyed. The conservatives held this position in the last election and publicly displayed opposition to obeying the Constitution on the GOP website, specifically regarding a convention call. Now consider: you're an undecided voter who has to choose between a president who many say have violated the Constitution but who cannot provide written proof of this, only opinion and supposition, versus a candidate who declares He WILL veto the Constitution if elected. Who do you choose?

Maybe, just maybe you should consider your position regarding a convention. Unless you want to keep losing elections until there is no republican party or perhaps not even a conservative movement, let alone a Ron Paul position.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Paul has expressed privately in the past support for an Article V Convention provided operational questions regarding it, not constitutional, can be resolved. Upon learning of these answers, he supported it because he believes in obeying and supporting the entire Constitution, not just parts of it. Too bad his so-called followers don't believe as he does.

If you think I'm making this up, why don't ask him?

Bill Walker
www.foavc.org