There is a 'chain' email circulating (since about 2009) claiming that a 28th amendment to the Constitution, purported to be written by Warren Buffet, that could easily end the deficit. Some of the information contained therein is true. Some is false. And some is simply unverifiable.
But did you know . . .
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.
The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It's probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.
After so much talk about guns, school shootings, deaths, children, the constitution, 2nd amendment, rights, militia, concealed carry, assault guns, automatic and semi-automatic, I've come to a conclusion.
Anyone who takes either side of the debate, but refuses to engage in meaningful discussion about, is clearly part of the problem. They are part of the problem because they do not even want to begin to think about a solution. (And if they do not think a problem exists. . . well, that's an entirely different story.)
This rant is honestly inspired by the existence of too many cutesy, Fox-news-y, tough-guy, on-line posts on social media regarding the issue.
Personally, I find gratification in facts. Granted, one must always bear in mind the accuracy of the 'facts' they have received (in this on-line age this is all-too-easy) and verify same before actually BELIEVING them, let alone try to force them on all their social-networks 'friends.'
(from http://abclocal.go.com/)
". . . Neil Heslin, a 50-year-old construction worker who said he grew up with guns and had been teaching his son, Jesse, about them. "I'm here because of my son.". . . Heslin said he supports sportsmen and the Second Amendment right for citizens to have firearms. But he said that amendment was written centuries before weapons as deadly as assault weapons were invented. . . ."
(from wikianswers.com)
". . . When were assault rifles first made?
Depending on the meaning of "assault rifle" they might have been made as early as the second world war. The Browning Automatic Rifle, or "BAR" fired a large caliber cartridge at a pretty rapid rate, but it was a very heavy weapon, and was assigned to the "weapons squad" in an infantry platoon. Later in the decade, a much lighter 45cal machine gun with an open metal stock was issued to the troops. It fired huge cartridges at a rate of about six rounds per second, making a noise that gave its name, the "burp gun." There were earlier rapid firing machine guns used in the first world war and as early as the late 19th century such as the "gatling gun," but none were anything that one man could carry onto the battlefield and fire "from the hip" or from the shoulder for that matter. . . "
(from http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/)
". . . So does our Constitution recognize your neighbor’s right to park a brand new M-1 Abrams main battle tank in his driveway? Should we permit gun shops to hold tent sales offering great low prices on military-grade flamethrowers and nerve-gas-tipped artillery shells? Must the U.S. Government allow you to carry a “suitcase nuke” to avoid violating your fundamental Constitutional rights, even if you might trip while carrying it and level a city block? . . ."
(from http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html)
". . . The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms as such arms existed at the ratification.
Arms in 1791
Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.
Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
Courts can't wish the Second Amendment away, but they can construe it in a manner that works in today's society. . ."
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
Rules were made to be broken. Constitutions were written at specific points in historical time when specific circumstances existed. Many circumstances that existed at that time have CHANGED. That's why females can now vote. That's why slavery no longer exists.
(from Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis)
". . . The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."
It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.
And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.
By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.
These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).
Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.
This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
(from http://www.voterocky.org/meet_rocky)
". . . On August 11, 2011, Rocky (Ross C. Anderson) denounced the Democratic Party and resigned his affiliation with it. He wrote in a letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that "The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a bottom and gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party." On January 13, 2012, Anderson accepted the presidential nomination of the Justice Party, a new national political party. The Party’s primary principles are integrity, justice, and liberty for all.
Rocky advocates:
The promotion of the public interest through the defeat of the systemic corruption that has caused massive failures in public policy.
An immediate end to the on-going wars
Essential health care coverage for all citizens
Urgent international leadership by the U.S. to prevent against the most catastrophic consequences of climate disruption
Adequate revenues to balance the budget through fair taxation
Treatment of substance abuse as a public health rather than a criminal justice issue
Control of the Federal Reserve by the Treasury Department and Congress
A balanced budget (or a surplus) except in times of war or major recession
An end to the legal concept of corporate “personhood”
A constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United and to allow limits or prohibitions on the corrosive impact of money in our electoral system
An end to the stranglehold on our government by the military-industrial complex. . . "
Maybe one day soon. . .
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . Wednesday in Virginia, (Mitt) Romney said that "if the court upholds it, if they say look it passes the Constitution, it still is bad policy and that'll mean if I'm elected we are going to repeal it and replace it."
“LOOK IT PASSES THE CONSTITUTION”????? (Is that the best you've got MITT???!!!)
(from factcheck.org)
With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on June 28, voters are guaranteed to continue hearing the same old false claims about the law from politicians. And President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wasted little time in taking to the airwaves to rehash plenty we’ve fact-checked before. Obama even threw in a few new claims.
Obama reiterated his “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” refrain, despite the fact that at least a few million workers won’t keep their employer-sponsored plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The president also exaggerated the benefits of the law, such as the number of young adults who were able to join their parents’ plans, thanks to the law, and the number of individuals who will receive rebates issued by insurance companies that didn’t spend enough premium dollars on health care.
Romney repeated a number of distortions, saying that the law would “cut Medicare” by $500 billion and that it “adds trillions to our deficits.” That’s a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years. And CBO says the law would reduce the deficit.
Romney said the law is a “job-killer.” But CBO says the law would have a “small” impact on jobs, mainly affecting the amount of labor workers choose to supply. Those getting subsidies, for instance, might work less hours since they’re paying less for health care.
Romney claimed the law “puts the federal government between you and your doctor.” The law would set minimum benefits packages, but medical services will not be government-run, nor does the law allow for rationing of care.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
(rough draft of Dylan Ratigan's Constitutional Amendment)
No person, corporation, or business entity, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to an type of campaign for federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the US constitution or any amendment to the US constitution. Congress shall set forth a holiday for the purpose of voting for candidates for federal office.
