Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 2072612" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">While I probably need to brush up some on the procedures, but I seem to recall that if a constitutional convention were to be convened, it would be the Congress that "appointed" in some fashion those that would be on the actual "convention" to come up with a new constitution.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Sorry, but I don't trust those folks with the latitude they would have of appointing liberals and moderate republicans who willingly "want to work with the other side." I'm sure that even some Republicans would be willing to leave out certain rights.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Also, is there a set process within our current constitution as to how a constitutional convention would be "ratified?" If there isn't, and the American people's votes were not considered with the process of the legislatures having a say, then I would see nothing but damage that could never be repaired by allowing such a convention to be held.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Now, having touched on that, a question about the 17th. If the 17th were repealed, wouldn't it be possible that a future "Obama-like" individual would get pork sent the the large metropolitan areas of a state to influence the voters who would be voting? Conversely, wouldn't such an individual send pork to representative districts in order to affect the votes there for legislators who might be inclined to "take the money and run" again?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">With the current system, flawed as it may be, our representatives are subject to hearing from the people if they are displeased with proposed legislation or regulations. If that were gone, do you suppose that a state's governor would be inclined to look out for the people's interest and communicate the people's interests to appointed Senators? After all, did ex-Governor Henry sign on to gun rights for Oklahoma citizens?</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Georgia'"><span style="font-size: 12px">I've not voted in the poll yet, because I'm still wrestling with the answers.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 2072612, member: 7900"] [FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]While I probably need to brush up some on the procedures, but I seem to recall that if a constitutional convention were to be convened, it would be the Congress that "appointed" in some fashion those that would be on the actual "convention" to come up with a new constitution. Sorry, but I don't trust those folks with the latitude they would have of appointing liberals and moderate republicans who willingly "want to work with the other side." I'm sure that even some Republicans would be willing to leave out certain rights. Also, is there a set process within our current constitution as to how a constitutional convention would be "ratified?" If there isn't, and the American people's votes were not considered with the process of the legislatures having a say, then I would see nothing but damage that could never be repaired by allowing such a convention to be held. Now, having touched on that, a question about the 17th. If the 17th were repealed, wouldn't it be possible that a future "Obama-like" individual would get pork sent the the large metropolitan areas of a state to influence the voters who would be voting? Conversely, wouldn't such an individual send pork to representative districts in order to affect the votes there for legislators who might be inclined to "take the money and run" again? With the current system, flawed as it may be, our representatives are subject to hearing from the people if they are displeased with proposed legislation or regulations. If that were gone, do you suppose that a state's governor would be inclined to look out for the people's interest and communicate the people's interests to appointed Senators? After all, did ex-Governor Henry sign on to gun rights for Oklahoma citizens? I've not voted in the poll yet, because I'm still wrestling with the answers.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom