[The Urban Sombrero]

"Gutter-born aspersions"... Both John F. and Robert Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, understood that the South would be a political loss (symbolized in the forced open doors of the University of Mississippi and Alabama). Screams of " State's rights" and hatred of the federal government would echo for generations. So it has. So what? Do Republicans ever use race biases? (See Willie Horton). "They all gutter-aspersed, 'ceptin my tribe, my group, my clan.". C'mon, sir, really?

[TheRealThing]

"Gutter-born aspersions"... Both John F. and Robert Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, understood that the South would be a political loss (symbolized in the forced open doors of the University of Mississippi and Alabama). Screams of " State's rights" and hatred of the federal government would echo for generations. So it has. So what? Do Republicans ever use race biases? (See Willie Horton). "They all gutter-aspersed, 'ceptin my tribe, my group, my clan.". C'mon, sir, really?

Seriously, go to ancestry.com and check to see if your family tree has a professor Irwin Corey, cause I'm betting he's in there somewhere.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Seriously, go to ancestry.com and check to see if your family tree has a professor Irwin Corey, cause I'm betting he's in there somewhere.

Seriously, go to LeagueoftheSouth.com and review your reading material.

[TheRealThing]

Seriously, go to LeagueoftheSouth.com and review your reading material.

In the interest of relevancy, you might at least try and raise these racial ghosts of future past in an area that may have had something at all to do with it. Have you thought of Birmingham or perhaps Greensboro, N.C.?

[The Urban Sombrero]

In the interest of relevancy, you might at least try and raise these racial ghosts of future past in an area that may have had something at all to do with it. Have you thought of Birmingham or perhaps Greensboro, N.C.?

I don't think League of the South, headquartered in Wetumpka, Alabama, as you well know, is a "ghost of the past.". Now is it?

[TheRealThing]

I don't think League of the South, headquartered in Wetumpka, Alabama, as you well know, is a "ghost of the past.". Now is it?

Oh no. But your warmed over attempts at resurrecting the civil rights era is. Especially on this forum. Why waste all that ammo shooting at the moon?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh no. But your warmed over attempts at resurrecting the civil rights era is. Especially on this forum. Why waste all that ammo shooting at the moon?

Because I wonder what your personal opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. is. Because I think the "civil rights era" continues to influence southern politics. Because I think neither conservative nor liberal can claim innocence in attempts to appeal to certain groups, using the "divide and conquer" strategy.

[TheRealThing]

Because I wonder what your personal opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. is. Because I think the "civil rights era" continues to influence southern politics. Because I think neither conservative nor liberal can claim innocence in attempts to appeal to certain groups, using the "divide and conquer" strategy.

Here's what I think. I think every man should roust his rear out of bed every bright and every dark morning and go to work. I think equality of opportunity makes that a worth while endeavor for all. I think race baiting liberals without a glimmer of personal knowledge or experience could invest their time in much loftier and productive pursuits. I think there is likely nary a black person who appreciates your shallow exercises in futility. And finally there is this, YOU'RE WHITE.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Here's what I think. I think every man should roust his rear out of bed every bright and every dark morning and go to work. I think equality of opportunity makes that a worth while endeavor for all. I think race baiting liberals without a glimmer of personal knowledge or experience could invest their time in much loftier and productive pursuits. I think there is likely nary a black person who appreciates your shallow exercises in futility. And finally there is this, YOU'RE WHITE.

"Race baiting" is a go-to for you, obviously. Only I am not calling you a racist. I am asking for your personal opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. and suggesting the "civil rights era" continues to influence southern politics. I am white. However, I see no relevance in how skin pigment relates to this particular discussion. I'm not trying to be President of the NAACP here, just having a discussion.

[Hoot Gibson]

"Race baiting" is a go-to for you, obviously. Only I am not calling you a racist. I am asking for your personal opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. and suggesting the "civil rights era" continues to influence southern politics. I am white. However, I see no relevance in how skin pigment relates to this particular discussion. I'm not trying to be President of the NAACP here, just having a discussion.

You are the biggest race baiter here, Mexican Hat. No matter what the thread topic, you seem to derail the thread into a discussion of race or homosexual "rights." Most people's interests are not so narrowly focused on one or two issues.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You are the biggest race baiter here, Mexican Hat. No matter what the thread topic, you seem to derail the thread into a discussion of race or homosexual "rights." Most people's interests are not so narrowly focused on one or two issues.

With all due respect, those are issues that were being used as examples in Constitutional threads.

[Hoot Gibson]

With all due respect, those are issues that were being used as examples in Constitutional threads.

With all due respect, I am smart enough to realize when the implication of racism is being made and it is an implication that you make frequently. The race card is often played when one cannot win a debate on the merits of one's position.

[The Urban Sombrero]

With all due respect, I am smart enough to realize when the implication of racism is being made and it is an implication that you make frequently. The race card is often played when one cannot win a debate on the merits of one's position.

With all due respect, the Founder's original vision/framework was what was being discussed, and gay marriage was being used as an example of Constitutional error. The merits favored a view which does not allow the worldview of misogynists and slave owners, morally acceptable in 1789, to hidebound the document to that time and place. What is your personal view of Martin Luther King Jr.?

[Hoot Gibson]

With all due respect, the Founder's original vision/framework was what was being discussed, and gay marriage was being used as an example of Constitutional error. The merits favored a view which does not allow the worldview of misogynists and slave owners, morally acceptable in 1789, to hidebound the document to that time and place. What is your personal view of Martin Luther King Jr.?

I have no interest in engaging in discussion with you, RV. Your narrow range of interests and penchant for insulting everybody who disagrees with you are the reasons.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I have no interest in engaging in discussion with you, RV. Your narrow range of interests and penchant for insulting everybody who disagrees with you are the reasons.

That be fine, sir. But I am not RV and don't know who that is. I guess I'll conclude none of you fellers wishes to offer your personal thoughts on Martin Luther King, Jr.

[TheRealThing]

With all due respect, I am smart enough to realize when the implication of racism is being made and it is an implication that you make frequently. The race card is often played when one cannot win a debate on the merits of one's position.

If I was black I'd be upset that some white guy equated my civil rights based on race with sexual depravity.

[Hoot Gibson]

If I was black I'd be upset that some white guy equated my civil rights based on race with sexual depravity.

Blacks are much more prone to oppose gay marriage than whites and many of them do take offense at liberal white dudes comparing the struggle of blacks for equal rights to the struggle of gays and lesbians to have the courts create a right for them to marry.

[TheRealThing]

Blacks are much more prone to oppose gay marriage than whites and many of them do take offense at liberal white dudes comparing the struggle of blacks for equal rights to the struggle of gays and lesbians to have the courts create a right for them to marry.

LOL, yeah we wandered into La-La Land again. But that just shows why the last thing we need to subject ourselves to is a Constitutional Convention. All that would do is to make it open season for the loons to turn reality on it's head. The sane have suffered enough IMHO.

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, yeah we wandered into La-La Land again. But that just shows why the last thing we need to subject ourselves to is a Constitutional Convention. All that would do is to make it open season for the loons to turn reality on it's head. The sane have suffered enough IMHO.

I have not signed a petition for the Convention of States, but I will probably do so at some point. Mark Levin is behind the movement for the convention and there is nobody who I trust more on constitutional questions that Levin.

I have not read Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments, but according to him, the states are able to limit the amendments considered at such a convention. There are safeguards to prevent a "runaway convention," and they are explained here.

There are not many politicians or celebrities that I would want to meet over dinner, but I would pay good money to discuss the Constitution over dinner with Ted Cruz and Mark Levin. On Monday, Levin launches his online LevinTV show. I subscribed to the show in advance for less than 25 cents/show.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, yeah we wandered into La-La Land again. But that just shows why the last thing we need to subject ourselves to is a Constitutional Convention. All that would do is to make it open season for the loons to turn reality on it's head. The sane have suffered enough IMHO.

"The sane have suffered enough." Now there you go again. While it is true that the black community tends to cast a cool eye on homosexuality, and doesn't like the equating of civil rights and gay rights, that isn't the comparison. It is about a way of interpreting the Constitution that is a bit broader than the deacon board of a Southern Baptist church might interpret it.

[TheRealThing]

"The sane have suffered enough." Now there you go again. While it is true that the black community tends to cast a cool eye on homosexuality, and doesn't like the equating of civil rights and gay rights, that isn't the comparison. It is about a way of interpreting the Constitution that is a bit broader than the deacon board of a Southern Baptist church might interpret it.

Sure it is. Go back and reread all your posts since you returned as Sombrero. You started off feigning to be a man of color. Then you represented the deacon board when you made all those churchy posts. After that it was full on with regard to your defense of those who choose to pursue homosexuality citing the Constitution which gives them equality. Then you made a mutual exclusion of your own argument when you made the claim that blacks and homosexuals are not represented groups under the US Constitution because the founders did not include them as part of "We the people."

[The Urban Sombrero]

Sure it is. Go back and reread all your posts since you returned as Sombrero. You started off feigning to be a man of color. Then you represented the deacon board when you made all those churchy posts. After that it was full on with regard to your defense of those who choose to pursue homosexuality citing the Constitution which gives them equality. Then you made a mutual exclusion of your own argument when you made the claim that blacks and homosexuals are not represented groups under the US Constitution because the founders did not include them as part of "We the people."

The equation is the Constitutional principles of justice and equal protection under the law and interpreting the Constitution in such a way that " we" is not exclusionary. Now, black Americans may not like the "we" including homosexuals with equal protection, but that changes nothing. Plus, the urban Sombrero is from Seinfeld, not a claim of racial identity. Constructing my points to benefit your argument is, alas, also logical fallacy.

[TheRealThing]

The equation is the Constitutional principles of justice and equal protection under the law and interpreting the Constitution in such a way that " we" is not exclusionary. Now, black Americans may not like the "we" including homosexuals with equal protection, but that changes nothing. Plus, the urban Sombrero is from Seinfeld, not a claim of racial identity. Constructing my points to benefit your argument is, alas, also logical fallacy.

Well, if my argument is logically flawed you have failed to demonstrate it in any practical sense. (Liberal talking points and abstractions do not count.) Nor am I in the least concerned that you will be able to so do in the future. But to that end, there was no constructions on my side of this conversation of sorts, I only pointed out the way you presented your anti-logical rationale.

[TheRealThing]

I have not signed a petition for the Convention of States, but I will probably do so at some point. Mark Levin is behind the movement for the convention and there is nobody who I trust more on constitutional questions that Levin.

I have not read Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments, but according to him, the states are able to limit the amendments considered at such a convention. There are safeguards to prevent a "runaway convention," and they are explained here.

There are not many politicians or celebrities that I would want to meet over dinner, but I would pay good money to discuss the Constitution over dinner with Ted Cruz and Mark Levin. On Monday, Levin launches his online LevinTV show. I subscribed to the show in advance for less than 25 cents/show.

In that case on this issue, we stand apart. This administration has failed, by choice, to enforce the laws they do not like. They have ignored them, replaced them, sued, and sidestepped them. The coequal branches of power have failed to pursue the matter because they are too concerned about their own political hides. And the USSC save precious few, have become a collection of activists. If the lawmakers, interpreters and executive have thusly demonstrated disregard for the law as it is, what ever would make you think that they will adhere to a bunch of new ones?

[Hoot Gibson]

In that case on this issue, we stand apart. This administration has failed, by choice, to enforce the laws they do not like. They have ignored them, replaced them, sued, and sidestepped them. The coequal branches of power have failed to pursue the matter because they are too concerned about their own political hides. And the USSC save precious few, have become a collection of activists. If the lawmakers, interpreters and executive have thusly demonstrated disregard for the law as it is, what ever would make you think that they will adhere to a bunch of new ones?

Any amendments passed at a Convention of States and ratified as required by the Constitution would become just as valid as any other part of the Constitution, as amended through the regular amendment process. The Supreme Court does not have the power to set aside any part of the Constitution, including any of its amendments. I do not see your point. Of course, liberal activists might rule wrongly on any part of the Constitution, as they have in the past. That does not mean that as a country we should just give up on the notion of being a constitutional republic.

[TheRealThing]

Any amendments passed at a Convention of States and ratified as required by the Constitution would become just as valid as any other part of the Constitution, as amended through the regular amendment process. The Supreme Court does not have the power to set aside any part of the Constitution, including any of its amendments. I do not see your point. Of course, liberal activists might rule wrongly on any part of the Constitution, as they have in the past. That does not mean that as a country we should just give up on the notion of being a constitutional republic.

Maybe not but they have certainly ruled in such a way as to bring us Roe v Wade and the Repeal of DADT. If we can't enforce the law as it stands, and we don't, new laws will fare no better.

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe not but they have certainly ruled in such a way as to bring us Roe v Wade and the Repeal of DADT. If we can't enforce the law as it stands, and we don't, new laws will fare no better.

Adding clearly worded amendments to the Constitution provide a stronger basis for future courts to correct bad precedents set by the SC. Obviously, a Court composed of 9 liberal justices determined to ignore the Constitution and to follow international laws will not be easily dissuaded from operating lawlessly, but we cannot give up the principle of being a nation ruled by laws and not by men.

Like I said, I have not decided whether to support a Convention of States, but in more than 200 years, a Convention of States has not been convened and the requirement of amendments being ratified by the states gives me some confidence that there would be no runaway convention. Remember that Republicans control a solid majority of state legislatures and those legislatures are not going to ratify liberal amendments to the Constitution.

[TheRealThing]

Adding clearly worded amendments to the Constitution provide a stronger basis for future courts to correct bad precedents set by the SC. Obviously, a Court composed of 9 liberal justices determined to ignore the Constitution and to follow international laws will not be easily dissuaded from operating lawlessly, but we cannot give up the principle of being a nation ruled by laws and not by men.

Like I said, I have not decided whether to support a Convention of States, but in more than 200 years, a Convention of States has not been convened and the requirement of amendments being ratified by the states gives me some confidence that there would be no runaway convention. Remember that Republicans control a solid majority of state legislatures and those legislatures are not going to ratify liberal amendments to the Constitution.

Right, but it's still a scary proposition. Liberals have successfully wrested control of this nation from the hands of those who once held power. If we cannot regain that control, and I submit that the voter would afford us that opportunity if the establishment does not succeed in scuttling that very opportunity with their blocking shenanigans in the primary process, changing the rules does not seem all that promising a maneuver to me.

And I still see immense vision and clarity in the statement of George Washington on the matter. "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

I like Mark Levin too. And though I appreciate his thoughts about all this, baring one's neck to the liberal's fang, still presents a danger.

[Hoot Gibson]

Right, but it's still a scary proposition. Liberals have successfully wrested control of this nation from the hands of those who once held power. If we cannot regain that control, and I submit that the voter would afford us that opportunity if the establishment does not succeed in scuttling that very opportunity with their blocking shenanigans in the primary process, changing the rules does not seem all that promising a maneuver to me.

And I still see immense vision and clarity in the statement of George Washington on the matter. "If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

I like Mark Levin too. And though I appreciate his thoughts about all this, baring one's neck to the liberal's fang, still presents a danger.

The overwhelming majority of state governments are controlled by Republicans. They would control the agenda of a Convention of States, not liberals. A Convention of States is a constitutional path to amending the Constitution and I trust the individual states, each of which would have one vote, to amend the Constitution more than I trust Congress and the President. In the end, states must ratify the amendments either way.

[TheRealThing]

The overwhelming majority of state governments are controlled by Republicans. They would control the agenda of a Convention of States, not liberals. A Convention of States is a constitutional path to amending the Constitution and I trust the individual states, each of which would have one vote, to amend the Constitution more than I trust Congress and the President. In the end, states must ratify the amendments either way.

In the end IMHO, we would all be pretty surprised at the outcome. Washington actually attended the original constitutional convention, a fact which I believe gives him a tremendous advantage, as his advice was given to all in retrospect. Like executive orders rammed down the throats of one party or another, or one group or another, the next successive unfriendly administration could just whisk it all away in another Convention of States.

We couldn't control the outcome or the struggle with any degree of certainty. Or maybe Washington had it all wrong. My eggs are in his basket.