A constitutional Convention...?

I have heard this bandied about from several talk show host(ess?) and they all talk about how great a new constitutional convention would be.   An article from Bloomberg news made mention of it.  Here are some excerpts:
     
Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the U.S. are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn't done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution.
Although it's still not likely to be successful, the effort is more serious than before: Already, more than two dozen states have called for a convention. There are two ways to change or amend the founding document. The usual method is for an adjustment to win approval from two-thirds of the Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. There have been 27 amendments adopted this way.
The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn't be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers. But this recourse never has been used.
Two states, California and Vermont, have called for a convention to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that permits huge amounts of unregulated money into federal campaigns. Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, wants a convention to adopt sweeping changes, including a single six-year presidential term and concomitant House and Senate terms, to create more of a parliamentary system. Petitions to adopt term limits for members of Congress have circulated for years.
But much of the current impetus comes from fervent fiscal conservatives. This includes calls for an amendment requiring a balanced budget and other restraints on the federal government's spending and taxation powers.
A constitutional convention is a rallying cry for right-wing talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin; the idea has been endorsed by Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Oklahoma's Tom Coburn, both conservative Republicans. An influential backer is the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, an organization of conservative state legislators and private sector lobbyists that advocates for corporate interests.
However, many constitutional scholars believe that limits cannot be placed on a convention; if one were convened, anything could be up for consideration. A convention "can propose what they think is appropriate," says Michael S. Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas law school in Minneapolis who is an expert on the issue. "There is no good theory under which the convention can be 'limited' to specific topics -- far less to a specific proposed `text.'"

    
Accordingly, say experts such as Walter E. Dellinger, a former U.S. solicitor general and a constitutional scholar, no limits can be imposed on calls for a convention. That's why he believes the current petitions from states, even if they reach the two-thirds mark, are invalid.
"Thirty-four times zero is still zero," he says.
If, however, the backlash against Washington intensifies, the Republican-led Congress stalls, these imperfections are corrected and a convention were held, Congress would play a relatively minor role. It might decide how the size of different delegations should be determined. After the federal lawmakers "specify the time and place for kicking it off," Paulsen says, "they then have to get out of the way."
Although it's chiefly the political right driving this proposal, there are more than a few staunch conservatives who say it's a bad idea. Foremost is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the longtime leader of the court's conservative bloc, who observed this summer: "Whoa! Who knows what would come out it?"
Some proponents argue that a check on any convention deliberations would be that three-quarters of the states then have to ratify any decisions, so radical stuff such as changing the First Amendment wouldn't fly. "That is a huge hurdle," Paulsen says.
Yet other observers such as Dellinger worry about the possibility of a run-away process that could rattle both the left and right. They doubt that modern-day James Madisons or Alexander Hamiltons would be in attendance to temper the proceedings.
      I have several issues about this....First off FedGov ignores the constitution now....if there was an amendment to further curtail it, they would just ignore it also.  Also I have doubts about the issues that would be raised, keep in mind that the democrats are very adept at raising a "rent a mob" very quickly....Imagine a "Living Wage" addendum added, or some of the other "manufactured rights" to make an appearance and make it on and the original people that wanted to "do a constitution convention" to rein in the .gov colossus, but I can see it being usurped  by the democrats, especially if they have the convention in a major urban area...I can see the rent a mob, democratic constituents, free loaders, Marxist, socialist, Earth First and a myriad of other groups and packaged as " we the people".  When there is such a stranglehold on the free exchange of ideas and ideas being squashed because it might offend some core constituency and the mob taking the power and running with it.  You doubt me?  Compare the U.S. Constitution from the constitution from the European Union, that is what happens when lawyers get hold of a document.  Our U.S. Constitution has the bill of rights enshrined in it....you know the Bill of rights...rights that we already have from our creator and codified and the job of government is to prevent our NATURAL rights from being infringed..whereas the E.U constitution is full of socialist platitudes where the government grants these rights...and what government grants, they can strip away on a whim.   I don't like the idea....we will have to find another way to roll back the collusus that is the Feds.  A con-Con is a bad idea

The Burgeoning Police State.....

I saw this from a news paper article I had gotten earlier today.  I haven't had time to to talk about it until now.   I have a severe issue with this, they now say that a police in Pennsylvania don't need a warrant to search a vehicle.  How long before this spreads to the other 49 states because they will use it under the guise of "fighting crime" and push it through.  Here in Georgia and many other states, the car is an extension of your home, the Police have to have a warrant to search, unless they have justifiable probable cause to do a search.  The justifiable probable cause has to be explained before a judge if something is found in the subsequent search or all the whatever they found is tossed.  This is great news for the central government statist that we have.

     How many people will be hassled by a police officer during a traffic stop? there are a lot of professional cops that are a credit to their oath and their uniform.  but there are some bad ones that will use this opportunity to bully the citizenry, those are the ones that will get off on this kinda stuff.  I have had dealings with both. 
     I work at night and I was on the way home and got caught up at a D.U.I checkpoint and I was still in my work uniform and the officer that was checking the vehicles wanted to search my car in the interest of "officer Safety" and I politely refused, the Police Officer started to try to bully me at this point and I respectfully again stated that I will not give my consent.  He started talking about putting me in cuffs and and I again was very polite replied "No sir, I will not consent to being cuffed or having my car searched."  It did go downhill, the police officer angrily stated, that I will be placed under arrest for obstruction.  I very politely stated that he better call his watch commander first before pursuing such action because if he places me under arrest, he must have probable cause to do so and he doesn't have it, the arrest will be thrown out and I will file charges in both the court system and through the internal investigative procedure of the county police.  I will also contact the media and the ACLU and any body else I can find and cause a stink.  He stormed off and contacted the Sgt running the D.U.I checkpoint and the Sgt came over and asked me what was going on, I being polite told him.  He then turned to the other police officer and stated " the citizen is correct, you cannot detain him or search him or his vehicle with out probable cause."  He then told me that I was free to go about my way.  As I was leaving, I overheard the Sgt telling the angry officer that "you screwed up, you let your ego do the talking, that will put your badge in jeopardy".
    I was relieved that it did go that way,  I wasn't trying to be difficult, I just know my rights.  I have seen many people get screwed over by the court system and I will not give the state an easy opportunity to throw me under the bus.  

     I have blogged many times about the militarization of the Police, I understand that there is almost a bunker attitude with the police, it is a "us vs them" attitude.  It used to not be that way.    My dad is a retired police officer and he told me several times, if you have any dealings with the police, make use of your 5th amendment rights and keep your mouth shut, especially if there is an interview process going on.  Get a lawyer, a Lawyer will keep you from going to jail. 
     Now there is a disconnect between the Police and the citizenry.  The police represent the state and instead of being sheepdogs to use their analogy, they reflect the state, the one that keep overreaching on individual rights, and instead are starting to rule with imperial fiat, look at what is going on in the Northeast Corridor, you have Police threatening to go into citizens houses and seize their lawfully purchased firearms.  The divide between the Police and the citizens that they swore an oath to represent and protect is getting wider and wider and I don't know what will fix it.

   As far as the militarization of the Police, this concerned me also, they are getting surplus MRAPS from the Military, and they suit up and call swat for many calls,instead of the high value calls and there have been quite a few documented instances where they hit the wrong house and the homeowner got killed or shot, the house ransacked and the family pet gets shot all in the name of "officer Safety"  And there is no repercussions for the bad calls so the guilty parties keep doing the same thing and the attitude spreads.  .

 
     Don't misunderstand me, I am not piling on the Police themselves, it is an attitude that has infected the government in general where they view us as little more than vassals or wage slaves that exist for the support of our "betters".    The vast majority of the Police do a great job, they really serve the community, but the trend is troubling to say the least and the loss of more of our rights as American Citizens.  Soon if things continue as they have in the past, all we will be is little more than slaves to the system and the great experiment that was the United States will be in the history books.

    

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Police Chief: US Heading Towards ‘Police State’ (Videos)

By Susan Duclos - Cross posted from Before It's News

 

I ran across a piece at This Can't Be Happening,  that is disturbing to say the least, where not only are police shootings of unarmed civilians discussed, so is the militarization of our local police forces in the US, with statistics that should drop the jaw of anyone reading it.  While those statistics tell a story, perhaps the most damning statements about the US becoming a police state comes from the Chief of Police in Upper Dublin, PA., Terrence Thompson, who states that he understands the need for more powerful weapons to counter the weapons now used by criminals, but points out how SWAT, for example, is being used in a manner that it was not created for and how high powered weapons are being utilized in situations where there is no need. Chief Thompson also lets the public know exactly where he sees the US heading:

Thompson decries what he calls “camo creep” in policing, a trend he says is at least partly driven by “politicians who don’t see where this is going.”
And where is that?
“I don’t like the idea of a police state, but that’s where we seem to be heading,” he says.

My only disagreement with Chief Thompson would be that we are not heading towards being a police state, as the videos below clearly show, we are already there.

YouTube is full of videos showing this police state mentality, I wrote about this just the other day where a Nazi-like cop was busted lying on her "officer narrative," after multiple footage captured by the family she abused became public.
 
Another example can be seen with the recent total FAIL of the NYP in their Twitter campaign #myNYPD which was meant to show how much NY citizens loved their police force, but which backfired spectacularly when user after user started posting images, videos and statements about NYPD's police brutality, as discussed in the first video below at the 1:20 minute mark.

For the record, I believe wholeheartedly there are many, many more good cops vs bad cops, to put it simply, but these examples shown below make it harder for those "good guys," because the brutality and abuse by the bad cops endanger the lives of those that truly did join to serve and protect.

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:55 am | Updated: 2:52 pm, Wed Apr 30, 2014.

By BRETT HAMBRIGHT | Staff Writer

Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion “big news.”
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view.
(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.
“The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
“It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs,” New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.
While police rejoice over what’s been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.
“It’s an expanding encroachment of government power,” defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. “It’s a protection we had two days ago, that we don’t have today. It’s disappointing from a citizens’ rights perspective.”
Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: “I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement.”
Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle’s hood.
Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.
“This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop,” Winters said. “They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant.”
In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was “weed” in the vehicle. A search ensued.
“This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,” Stedman said.
The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.
Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.
A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.
Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.

More thoughts on the Zimmerman trial and the aftermath....

I am reading the news and seeing all the demonstrations about the verdict and a thought came to me....(I know heresy,)  The people that are protesting are mad because they didn't get what they want.  For the past 5+ years they have gotten everything that they wanted facts be dammed.  Now a jury of 6 females in Florida said " NO"  they listened to the law and the Florida law is on Zimmerman's side.  Now the race hucksters and professional black grievance industry cranked up full bore for 16 months aided by a complicit media has injected race into what would have been a straight up justifiable self defense claim.   Now they have been told " no" and they are enraged...kinda like a kid that has been getting everything they wanted for 5+ years and all of a sudden being told " NO".  The progessive left has lost their religion to use a phrase that we in the south use to describe someone that has gone totally cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Now you have noticed for the past 40 years that there has been a concerted effort to identify people by group dynamics and group think.  We are black, white,hispanic,pacific islander, eskimo, indian(feather not dot)and the hyphenated American think became vogue.  I remember a phrase that Teddy Roosevelt used to describe hyphenated Americans "“In this country we have no place for hyphenated Americans..  To expand on this :“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”  Now for the past 40+ years there has been group think pushed and group rights pushed...not individual rights.  This I believe by design.  Our rights that are granted by our creator  and enshrined in the bill of rights are .....wait for it.....INDIVIDUAL rights....Government can't give them or take them.  Our constitution codifies our natural rights and the government's job is to protect them.  With group rights, they are granted by governments...look at affirmative action...that is a group right...and what a government givith...the government can taketh.  there are no guarantees

.The constant drumbeat of strife is encouraged to keep us divided and at each others throats and the people that are stirring this up...for example was Eric Holders Department of Justice that sent people to organize anti Zimmerman protest to circumvent the rule of law down in Florida.   You think this was by accident?  this is to follow an agenda, if we are squabbling, people will then look for Big Brother to punish the other people that don't agree with you.  If we turn to big brother to resolutions, then we will surrender some of our individual rights and individual sovereignty to the government.   This has been a plan of the progressives since Woodrow Wilson who started the modern progressive movement.  More government control, let the elitist and other people lead us to this great socialist utopia that is just down the road if we would just do what our "betters" tell us to do since we live in "flyover country" and am not enlighted like they are.

Now this image is used to describe forward thinking....by their ideology.  Now the reigning Obama Junta( I use Junta to describe what the current administration is doing.  The actions that they use are out of what a 3rd world country would use, like using the organs of the government to attack their political opponents.  Like the IRS going after conservative groups, and having found out that after the elections, somebody in the IRS leaked Mitt Romney tax information along with his donor list..I bet they got audited.  Using other sections of the government to go after everybody else...like the DOJ...supposed to be neutral....not under Obama.  How about the DHS targeting Veterans....You think that was by accident?   It is by design.  It is called "VEAGLE" a play on veteran and Eagle.  This is used to profile vets for possible anti government beliefs.  Veterans have the skill set to make things tough on people that try to enslave other people.)

    
The people behind the scenes will continue to pit Americans against Americans so we don't pay attention to what they are doing.   Who is pulling the puppet strings....who would benefit from all this strife?   When you know who would benefit..than you will know who is pulling the strings.

2 for 1 special....with Democrats....

I have been doing some surfing around and I noticed something from the liberal pacific northwest.  Apparently the rat bastard communist local democrats are pushing an "alternative" to confiscation.  There is a change in the bills being submitted by various democrats to push to register them since the ultimate goal of confiscation seems to have passed them by.   Then you have to allow an" unscheduled" visit 1 time a year from the local sheriffs dept to"verify" security for the nasty old evil Assault Rifle the AR-15 derivative that you own.  What is with democrats and the bill of Rights...They love the 1st amendment when "W" was the president and they rode his administration with spurs. Cindy Sheehan and the code pink idiots were in the limelight.  Now that Obama is the President you don't hear from them anymore.  The liberals rat bastards are intent on violating the bill of rights because they are compassionate leftist.."you are the great unwashed masses you need our guidance to reach this great utopia that is in the horizon if only you would surrender your individuality and everybody is equal....and when everybody is equal than nobody is different" philosophy. 
     The 4th amendment is at danger here also besides the 2nd amendment. 

Here's the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In their zeal to violate the Second Amendment, they plan on throwing the Fourth Amendment down the crapper as well.

KarlU, who lives in the Peoples Republic of Washington has more.
 
"Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray (D) on February 13, 2013, provides that no person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit. This act defines assault weapons as semi-automatic or pump action rifles and pistols which can accept a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and features any of the following: a pistol grip, folding or thumbhole stock, barrel shroud, muzzle brake, or protruding forward grip. As defined, “assault weapon” also includes any semiautomatic with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, any firearm with a threaded barrel, shotguns with detachable magazines or revolving cylinders, and assault weapon conversion kits. Assault weapons legally owned when the bill is enacted must be safely stored and may be inspected by the sheriff once a year."

     Does anybody seen the issues here  ?   they show up unannounced for their inspection..and you have no recourse but to let them in?  What happened to our right of privacy?   They show up and happen to find you in violation of some other law obscure or otherwise? Where is your right of due process? "Oh Snap...you violated the nanny law of regulating your water heater or thermostat, to save energy of course, you are using more than your fair share."  You got to go to jail for that...Oh snap..Since you have been in jail, you cannot own any firearms....Oh snap we will have to seize these weapons...for your own good of course."  We will truly become a nation of sheep if this goes through.