The purpose of which would be to gut the Second Amendment, of course. On paper, anyway. I figure this is really just a PR stunt for the Presidential run that many folks think he’s planning. He should get out of Kalifornia and meet real people more often; I don’t think this would go as he wishes.
Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution
Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict gun ownership — a daunting and likely quixotic response to the deadliest wave of mass shootings in U.S. history that would nonetheless position California as the most aggressive state in the union on gun control.
Specifically, he wants:
The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:
1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21
2) Universal background checks
3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases
4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons
Note these are the usual human/civil rights infringements that Dims have failed to legislate nationally with simple House and Senate majorities. Yet somehow he would have you think that this could pass with with two-thirds supermajorities, and then be ratified by three-fourths of all the states.
Color me dubious in a time when the majority of states are rolling back Second Amendment rights infringements.
That in itself is interesting enough, but apparently the delusional, wanna-be king of America is going a little farther, and wisely trying to bypass the pesky Congressional supermajority problem.
The effort positions California at the forefront of the fight for increased gun restrictions. Newsom and the state Legislature in Sacramento are set to kickoff a nationwide process that would require support from 34 states to trigger a convention.
A Constitutional Convention! That skips Congress and only requires two-thirds of the states to kick off. And just maybe it could happen.
Because I think, assuming Newscum is serious about it and not merely pushing publicity for a potential White House run, he may have forgotten something: One does not call a Constitutional Convention to only vote on the one single proposed Amendment you want. With a Convention, everything is on the table.
Recall that the last time we held a Constituonal Convention, the entire Articles of Confederation got chucked out, and we ended up with the Constitution (and eventually that Second Amendment that so annoys the Dick-tator of Kalifornia). All sorts of things could end up in there. For instance, we already have this demand
Raising the age to buy a gun should come with raising the age to vote. If I can’t buy a gun yet because I’m too immature, I’m also too immature to pick who has the nuclear codes.
Hey! The Lefties could codify the oft-cited “separation of church and state;” and we could toss in separation of science and education from state. Incorporated to the states, naturally.
Perhaps new language clarifying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to read:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Violation of those rights shall be a capital offense.
The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be strictly limited to those explicity enumerated. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people; and any attempt by the United States to exercise undelegated and unenumerated powers shall be treated as a High Crime tantamount to treason with the death penalty as a a potential penalty.
Any attempt to exercise undelegated and unenumerated powers under the guise of claiming the action promotes the general Welfare SHALL be a capital offense and the death penalty mandatory upon conviction.
We could take a hint form H. Beam Piper’s Lone Star Planet (A Plant for Texans), and make killing politicians for malfeasance and misfeasance a crime only to the extent that the punishment exceed the crime. I like that one.
But those are half measures. Twenty-something years ago, just for fun, I drafted a little constitution-style document. It was based on L. Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent (which fictionally replaced the Bill of Rights in his “Probability Broach” alternate universe). In a later novel, some potential loopholes in the Covenant were mentioned. My little document was an attempt to close those, and maybe some other problems confirmed statists might try to exploit.
Should Newscum somehow manage to call a Constitutional Convention, I swear to G-d that I will push for my Articles of Individuals to be adopted. With zero success, I’ve no doubt. My fallback will then be my 9/10th improvements and the “general Welfare abuse capital punishment clause.
Yes, Newscum, everything is on the table at a Convention, and anything can be added to the table, too.
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
DOA campaign fodder by Newscum in my opinion.
Article V
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
However if and when 3/4 of the states ever goes against the 2nd amendment in this country this republic will be pretty much over, one way or another; methinks.
One can only hope that the idiots won’t try that stunt. Since such action opens the entire Constitution for debate and possible changes.
If there are amendments proposed by the people, I am guessing that the very first one out up would be term limits for all members of government that are elected.
Then there’s the one about forcing the government to follow the same rules and regulations, and laws that they continue to enact.
No more senator for life. No more notorious RBG falling asleep during the state of the union speech. The left cries about not getting to fill her spot. RBG could have done the Democrats a solid and died much sooner.
Or, easier for anyone with a normal conscience, just have people who are no longer able to keep up with the job, resign, take their gold watch, and have someone ghost write a book for them and not the book your circuit, getting praised.wherever you go. Sadly for the Dems, Ginsberg was not ready to quit, even though she had become incompetent, do they lost out.
They did scream when the former president Obama appointed Garland, and the Republican.party left him dangle in the wind.
I almost felt bad about that, until I recalled.one Mr. Harry Reid and his talking point about how he had screwed the Republican over. His reaction was merely to shrug, give a small smile, and say “well it worked didn’t “? I wonder how the Democrats have the guys to say such things our loud that a normal would not speak in private? I think that we are living in interesting times.
RE: Ginsberg. My take on Ginsberg is that she was much more principled than the other lib Associate Justices. Sure, she wanted to advance lib ideas, but she used rational thinking and AMERICAN law to find ways to do it. I often disagreed with her thinking, but at least there was thinking to follow.
Healthwise, she should have retired during the Obama admin, if not earlier, but I think she looked at Sotomayor and thought, “Oh hell no, I’m not giving him a chance to nominate another lunatic like that.”
But once Trump was in, neither did she want her successor to be nominated by him. Death had other plans.
I am computer free, due to mine being in the shop. But I saw this and had to respond. I think that your take on Ginsberg is accurate. What I find sad is the most recent liberal female additions to the SCOTUS are qualified legal minds, their ideology trumps their view on many cases that come before the Court, the cases that unfortunately seem to have become more about social issues instead of about the law and how it works for the entire nation.
By its nature, the Court will hear many cases involving social issues, but there are many important decisions that are not about guns, abortion, or freedom of expression by a Christian baker to not be forced to go against their religious beliefs.
Of course much of it is due to media coverage, but I don’t recall ever hearing about the Justices being liberal or conservative 25 or 30 years ago. It just never seemed to matter so much, but like much that I remember, I probably am seeing the past with rose colored glasses.