Thursday, January 21, 2010

Constitutional Convention? Suuuuure.

Obot Left's own 'Bait-n-Switch' Bowers is at it again. The magical pony he's offering this time is a "constitutional convention" which would presumably allow him and his access blogger cronies to re-write said foundational document, no doubt with input from a few of the more reliable bootlicks from the comment section. But wait! There's more...

"Further, even the building threat of what might come out of such a convention could be enough to pressure Congress into real action."

Now, farbeit for me to call into question the reasoning abilities of the Obot Left commentariat - but if any person or group of persons had the kind of clout it would take to get two thirds of both houses (as detailed in a little scrap of parchment called The 5th Amendment) - why in the seven hells would they use that influence to all a constitutional convention? With that kind of clout, Bowers could easily pass a bill renaming the United States of America to 'The United States of Chris Bower's Happy-Funistan' and there would be no one to say him nay.

That; the Obots are buying into this DP shill's fantasy with the fervor of fanatic fundies at a tent stake revival isn't much of a surprise. The only question remaining, what is Bowwow angling to switch for the magical constitutional pony? Given his MO, (the health care debacle, for example) something so grandiose must be the bait for something astonishingly paltry. What could it be? Coffee coupons? A box of steak knives?


  1. Yeh, the guys who wrote the first one bought the right to write by terrorizing lawful authorities so they could start carving up Indian Territory real estate theretofore forbidden them by law. Hardly the same type of outfit you'd meet at a Green Party function.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Shit, that was a grievous typo. Here's the fixed version.


    Oh jesus. A constitution by meritocratic progressive committee?

    I thought the present one a fine example of what self-congratulating greedheads with a need to present a public "conscience" could produce... as compared to its predecessor Articles of Confederation.

    I'd wonder if there's a single self-identifying pwog who has the jurisprudential chops and analytic mettle to actually create a constitution without simply royally fucking up the present one with "improvements."


  5. Bring on the Futurists!, I say. Hand out sharp knives.

  6. Still, seeing the likes of Ko$ and Diggly running around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats would be teh funneh in a sad intarweb kind of way.

  7. la rana's latest is excellent.

  8. Hate to be "that" guy, but...

    Slight point of order: A con - con is called by a 2/3rds majority of the state legislatures(34), not congress.

    Congress is a law making body(legislature) and can not ratify or challenge the US constitution

    Congress is constitutionally obligated to call a con con only when a 2/3rds majority of states(legislatures)petition for it

    Also its not the 5th Amendment,which protects against self incrimination, but Article V(5) of the constitution that provide for con cons

    The US constitution is empowerd by the indiviual states.

    Currently there are 32 states that are in favor of a Con- Con.

    I would agree however that any con con will be a bait and switch to reduce our civil liberties

    Bowers is not our friend

  9. Thanks, Niles. All good points. My question is - does this mean I won't be able to photograph BowWow strutting around Philidelphia in a powdered wig?