Opening a Constitutional Convention is a very “Big Thing.”

Thomas Jefferson said: ”I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered, and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Jefferson was right. Amending the Constitution is a serious thing. Article V of the United States Constitution provides that amendments to the Constitution can be proposed in two ways—by Congress or by constitutional convention. After an amendment is proposed by either method, it must be ratified by the State legislatures or State conventions in three-fourths of the States (currently 38) to become a part of our Constitution.

The second method of proposing amendments is triggered upon the applications or petitions of two-thirds of the State legislatures. Under this method, after Congress receives the applications, Article V provides that Congress shall call a constitutional convention to propose constitutional amendments.

As you can clearly see, a very serious process. And one must pick and choose our battles.

What do I mean by this?

When we open a constitutional convention we are setting a precedent: specifically, if we open a CC for flag burning, then why not a CC over rights for pedophiles? The door is opened and I fear for the hordes and masses that will want to walk through.

Would you rather open a CC over flag burning, or over the definition of marriage and/or English as the national language?

Fighting the fight over flag burning impresses me minimally.

I have seen little written on this and suspect I may take some heat over my stance. But in terms of picking one’s fight, I’ll take on the marriage and English issue(s) before I’ll make an issue over flag burning.

Particularly when, per tradition, burning the flag is the approved method of disposing of an old or tattered flag. Shall we possibly open Pandora’s Box over the intent and mental attitude when one burns a flag? Yes, yes, I fully well realize the clear issues of respect vs. lack of respect; but current national law is that burning a flag is a matter of self-expression and free speech. So has the SCOTUS declared in their 1989 and 1990 rulings. I agree with Diane Feinstein when she said that flag burning is an act and not a method of speech — despite the SCOTUS opinions.

WASHINGTON — The Senate yesterday fell a single vote short of approving a constitutional amendment designed to ban flag burning, in the closest vote to date on an issue that Republicans hope will motivate conservative voters to go to the polls this fall.

Sixty-six senators voted in favor — three more than the last time the Senate took up the measure, in 2000, but one short of the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments.

However, in my opinion, creation of an amendment against flag burning minimizes the larger social issues I have addressed above — and opens the door to any number of conehead ideas proffered by the Cultural Changers of our society. There are so many places I do not want us to go under the guise of a constitutional convention.

To me, there are larger and more important issues that likely cannot be addressed in any other fashion than an amendment — such as marriage defined as that union between one man and one woman.

BZ

WASHINGTON –
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 27, 6:36 PM ET

President Bush took a jog Tuesday with a soldier who lost part of both legs in Iraq, following through on a bedside promise even the president had doubts about at the time.

Despite a slight drizzle, Bush and Staff Sgt. Christian Bagge took a slow jog around a spongy track that circles the White House’s South Lawn. About halfway through their approximately half-mile run, Bush and Bagge paused briefly for reporters.

“He ran the president into the ground, I might add,” Bush said, as the two gripped hands in an emotional, lengthy shake. “But I’m proud of you. I’m proud of your strength, proud of your character.”

The president met the soldier on a New Year’s Day visit to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where Bagge had been recuperating from his injuries for months. Bagge, now 23 and a native of Eugene, Ore., was in a convoy hit by roadside bombs a year ago in the remote Iraq desert south of Kirkuk.

Bagge’s left leg was amputated just above the ankle, and his right leg ends just above the knee.
He told Bush during their January visit that he wanted to run with him. Bush was an avid runner who had mostly traded the activity for mountain biking in the last couple of years because of knee problems.

“I looked at him, like, you know, there’s an optimistic person,” Bush said. “It’s an amazing sight for me to be running with a guy who, last time I saw him, was in bed wondering whether or not — I was wondering whether or not he’d ever get out of bed.”

But, the president added, in tribute to the hard work Bagge did to realize this goal, “There was no doubt in his mind that he would.”

“It’s a privilege,” commented Bagge, who had changed in the Oval Office into a special set of prosthetic legs that he uses to jog.

And then the pair took off for the remainder of their run.

________________________

Simply tired of the negativity, I believed it was time to point out: there are positive things in our lives and in our nation.

BZ

President Bush said yesterday that it was “disgraceful” that the mainstream media had disclosed a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects. Bush accused The New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets.

“The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror,” Bush said, leaning forward and jabbing his finger during a brief question-and-answer session with reporters in the Roosevelt Room. I noted that Bush then turned on his heels and departed.

Finally — some “official” and public anger on behalf of this administration with regard to the prodigious leak problems encountered during the second Bush term.

It is this kind of public display of anger that can only help the president rally support against such a contentious and heinous abrogation of the First Amendment as evidenced by the NY Times.

Vice President Cheney said:

The New York Times has now twice — on two separate occasions — disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging.

“Damaging” is being kind; there appears to be, and properly so, a growing swell of those who believe the NY Times and those responsible for the leak and its subsequent publishing should be prosecuted criminally. Count me as one of those persons.

We are at War, plain and simple. An issue such as this should cross all political leanings; we should be unified in our support of the War Against Islamists.

And yet, the NY Times is still playing in the Kiddies Pool by printing, in a puerile fit of pique, what amounts to the entire US intelligence community’s gameplan with regard to tracking money moved by terrorists. They are not stupid; they will now only go deeper and make this same tracking and identification that much more difficult.

We have collectively shot ourselves in the foot so that the DEM can slam our president and sell more papers when they are bleeding readers and cash. Make no mistake: this act by the New York Times was motivated by greed. How callow and craven is this?

This is beyond disgraceful; it requires a full investigation and a prosecution criminally by the US Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Even John Murtha, yesterday’s Moonbat, urged the Times not to print the information.

That is how far off the reservation the NY Times has strayed.

BZ

As yesterday I welcomed aboard AB Freedom, today I would like to welcome Bushwack of the American and Proud Of It blog to my Usual Suspect list!

Bushwack describes himself:

I am an American, a God fearing, gun toting, Truck driving, motorcycle loving, Troop supporting American; if you don’t like the country you live in, get the hell out.

Bushwack has a very creative blog, and its appearance is professional and well done! I suspect Bushwack has some rather amazing computer and HTML talents.

In addition, he is aligned with (or perhaps created) another blog that I would highly recommend, entitled Absolute Zero — which is an anti-pedophile blog describing itself as “A community of individuals pledged to fight paedophiles on the web. We are committed to the safety and emotional well-being of all children. This site will serve as a resource for those committed to our fight wherever you may be in the world.”

You would do well to frequent Bushwack’s American And Proud Of It! blog, and his aligned Absolute Zero blog!

Welcome aboard, Bushwack!

BZ