tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post6051813904757376800..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Down With the Draft! or How Ron Paul Could WinWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71420743062333636682007-05-23T23:33:00.000-06:002007-05-23T23:33:00.000-06:00D.D., it obviously comes as no surprise to you tha...D.D., it obviously comes as no surprise to you that I would be horrified at the prospect of a Con-Con in the age of "American Idol" and identity group politics. <BR/><BR/>We were blessed beyond measure by the way the first Con-Con turned out. God is parsimonious in dispensing such blessings, I believe.William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-48811766578054352482007-05-23T23:21:00.000-06:002007-05-23T23:21:00.000-06:00I seem to recall The New American had published ar...I seem to recall <I>The New American</I> had published articles opposing a Con-Con in past issues, IIRC, especially as it pertained to being the driving force for adding a BBA to the Constitution (perhaps even authored by you?), but it is nevertheless somewhat ironic to me that you would say:<BR/><BR/><I>There are some changes I'd like to see in the Constitution -- abolition of eminent domain, for instance, as well as elimination of the congressional power to suspend habeas corpus -- but a Con-Con would leave us in even worse shape.</I><BR/><BR/>Where's the irony, you may be asking? Like I said, the irony here is probably only unique to me, but the irony is that the very same kind of event, a Con-Con, had transpired in 1787 to draft the original Constitution out of the baggage of the Articles of Confederation, would NOW be an unmitigated disaster.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm, why would that be exactly in your view, Will? What specific <I>reason</I>(s) would you pony up for claiming it "would be an unmitigated disaster?" And the <I>specific</I> reason(s) can't conveniently be because a Con-Con couldn't be constrained or limited to the disputed issue(s) at hand. Why could it not be so limited?<BR/><BR/>After all, that would be nothing new, as anything and everything was also on the table back in 1787, as well, and the Founders (that era's "elites") must have thought that a future Con-Con would be, at the very least, an acceptable Constitution-altering process, however risky, or they wouldn't have made it one of the two ways to amend the Constitution (per Article V) to start with.<BR/><BR/>Could it be that you yourself think that today's commoners, as well as today's corresponding politicos, are not built from the same hardy moral mold of those of the Founding era?<BR/><BR/>Hmmmm...<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, Will, I also think a latter day Con-Con would be a disaster, but for precisely the reasons I've said in the past here repeatedly in other contexts. In essence, that would be that the commoners are not built of the same moral fiber of the commoners of yore and/or are way too dependency-minded to be able to collectively keep their passions bridled and, thereby, keep a convention constrained to just the critical issue(s) in question that initiated and promulgated the call for a Con-Con in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I think it would indeed become a ballyhooed porkfest as well as, by extension, a probable death knell in toto for freedom from debauchery and depravity as well as from the State elitists' desires for conscription and other forms of involuntary servitude.<BR/><BR/>The reality is that, not only are the commoners themselves NOT of the caliber of their 18th century forebears, but also by extension authority figures and elites as well. I'd venture to say that no current politician today, except for Ron Paul, even approaches the caliber of character possessed by the likes of Washington, Jay, Madison, Hamilton, or even the much later Crockett of the early 19th century.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, may I never see a Con-Con in my lifetime and I'd add <I>that</I> method of amendment to your short list of desired abolitions.dixiedoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-37923273461415787142007-05-23T17:49:00.000-06:002007-05-23T17:49:00.000-06:00If a man/woman cannot freely, and of their own vol...If a man/woman cannot freely, and of their own volition, defend as they see fit, not under compulsion or force, their nation/home, then they are indeed NOT free in any sense of the word, and those and the nation they purport to represent are to be rejected. Thats tyranny folks! Plain and simple. No uniformed goon is going to take my children without a fight.DrFixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-62289363945954981492007-05-23T09:35:00.000-06:002007-05-23T09:35:00.000-06:00Actually, Daniel Webster gave a speech in the US H...Actually, Daniel Webster gave a speech in the US House of Representatives back in 1814 that "Conscription" was Unconstitutional. His speech is in the book "War and Leviathan". Quite a bit of it may be found here (Do we feel a draft in the air?):<BR/><BR/>http://www.achattanoogawhig.com/id8.html<BR/><BR/>Note that this was before the 13th Amendment.A Radical Whig in Chattanoogahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16209842924038331622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-90571889980976068382007-05-23T08:07:00.000-06:002007-05-23T08:07:00.000-06:00Mr. Grigg,I just stumbled across your blog by clic...Mr. Grigg,<BR/><BR/>I just stumbled across your blog by clicking a link place within your commentary on lewrockwell.com, and I must say, what a breath of fresh air you are. A Christian Libertarian...I LOVE it. I'm going to read several of your previous pieces, in an attempt to get a clearer picture of you and your beliefs, but thus far I am nothing but impressed with you.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, and unless you object, I will be passing the link to your blog to everyone I know. Good day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-69534870981738528302007-05-22T23:20:00.000-06:002007-05-22T23:20:00.000-06:00Cindy, I've been impressed with Gravel's candor an...Cindy, I've been impressed with Gravel's candor and clarity -- how could one NOT be impressed with a guy who looks at the consultant-controlled warbot Replicants sharing the debate platform and say, "Some of these people frighten me"? -- but I have some pretty serious problems with him.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the largest is the fact that Gravel has long promoted a second constitutional convention, which I think would be an unmitigated disaster. For some reason, Gravel will quite sensibly say that Congress and the President have been violating the Constitution -- and then in the next breath suggest that we should radically revise that same neglected Constitution. <BR/><BR/>There are some changes I'd like to see in the Constitution -- abolition of eminent domain, for instance, as well as elimination of the congressional power to suspend habeas corpus -- but a Con-Con would leave us in even worse shape. <BR/><BR/>If I recall correctly, I interviewed Gravel at some UN or UN Association conference over a decade ago and was grudgingly impressed with him, albeit not entirely on the same page philosophically.William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-27630026378241204782007-05-22T23:08:00.000-06:002007-05-22T23:08:00.000-06:00I agree with you that Ron Paul is the best choice ...I agree with you that Ron Paul is the best choice for 2008, but what are your thoughts about Mike Gravel?Cindyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03736713112915404729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26710000566676456932007-05-22T12:12:00.000-06:002007-05-22T12:12:00.000-06:00Worth noting, Reagan made abolishing Selective Ser...Worth noting, Reagan made abolishing Selective Service part of his 1980 campaign and he almost went through with but Al Haig talked him out of it (or so the story goes.)C Bowenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01944008990994732012noreply@blogger.com