Constitutional Amendment @ MindSay 
Obama and the Personal Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Boston Globe characterizes it this way: "Barack Obama's dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court last week."
They noted that during his run for the Illinois Legislature, Obama supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns." During much of his campaign for president, he endorsed the DC gun law, which banned handguns. He said in November 2007 that the DC handgun ban was constitutional. He was asked in February 2008 about whether he supported the DC ban and he said he did.
Since the Second Amendment does not assert the right of individuals to keep and bear arms - except in the context of a well-regulated militia - Obama's position was consistent with the intent of the framers. Whether persons can own firearms for their person use is for the states to decide. The decision is among the powers granted to them by the Tenth Amendment.
Obama appears to have flipped flopped on the issue soon after February. By March he no longer thought the DC gun ban was constitutional, but he didn't explain why. In April, he punted on the question with the standard "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
When the court overturned the ban and stated, for the first time in US history, that individuals had a person right to keep and bear arms (thus inventing a right where none had previously existed), Obama acted as if his conviction that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and that there the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, was vindicated. "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms," he said.
But he could not possibly have always believed that, since he said the DC gun ban was constitutional.
Why did Obama flip? No doubt he looked at the polls showing that more than 70 percent of Americans believe the Second Amendment confers a personal right. The same percentage oppose making guns illegal. He look at the fact that half of all households own guns. So, as with so many other things, Obama changed his position to fit public opinion.
Abortion is probably the central political-religious debate in America since abolitionism and prohibition. The politics of abolition was settled after much American blood was shed with the Union armies defeating the secessionist Confederate armies. Prohibition passed by Constitutional Amendment then was abolished by Constitutional Amendment.
The stage may be set to begin eroding Roe VS Wade with the recent 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. I doubt the abortion issue will lead to a Civil War; however the more the Supreme Court erodes pro-choice/death proponents of abortion the greater the chance Congressmen will allow the people to decide via the Amendment process.
I think the Secular Humanists and Leftists fear just how much Americans entrust in Christian values (maybe not practices) rather than moral relativity. At this point it is a political propaganda war; however if the people decide I believe Christian morality will win the day.
If Christianity wins on abortion, homosexuality will be the next topic of the Amendment process. Powerful (moneyed) Leftists and homosexuals groups are vicious on that issue. The real fight for Christian morality will begin in the next stage.
Gay Marriage Amendment Supporters Seek Constitutional Convention?
By Robert Novak
June 24, 2006
The National Ledger
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.
The provision of the Constitution's Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.
A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton Professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.
**************************
This is an excerpt from the top of this Robert Novak post in The National Ledger. This is an idea that its time has come. Conservatives and Liberals alike fear the Constitutional version of a National Constitutional Convention. The reason for the fear is the potential for changes that both sides of the political scale feel may not be able to live with.
A Convention may be called for a specific purpose; however a Convention might open the door to address everyone’s pet peeve.
I am no longer fearful of such a situation. There are definite issues the moral majority needs to address in this nation. The Leftists and irreligious are allowing morality to be steeped in Humanism and relativity. I hear all the time that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint and that the Christian viewpoint is archaic. While it might be true that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint, I believe the majority viewpoint in America is still a Christian one. Therefore a concept of what is and what is not archaic would only be valid to the irreligious and immoral.
It is time to take Humanistic and Left leaning Judges out of the equation of legislating American Law. The Judiciary is there to interpret law, not to create law.
It is time for the people of the States to decide moral issues of homosexuality, prayer, religion in public, abortion and so on. It is appalling that a huge majority of people may decide an issue by Initiative or by being a voting constituency of its Representatives and then have a Left thinking Judge strike the Law down.
Here comes the neoconservative in me. I am all for a loyal opposition, however some serious issues need to be addressed relating Presidential Appointments. For example instead of the Senate confirming an appointee, the framework should be debate and up or down vote. Screw the procedural hogwash relating to committee. If the person is not qualified, then vote the person down.
Yes, the time for a Constitutional Convention is needful.
It seems like my ranting about the future of SD may be pointless now, considering that this U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages will now move on to the full Senate. Its a dark day for fostering unity within diversity.
I know I've been a bit absent lately, but with the semester finally over, and finding out later today whether I finally have a job, I hope to change that, and this will be a perfect jump-start topic.
~Ezree