While this is an excellent article overall, I wholeheartedly agree with the reader nonplussed by its use of the name 'Chiquita' for United Fruit Company, and was even more aggrieved by the retort. It indicates a belief that your readers are ignorant simpletons who wouldn't be able to handle proper name usage. If we are visiting your site, the chances are high that we are both educated and interested in furthering our learning, especially in terms of correcting a previous understanding of issues based on false or incomplete information. The activities described took place while the company was under the UFC name, so it seems to add, rather than prevent, confusion to use another that came into being later. Please do not be so patronizing in the future; it reflects either ignorance or distaste for your target market. Both are extremely off-putting to the very people you wish to attract to your site.
The question isn't why havnt these people got ID its the effect it has on voting results, I mean look at those figures that's a lot of people, and my guess is they are in the lowest income brackets. I don't think there is a moral high ground in having ID and you can't think its more important than their right to vote as you said your not talking about the fraud issue and they do have to provide some form of proof of identity and I don't claim to know the issues/barriers immigrants or the elderly might have getting it but I'm sure its not as clear cut as laziness
I love our Constitution, Our Founding Fathers were wise and set up a government to serve and protect the people and there inalienable rights. Unfortunately our federal government has drifted from this to a congress and bureaucracies that are self serving themselves rather than serving we the people. I appreciate the Convention of States for striving to restore our government to be in alignment with the principles of our Constitution as founded by our Founding Fathers.
3 of 3
After the first two, it was a long 42 years before another state sponsored proposed convention call was introduced. History proves that we should listen to the States in 1898 that proposed the first two calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention because they were closest to and more knowledgeable about the original Founding era intent.
COS' official position is they're not sure if general subject matter proposed amendments will stand up to Constitutional muster or legal challenge. But their subterfuge is: They're hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of enough state legislators and enough Citizens long enough to get us into a dreadful convention.
Oppose any Article V Constitutional Convention calls.
2 of 3
10 amendments made it through Congress. They were ratified by the required ¾ of the states. They are known as the Bill of Rights.
Each of the other 17 amendments to the Constitution have been introduced through Congress.
Of interesting note: What the wrongly named Convention of States (COS) will never tell you is that the first two petitions to Congress calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention were for a general convention with no proposed amendments subject language. Not the specifically worded subject matter proposed amendments-convention call that the Conference of States organization tried to push through in the 1980s, or the general subject matter proposed amendments-convention call being pushed through the States by COS now.
Pages