Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_OT:_=22I'm_Worried_About_Graham=22._=f0=9f=99=8f?=
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:19:56 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <vh8s02$3m869$1@dont-email.me>
References: <082fddde4a2b233938e15b0969e235ca@www.novabbs.org>
 <ea05d6bed9418d36980cb05fec4d12dd@www.novabbs.com>
 <vgjqri$2r6fl$8@dont-email.me>
 <80a996b2fb2f3e64ef3be19363117f4b@www.novabbs.org>
 <vgjsd2$2tg39$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5b478a5d76b74de08cebcd1b05255d8@www.novabbs.org>
 <lp87kbFtmq1U7@mid.individual.net>
 <370762c61cda1aeaa6807f4329e9f81d@www.novabbs.org>
 <lpg8cgF7iv1U2@mid.individual.net>
 <6732ee1c$2$3831$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <lpgaoiF7iv1U5@mid.individual.net>
 <07e929da-ac92-f92e-fa69-9f0331bc5baf@example.net>
 <lpntqtFca64U2@mid.individual.net> <vh7702$3btjp$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 02:20:05 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c6dcb80834bfb4873e4dce5a7e5bd597";
	logging-data="3875017"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mys99cY9VUh65grktHcrlDGo1ccQWXx4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UdfCLS77eMSDEVGlAjCXMPrLewk=
In-Reply-To: <vh7702$3btjp$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2799

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2024-11-15, Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2024-11-12, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be possible to change the law that says that the president has to
>>> be born in the US? Is it impossible, or a court decision away, or would it
>>> be a decade long process?
>>
>>
>> A Constitutional Convention, allowed by the Constitution, could throw
>> out the Constitution. All we have to do is come together and have one.
>> Or, we could just throw out or change the parts we don't like.
>> ;) :) :( ?!?!?!.
> 
> Do you really think that's a good idea?  We might end up without
> the protections currently afforded by the Second Amendment.  Or
> the First Amendment, depending on who's in charge at the time.
> 
> It would be easier to amend the Constitution, which "only" requires
> 2/3 of both the House and Senate and 3/4 of state legislatures to
> vote in favor of it.  Piece of cake.
> 

It's certainly possible now. House, senate and supreme court are no 
problemo. With time and coercion, the state legislatures will align with 
der orange fuhrer.