User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:12:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because most of them want to be the Federal Government. Those in State Government either create a power base and stay in State Government doing the same their Federal counterparts do or they eventually run for Federal Office and do the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So who gets sent to this, our great elected representatives? No thanks. We know whose best interest they have in mind. If they wanted to limit government expansion, they could do it. It looks to me like they want just the opposite. No, because most of them want to be the Federal Government. Those in State Government either create a power base and stay in State Government doing the same their Federal counterparts do or they eventually run for Federal Office and do the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:14:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NO. If there's a constitutional convention, say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:15:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, 2A is dead if this happens. Liberals will go all out for that. They would be more than willing to sacrifice in a few other areas in order to kill 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:15:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think an Internet petition is going to fix Washington. I prefer option #5. Needs moar hash tags 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:17:00 PM EDT
[#5]
The convention of states would be governed by who?
The same FSA pandering lying cheating pocket lining scumbags that already run things? Or the will of the FSA pocket lining cheating lying scumbags themselves? Face it, we're fucked unless we can get some honest men in the offices we already have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:20:01 PM EDT
[#6]
The only way to fix D.C. is for a majority of Americans to WANT liberty.
The Left was able to convince a majority that free stuff trumps liberty. IF you can't convince the majority that liberty trumps free stuff, you aren't going to change shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:21:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You do realize that if there is another Constitutional Convention, it likely will not turn out the way you want it to... How about Rights to Wireless Internet and Cellular Service? How about Rights to Free Medical Care? How about Rights to College Education? How about Rights to Free Housing and Food? And a 'right' to a job, living wage, etc. Since people don't even have an understanding of what rights are and how they work, talking about rights and a con-con is going to go badly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:25:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The convention of states would be governed by who? The same FSA pandering lying cheating pocket lining scumbags that already run things? Or the will of the FSA pocket lining cheating lying scumbags themselves? Face it, we're fucked unless we can get some honest men in the offices we already have. Thanks for all the questions and objections, guys. And thanks to those of you who signed on. I need to focus my efforts in another direction right now. If any of you have any questions about the Convention of States Project, feel free to post or PM me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:30:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt. 
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:36:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very astute observation. And that's precisely why term limits are going to be a high priority of the convention. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So who gets sent to this, our great elected representatives? No thanks. We know whose best interest they have in mind. If they wanted to limit government expansion, they could do it. It looks to me like they want just the opposite. No, because most of them want to be the Federal Government. Those in State Government either create a power base and stay in State Government doing the same their Federal counterparts do or they eventually run for Federal Office and do the same. Good luck.... the majority of those in power will not willfully abdicate side power willingly. George Washington was an anomaly as a politician. I work very closely with elected officials and I can say without any doubt that all go into politics for power and money. You do not come out of high office of State and Federal Government poor. This is both a fact for those in the executive and legislative branch of government, both Federal and State. The reason many is State government support he idea of term limits is that it is used as the minor leagues of politics. You start there and create your power base and then move to the Federal level. If there weren't term limits in State Government the they wouldn't have a shot at starting. They want to kwwp the Federal system as is so once they get in, that power base they built will grow and support them to stay in office for a very long time. Look at Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson, and others. Hell, even Marco Rubio started at the local level as a City of West MiamI council member and the went State and now Federal. Charlie Crist was the same. He started in local Tampa area politics, then went State Legislature, then Governor, and tried a shot at the Federal level. The idea of Term limits in the Federal Legislature is a joke... it will not happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:46:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is accurate. You're saying that he's wrong because some delegates will control other delegates. He speaking about the group as a whole. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt.
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:57:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck.... the majority of those in power will not willfully abdicate side power willingly. George Washington was an anomaly as a politician. I work very closely with elected officials and I can say without any doubt that all go into politics for power and money. You do not come out of high office of State and Federal Government poor. This is both a fact for those in the executive and legislative branch of government, both Federal and State. The reason many is State government support he idea of term limits is that it is used as the minor leagues of politics. You start there and create your power base and then move to the Federal level. If there weren't term limits in State Government the they wouldn't have a shot at starting. They want to kwwp the Federal system as is so once they get in, that power base they built will grow and support them to stay in office for a very long time. Look at Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson, and others. Hell, even Marco Rubio started at the local level as a City of West MiamI council member and the went State and now Federal. Charlie Crist was the same. He started in local Tampa area politics, then went State Legislature, then Governor, and tried a shot at the Federal level. The idea of Term limits in the Federal Legislature is a joke... it will not happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So who gets sent to this, our great elected representatives? No thanks. We know whose best interest they have in mind. If they wanted to limit government expansion, they could do it. It looks to me like they want just the opposite. No, because most of them want to be the Federal Government. Those in State Government either create a power base and stay in State Government doing the same their Federal counterparts do or they eventually run for Federal Office and do the same. Good luck.... the majority of those in power will not willfully abdicate side power willingly. George Washington was an anomaly as a politician. I work very closely with elected officials and I can say without any doubt that all go into politics for power and money. You do not come out of high office of State and Federal Government poor. This is both a fact for those in the executive and legislative branch of government, both Federal and State. The reason many is State government support he idea of term limits is that it is used as the minor leagues of politics. You start there and create your power base and then move to the Federal level. If there weren't term limits in State Government the they wouldn't have a shot at starting. They want to kwwp the Federal system as is so once they get in, that power base they built will grow and support them to stay in office for a very long time. Look at Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson, and others. Hell, even Marco Rubio started at the local level as a City of West MiamI council member and the went State and now Federal. Charlie Crist was the same. He started in local Tampa area politics, then went State Legislature, then Governor, and tried a shot at the Federal level. The idea of Term limits in the Federal Legislature is a joke... it will not happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:05:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The delegates to the convention will be bound by their respective states' laws which will require them to carry out their duties in adherence with the purpose of the convention as set out in the application. There will be civil and criminal penalties for breaches of those duties. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<<<SNIPPED>>> This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? Keeping in mind that government is just so good at limiting itself and following laws... again, you have no reservations about this? Not any? 0? You really are recruiting hard. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:11:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a fan of this idea. Not even a little bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:12:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The delegates to the convention will be bound by their respective states' laws which will require them to carry out their duties in adherence with the purpose of the convention as set out in the application. There will be civil and criminal penalties for breaches of those duties. And what do those laws or resolutions say? Do they specify how delegates are selected? Do they assure that sitting officeholders will be balanced by outside voices? Do they guarantee that NGOs are not going to worm their way into the process? What conceivable product of a convention is NOT going to result in an ugly and divisive ratification process? What if the convention and the Congress declare that 26 States are sufficient for ratification, and the results are binding on all? What do you think that might lead to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:17:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Once this convention starts there will be no stopping it. It is like the Nuclear Genie being let loose out of it's bottle. There is no going back. I am at a point where I know we cannot go back to the "good old days" because they never existed. There was always and has always been government abuse of power. The moment this nation was founded we had that happening. The only real reason for the culture of freedom was the wild west. Areas of this continent in which there was no government authority. But the fact that every inch is now settled and has government authority ruling over it in one form or another is a moot point.
This Convention of States will not fix anything. The Federal Government will not willingly relinquish power and what ever power the States gain if any will be just as abused. Look at New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California as examples of abusive State Governments. Look at Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, and Los Angeles as example of corrupt Local Governments. Corruption and Abuse of power doesn't stem from just the Federal Level. It is on all levels of government and all this will do is grants those in power, more power to abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:21:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt.
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. Nope. Calling it a Convention of States does not change the fact that it is still a Constitutional Convention. According to the Constitution itself: #1. By the Necessary and Proper clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18), Congress is given the power to "make all laws" related to any powers given to any branch of the federal government. #2. One such power, found in Article V, is that once 34 states have applied for a convention, Congress is given the power to call the convention. Congress has historically recognized this to mean that THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS for the calling of an Article V convention. Saying that the states would have control over this and that it would be limited in any way to a subset of reforms means you either believe the lie or are intentionally lying. It would not be limited and Congress would control it. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:27:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So first, it was 'because the 'good' delegates will control the other ones, now it's 'because there are laws'. Keeping in mind that government is just so good at limiting itself and following laws... again, you have no reservations about this? Not any? 0? You really are recruiting hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<<<SNIPPED>>> This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? Keeping in mind that government is just so good at limiting itself and following laws... again, you have no reservations about this? Not any? 0? You really are recruiting hard. I don't recall writing or indicating that the "good" delegates would control the other delegates. I do happen to believe that state legislators are closer to and more accountable to their constituents than federal legislators. And they don't enjoy getting prosecuted or going to jail. I also believe that We the People have the power, and we must exercise our power in order to help restore our nation to its greatness. Right now, I do not have any reservations about the process. My questions and concerns have been addressed, and I trust the wisdom of the Framers in providing this method of checking the power of the federal leviathan. My original post is sincere and I believe in this cause. The purpose of posting here is that I am a new volunteer with CoS and I will be giving presentations and talking to people in my state house district about this project. And I know from experience that this is a well informed, "tough crowd" - which will help me become better prepared to take this message to my community. And maybe, just maybe - some of you will join the cause! Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:29:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NO. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment is not a proper subject under the application - and even it if was, would not be ratified by 38 states. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NO. If there's a constitutional convention, say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment. Thats a hoot. You realize just about anything can be pitched as "reducing the size of government"? Because there's no limit to the amount of twisted and inane leaps of logic that a politician can use to justify a position. Its all in how you spin it. Ban guns...because if we just completely ban guns we can take the F out of BATFE. There's your reduction in government. Lets do away with the 4th amendment, due process, and the exclusionary rule too - so we can reduce the size of government by not forcing the government to defend its actions with all those expensive government lawyers and courts. There's your reduction in government. You have to realize, government, politicians, and lawyers can spin anything to meet such a broad requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you study this project, you will learn that the subject of the convention will be limited to "proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress." Educate yourself on the process and how it works. Then feel free to ask any questions. Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. You say that like it's a bad thing. It's long past time we split the sheets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:32:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say that like it's a bad thing. It's long past time we split the sheets. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you study this project, you will learn that the subject of the convention will be limited to "proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress." Educate yourself on the process and how it works. Then feel free to ask any questions. Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. You say that like it's a bad thing. It's long past time we split the sheets. You think ending the USA is a good thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Calling it a Convention of States does not change the fact that it is still a Constitutional Convention. According to the Constitution itself: #1. By the Necessary and Proper clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18), Congress is given the power to "make all laws" related to any powers given to any branch of the federal government. #2. One such power, found in Article V, is that once 34 states have applied for a convention, Congress is given the power to call the convention. Congress has historically recognized this to mean that THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS for the calling of an Article V convention. Saying that the states would have control over this and that it would be limited in any way to a subset of reforms means you either believe the lie or are intentionally lying. It would not be limited and Congress would control it. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt.
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. Nope. Calling it a Convention of States does not change the fact that it is still a Constitutional Convention. According to the Constitution itself: #1. By the Necessary and Proper clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18), Congress is given the power to "make all laws" related to any powers given to any branch of the federal government. #2. One such power, found in Article V, is that once 34 states have applied for a convention, Congress is given the power to call the convention. Congress has historically recognized this to mean that THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS for the calling of an Article V convention. Saying that the states would have control over this and that it would be limited in any way to a subset of reforms means you either believe the lie or are intentionally lying. It would not be limited and Congress would control it. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. I believe you are mistaken. The calling body merely sets the time and place for the convention. Are you a member of the Eagle Forum or John Birch Society? Please review the resources at this link: Responses to Convention of States Opposition |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Matt Bracken said this would happen. The would use it as a chance to rewrite our Constitution.
The Constitution is not broken. The people we allow to govern us are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:36:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment is not a proper subject under the application - and even it if was, would not be ratified by 38 states. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, 2A is dead if this happens. Liberals will go all out for that. They would be more than willing to sacrifice in a few other areas in order to kill 2A. Nope to the nope on the nope side the nope for the nope. You might trust this administration , but I sure as fuck dont . . . . and probably never will.  Nope.Maybe after they start enforcing the Bill of Rights and respecting the Constitution for a few decades , then I might start to trust em ...just a scosh...but if they did that , then we wouldnt be having this conversation in the first place.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:41:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think ending the USA is a good thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you study this project, you will learn that the subject of the convention will be limited to "proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress." Educate yourself on the process and how it works. Then feel free to ask any questions. Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. You say that like it's a bad thing. It's long past time we split the sheets. You think ending the USA is a good thing? You bet. I see my piece of the continent as a kind of American Waziristan. I'm afraid that's the best a free American can hope for. Certainly better than a former Republic governed by an elite elected by the FSA, Mexican illegals and soccer moms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:50:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't recall writing or indicating that the "good" delegates would control the other delegates. I do happen to believe that state legislators are closer to and more accountable to their constituents than federal legislators. And they don't enjoy getting prosecuted or going to jail. I also believe that We the People have the power, and we must exercise our power in order to help restore our nation to its greatness. Right now, I do not have any reservations about the process. My questions and concerns have been addressed, and I trust the wisdom of the Framers in providing this method of checking the power of the federal leviathan. My original post is sincere and I believe in this cause. The purpose of posting here is that I am a new volunteer with CoS and I will be giving presentations and talking to people in my state house district about this project. And I know from experience that this is a well informed, "tough crowd" - which will help me become better prepared to take this message to my community. And maybe, just maybe - some of you will join the cause! Thanks Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <<<SNIPPED>>> This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. The point you miss is this: government is people. All those delegates you mentioned? Those are people in the 'government', i.e. they are the government. What I see is the government getting together to discuss what they should be, or should be doing... do you have no reservations about that at all? Keeping in mind that government is just so good at limiting itself and following laws... again, you have no reservations about this? Not any? 0? You really are recruiting hard. I don't recall writing or indicating that the "good" delegates would control the other delegates. I do happen to believe that state legislators are closer to and more accountable to their constituents than federal legislators. And they don't enjoy getting prosecuted or going to jail. I also believe that We the People have the power, and we must exercise our power in order to help restore our nation to its greatness. Right now, I do not have any reservations about the process. My questions and concerns have been addressed, and I trust the wisdom of the Framers in providing this method of checking the power of the federal leviathan. My original post is sincere and I believe in this cause. The purpose of posting here is that I am a new volunteer with CoS and I will be giving presentations and talking to people in my state house district about this project. And I know from experience that this is a well informed, "tough crowd" - which will help me become better prepared to take this message to my community. And maybe, just maybe - some of you will join the cause! Thanks Then you don't know politicians. They don't give a damn about their constituents. The State Level ones fuck over the people just as much and sometimes more than those in Federal Government. Florida for example is 27,000,000 people. Do you honestly believe that all 27 million vote for their elected officials? No, they don't. Those in office are aware of that. And because of such facts abuse the system because the majority of the population doesn't give a damn. The main reason why those in power are arrested isn't because the just and honest members demand that liberty be protected but because they hate competition or that those that were arrested didn't do the proper kick back and got greedy. It is a system of bribery, graft, corruption, theft, and cronyism. They aren't angels and the people don't give a fuck. Hell, the Framers of the Revolution were the fringe of society. Something close to 3% of the colonies fought, another 10% supported either the Crown or Congress, and the other 87% didn't give a rat's ass as long as they had a roof over their head, food, in the bellies, and a source of income. The majority of government abuse doesn't touch the general public and the general public doesn't care.... for the majority of Germans. Hitler wasn't a personal issue until the war came to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:23:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is simply not accurate. Any amendments proposed by a Convention of States are limited to the subject of the application and would have to be ratified by 38 states. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt.
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification of any amendments. The convention which was called to propose amendments ignored the purpose of the convention. The delegates did not propose a single amendment to the Articles. Instead they drafted a new document and made provision for adoption of the document by less than a unanimous vote. See Article VII. Despite your confidence, which is driven by your lack of knowledge, absolutely nothing would prohibit the delegates to your dreamed of conference from doing the same. What that means is that the delegates could write a new constitution and provide that it was deemed adopted when it was ratified by the legislatures of states which had 50.1 % of the population. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:25:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you don't know politicians. They don't give a damn about their constituents. The State Level ones fuck over the people just as much and sometimes more than those in Federal Government. Florida for example is 27,000,000 people. Do you honestly believe that all 27 million vote for their elected officials? No, they don't. Those in office are aware of that. And because of such facts abuse the system because the majority of the population doesn't give a damn. The main reason why those in power are arrested isn't because the just and honest members demand that liberty be protected but because they hate competition or that those that were arrested didn't do the proper kick back and got greedy. It is a system of bribery, graft, corruption, theft, and cronyism. They aren't angels and the people don't give a fuck. Hell, the Framers of the Revolution were the fringe of society. Something close to 3% of the colonies fought, another 10% supported either the Crown or Congress, and the other 87% didn't give a rat's ass as long as they had a roof over their head, food, in the bellies, and a source of income. The majority of government abuse doesn't touch the general public and the general public doesn't care.... for the majority of Germans. Hitler wasn't a personal issue until the war came to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:34:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The delegates to the convention will be bound by their respective states' laws which will require them to carry out their duties in adherence with the purpose of the convention as set out in the application. There will be civil and criminal penalties for breaches of those duties. Don't count on it. The first thing they would do is to declare the proceedings secret, just as the delegates to the last convention did. You can't control them if you don't know what they are doing and you won't. Mere citizens won't get anywhere near such a convention. The delegates have to be protected from terrorists both foreign and domestic, you know. Last, should the delegates choose to ignore directions from the states they can very simply write themselves immunity from any state law which attempts to impose civil or criminal penalties on them as a result of their actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:36:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification of any amendments. The convention which was called to propose amendments ignored the purpose of the convention. The delegates did not propose a single amendment to the Articles. Instead they drafted a new document and made provision for adoption of the document by less than a unanimous vote. See Article VII. Despite your confidence, which is driven by your lack of knowledge, absolutely nothing would prohibit the delegates to your dreamed of conference from doing the same. What that means is that the delegates could write a new constitution and provide that it was deemed adopted when it was ratified by the legislatures of states which had 50.1 % of the population. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt.
As we should know from the history of the last time a convention to propose amendments was called on this continent, there is no way to control what the delegates to such a convention do or what they propose. They could propose a completely new governing document and new rules for adoption of that document, just as the delegates did last time. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification of any amendments. The convention which was called to propose amendments ignored the purpose of the convention. The delegates did not propose a single amendment to the Articles. Instead they drafted a new document and made provision for adoption of the document by less than a unanimous vote. See Article VII. Despite your confidence, which is driven by your lack of knowledge, absolutely nothing would prohibit the delegates to your dreamed of conference from doing the same. What that means is that the delegates could write a new constitution and provide that it was deemed adopted when it was ratified by the legislatures of states which had 50.1 % of the population. Please refer to this document: The Runaway Convention Myth |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:39:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote History
Please refer to real history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:40:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you study this project, you will learn that the subject of the convention will be limited to "proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress." Educate yourself on the process and how it works. Then feel free to ask any questions. Last time that happened, we ended with a completely different constitution. Odds are a con-con ends the USA. And the USA is headed in that direction anyway |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:41:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Such a stupid idea.
"I know, let's give the people who are responsible for big government the power to remake the government however they see fit." What could go wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:43:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Yeah... No.
Where it needs to be handled is on the state level. If we had enough state representatives willing to tell the fed to fuck off the state could make the changes it's people wanted. I live in Georgia and really don't pretend to know what is best for California. Or think vice versa..... It would be better if we focused on putting the right state people in place because then the fed becomes more irrelevant each election. Plus that would allow better governance of the area you have chosen to live. Working from the top down on this one isn't going to work. It never has, and it never will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:48:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please refer to real history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please refer to real history. By real history, you mean from books like The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History From the Notes of James Madison - or something else? Please educate me and others following this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:50:15 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:52:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah... No. Where it needs to be handled is on the state level. If we had enough state representatives willing to tell the fed to fuck off the state could make the changes it's people wanted. I live in Georgia and really don't pretend to know what is best for California. Or think vice versa..... It would be better if we focused on putting the right state people in place because then the fed becomes more irrelevant each election. Plus that would allow better governance of the area you have chosen to live. Working from the top down on this one isn't going to work. It never has, and it never will. And Georgia was the first state to approve the Convention of States application/resolution: Georgia Becomes the First State... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:55:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are pretty much right on target, in my opinion. Now, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to ignore the challenges until they affect you personally? Do you really believe that you can arrange your life and the lives of your family members so that you aren't affected by the abuses of power, the crushing debt, the reckless spending, and the intrusion into every aspect of your business and personal lives? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Then you don't know politicians. They don't give a damn about their constituents. The State Level ones fuck over the people just as much and sometimes more than those in Federal Government. Florida for example is 27,000,000 people. Do you honestly believe that all 27 million vote for their elected officials? No, they don't. Those in office are aware of that. And because of such facts abuse the system because the majority of the population doesn't give a damn. The main reason why those in power are arrested isn't because the just and honest members demand that liberty be protected but because they hate competition or that those that were arrested didn't do the proper kick back and got greedy. It is a system of bribery, graft, corruption, theft, and cronyism. They aren't angels and the people don't give a fuck. Hell, the Framers of the Revolution were the fringe of society. Something close to 3% of the colonies fought, another 10% supported either the Crown or Congress, and the other 87% didn't give a rat's ass as long as they had a roof over their head, food, in the bellies, and a source of income. The majority of government abuse doesn't touch the general public and the general public doesn't care.... for the majority of Germans. Hitler wasn't a personal issue until the war came to them. Do what my Grandfather did. Try my best to secure a good life here and if not bail ASAP. Nothing lasts forever.... not even he USA. He fled Cuba for a reason. He saw the writing on the wall. Right now I'm looking at property in Canada. It isn't the USA but it sure as hell isn't Mexico or Iraq. Right now I have a home, a job, and benefits, I haven't been fucked with much and neither has my wife. I try to bend the system my way to benefit me as much as I can. I vote, campaign, and educate others. I pay my bills and try my best to do what is right. But I'm also a realist and see that we are spiraling down to a Velvet Dictatorship of a Socialist style ruiling class. We will not become a 3rd World shit hole but we will lose more freedoms. If I have to... I fight. My Grandfather did at a place called the Bay of Pigs. He still lost there but he avoided capture, got back to Havana and got the family on the first flight out of there to the USA. If I have to I can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:00:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please educate me and others following this thread. Start by reading the Articles of Confederation. Pay particular attention to the process set out for amending the document and the requirements for adopting such amendments. Once you have mastered that material ask yourself whether the gathering which was called to propose amendments did so. Then ask yourself if the delegates acted in accordance with the Articles. Then ask yourself if the product of the gathering conformed to the original purpose. Assuming you can figure all that out you'll have a road map of how delegates could act if a convention was called to propose amendments to the Constitution. Or you can continue to allow others to think for you and follow them blindly down the garden path.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:02:26 PM EDT
[#40]
You're not a knat are ya bug?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:05:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Georgia was the first state to approve the Convention of States application/resolution: Georgia Becomes the First State... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah... No. Where it needs to be handled is on the state level. If we had enough state representatives willing to tell the fed to fuck off the state could make the changes it's people wanted. I live in Georgia and really don't pretend to know what is best for California. Or think vice versa..... It would be better if we focused on putting the right state people in place because then the fed becomes more irrelevant each election. Plus that would allow better governance of the area you have chosen to live. Working from the top down on this one isn't going to work. It never has, and it never will. And Georgia was the first state to approve the Convention of States application/resolution: Georgia Becomes the First State... I'm not sure how that relates to my point? While Georgia has some more freedom loving politicians then other states they still are way below the level of what they should be. And we are as attached to the Fed.Gov teet as any other state. It will have to done at the state level. It will only take one. Just one state to walk away from the Feds money, and control. And the rest will see the freedom, growth, and prosperity and will start turning thier backs on the fed. Change the rules? Change the president? Change congress or the house? It's 90% useless as there is no difference between most of them. This battle will be won on the state level. No need for extreme federal fucking around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Uncle Buck - I stand with you. I am the COS State Director for Pennsylvania. I've been gently suggesting on GD that an Article V convention is the only peaceful, Constitutionally-explicit option we have to save the Republic ever since I joined ARFCOM. Frankly, there has been minimal support, at least in GD postings. I suspect there are many COS supporters in ARFCOM, but they chose not to engage. I'll continue to try to debate the effort within GD to try and bring some folks along who agree there's something that must and can be done. I take comfort in the work being done by the Mt Vernon Assembly to prepare for a convention, the efforts of states like Indiana to pass delegate limitation legislation, and the testicular fortitude of the legislatures in Georgia, Florida and Alaska to take the first steps in passing applications for a convention. We have a draft resolution on the House side in Pa with around 20 co-sponsors, and I expect action will be taken next year. The volunteer and supporter counts are steadily increasing across all of the states.
If/when we get up to around 15-20 states with resolutions in place, I suspect the pressure from all fronts to kill any convention will really ramp up, including on GD. I really expected there would be much more support given the number of seemingly true patriots that post here. Again, maybe there is/will be, we're just not hearing from them. In the meantime, I'm busting my ass, spending a fair amount of personal time and money to try and get a resolution done in Pa. There are a hell of a lot of people in Pa and all of the other states that don't deserve what the Founders and Framers gave them. But I'm not quitting or giving up. I'm a native Texan. All 3 of my kids were born in Texas. If the Republic is destined to collapse in my lifetime, we'll be finding our way back to Texas, birth certificates in hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:43:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Washington, DC is broken. You can help fix it by signing onto the petition for a Convention of States and asking your friends and associates to do the same. Here's a link: Convention of States Project website Our options are: 1. Keep trying to fix DC by sending better representatives there. 2. Hope that some solution not found in the Constitution will be miraculously successful. 3. Do nothing. 4. Use the process the Framers gave us. Have the states call a convention to limit the power of the federal govt. By the way, all of the proposed amendments coming out of the convention will, by definition, have to do with limiting the power of the federal govt. If you really believe that, you are naive. Once a Constitutional convention meets, all bets are off. Remember what happened when the states sent their representatives to Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:57:02 PM EDT
[#44]
How about some specifics? With all the political talk on this board, 99% of it is hollow hyperbole or obvious general statements.
What action will this convention of states take? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:03:15 PM EDT
[#45]
This is playing right into the hands of Cloward-Piven.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:05:48 PM EDT
[#46]
People against this idea seem to think the status quo is better. If we're on the slow train to failure why not jump to a new train - maybe it is the fast train to failure, or maybe it will operate the way it was intended.
A sample size of one isn't a very good predictor of the future. The articles of confederation were clearly flawed in their inability to enforce anything at the federal level. I think they got it right with our current constitution, but a lack of strict judicial enforcement allows people to now "misunderstand" what is meant by "interstate commerce", "well regulated", "shall not be infringed", and "congress shall make no law" (among other examples). I don't think the US military would allow the constitution to be discarded by such a convention, after all "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Their oath is to the constitution first. There was no such military to defend the articles of confederation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:07:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People against this idea seem to think the status quo is better. If we're on the slow train to failure why not jump to a new train - maybe it is the fast train to failure, or maybe it will operate the way it was intended. A sample size of one isn't a very good predictor of the future. The articles of confederation were clearly flawed in their inability to enforce anything at the federal level. I think they got it right with our current constitution, but a lack of strict judicial enforcement allows people to now "misunderstand" what is meant by "interstate commerce", "well regulated", "shall not be infringed", and "congress shall make no law" (among other examples). I don't think the US military would allow the constitution to be discarded by such a convention, after all "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Their oath is to the constitution first. There was no such military to defend the articles of confederation. Wishful thinking THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHOM SIMPLY FOLLOW ORDERS .. and the old guard of NCO's are retiring being forced out EVERY single action taken by : Nazi German troops Imperial Japs Ect Were LAWFUL ORDERS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:08:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Start by reading the Articles of Confederation. Pay particular attention to the process set out for amending the document and the requirements for adopting such amendments. Once you have mastered that material ask yourself whether the gathering which was called to propose amendments did so. Then ask yourself if the delegates acted in accordance with the Articles. Then ask yourself if the product of the gathering conformed to the original purpose. Assuming you can figure all that out you'll have a road map of how delegates could act if a convention was called to propose amendments to the Constitution. Or you can continue to allow others to think for you and follow them blindly down the garden path. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please educate me and others following this thread. Start by reading the Articles of Confederation. Pay particular attention to the process set out for amending the document and the requirements for adopting such amendments. Once you have mastered that material ask yourself whether the gathering which was called to propose amendments did so. Then ask yourself if the delegates acted in accordance with the Articles. Then ask yourself if the product of the gathering conformed to the original purpose. Assuming you can figure all that out you'll have a road map of how delegates could act if a convention was called to propose amendments to the Constitution. Or you can continue to allow others to think for you and follow them blindly down the garden path. All 13 states took action to adopt the new Constitution. Even those who didn't send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. Congress endorsed the effort. At no time did any state take action to repudiate the efforts of the constitutional convention, recall delegates or take any other action that would support the notion that there was not ultimately unanimous support of changing/eliminating the A of C. I sure wish as much effort would be put into making sure an Article V convention is called and administered properly as there is in trying to un-do, discredit and piss on an effort that produced the greatest government charter in the history of the planet. If an Article V process is not workable, then what is your suggestion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:10:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't happen because it doesn't comply with the purpose of the application AND any proposed amendments coming out of the convention must be ratified by 38 states. It would only take 13 states to block something like that. And remember, We the People own this country. Elected representatives are our servants, not vice versa. We have the power - and we simply need to exercise it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. The opportunity for fucked up shenanigans. As said above, no way would I trust dem, progressive representatives to abide by any agreed upon rules. "A well armed military and police, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the military and police to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How's that sound? Can't happen because it doesn't comply with the purpose of the application AND any proposed amendments coming out of the convention must be ratified by 38 states. It would only take 13 states to block something like that. And remember, We the People own this country. Elected representatives are our servants, not vice versa. We have the power - and we simply need to exercise it. Lol. Keep telling yourself that sport. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:12:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right. But I'm talking more specifically the recruiter ID thats in the link. Do you get a place in the new order? A vacation trip for selling the most cookies? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As a recruiter, what do you get out of this for driving people to that site? Just curious. Not clicking until this question is answered 
Answered previously, here it is again: Fair question. America has been incredibly good to me and to our family for over 160 years. And I believe the biggest threat to future generations of Americans (including future generations of our family) is an out of control federal bureaucracy that has gotten too big, too powerful, and too intrusive. I'm going to do my part to help rein it in and restore our republic. And this is the best solution I have found. Good night and all the best. Right. But I'm talking more specifically the recruiter ID thats in the link. Do you get a place in the new order? A vacation trip for selling the most cookies? The fact that he won't disclose his financial interest in people hitting that link is telling, innit? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
