User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:46:56 PM EDT
[#1]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:54:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you don't believe that state legislators would want to take back their power from the federal govt.? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:00:50 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm extraordinarily suspicious of the politicians and others that have made certain they have a chair at a Constitutional convention.
I'll take the conservative approach and stick by what we have, and its mechanism for amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:03:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My family is to large, so I'm not running, but your posts have been dead on unfortunately  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yet you didn't get the underlying theme there... know when to get out and see the writing on the wall. The smart ones left Cuba, Germany, Russia, Vietnam, etc... before it went to shit. I see the same happening here. The main issue is that a CoC isn't going to change shit... it worsen it if it does anything. Those in the USA that want to righten this listing ship are outnumbered by the FSA. It is a demographics issue. They are changing and out numbering the good folks.... At this point you either work the system to your advantage or get fucked by it. Me... I'm working it to my advantage and looking at backup plans. That means I'll take every handout the government offers. They want to give me welfare since I'm hispanic... fine by me. That money was already taken from me by taxes so I'm just getting it back. If not then some FSA leech would have gotten it. That is the reality of things. Not this CoC will save us a and stop big bad government. On the one hand, I agree. On the other, nowhere to run to that's as good or better. When shit gets that bad... someplace will be better. Remember... nothing lasts forever. My family is to large, so I'm not running, but your posts have been dead on unfortunately You either learn from history and others' mistakes and actions or you are doomed to repeat it. My family escaped but we lost everything in Cuba. I will not allow that to happen again. I plan to the best of my ability move assests out of the USA and secure them in another country. Canada isn't the USA. Their system of government isn't the same. But aure as shit they aren't that bad. So I can't CCW... I can still own firearms and drive around with a shotgun in the truck. I can still own property. I can still own and run a business.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:10:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP, here is a no BS suggestion. give ARFCOM the TL;DR version of what a Convention of States is and then what the specific goal of the Project is. The last one I heard of did not impress me with their goals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. OK, here you go: This purpose of the Convention of States Project is to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, effectively returning the citizens' rightful power over the ruling elite. It will be a convention comprised of delegates from the states to propose 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. A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States). That means a proposed amendment can be blocked by as few as 13 states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:17:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm extraordinarily suspicious of the politicians and others that have made certain they have a chair at Constitutional convention. I'll take the conservative approach and stick by what we have, and its mechanism for amendment. Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:04:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:13:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. Please provide documentary support for your claim that "prior precedent establishes that a Convention of States may not be confined to the original purpose..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:22:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Just knowing who my state would sent to something like this I could never agree. They do not represent my views.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:30:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Congress' involvement in a Convention of States is limited to calling the time and place of the initial gathering. Please provide documentary support for your claim that "prior precedent establishes that a Convention of States may not be confined to the original purpose..." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. Please provide documentary support for your claim that "prior precedent establishes that a Convention of States may not be confined to the original purpose..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:40:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. Please provide documentary support for your claim that "prior precedent establishes that a Convention of States may not be confined to the original purpose..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement Once again, you haven't done your homework. (no personal attack intended) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 11:49:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, but way off the mark. Article V Compendium Once again, you haven't done your homework. (no personal attack intended) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's the text of Article V of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The answer to your question. And prior precedent establishes that the convention may not be confined to the original purpose for which they were called. Please provide documentary support for your claim that "prior precedent establishes that a Convention of States may not be confined to the original purpose..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement Once again, you haven't done your homework. (no personal attack intended) It's directly relevant to people who aren't either agent provocateurs or useful idiots (no personal attack intended). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:03:01 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know, that's interesting. I never mentioned "idiot". You did. The mere fact that you think that the worst that could possibly happen is that stupidly benign delegates won't get anything passed... 
There is evil in this world. True evil. Evil that you don't seem to comprehend. It is folly to assume that it doesn't exist, and an especially great folly to assume that it won't exist at all in this... thing... you're proposing/supporting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. It is foolish to think that everything will go according to plan, i.e. have no reservations about this convention. The mere fact that you won't accept the possibility that it could be good to have reservations, but instead will 'recruit, recruit, recruit' at 100% confidence, tells me that you've spent too much time among people who aren't telling you everything, and likely have something to gain.
No thanks. I never mentioned "idiot". You did. The mere fact that you think that the worst that could possibly happen is that stupidly benign delegates won't get anything passed...
There is evil in this world. True evil. Evil that you don't seem to comprehend. It is folly to assume that it doesn't exist, and an especially great folly to assume that it won't exist at all in this... thing... you're proposing/supporting. I completely agree. I think the Constitution, as originally written, is the least evil way for men to govern themselves. And I think Article V is the least evil way to get out of the post-Constitutional mess we're in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:27:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would not survive a challenge? The constitution clearly gives Congress authority to set rules for a convention. If Congress said a majority of States was adequate for ratification, how could that even be challenged? Who would even have standing to offer a challenge? All your assurances are nothing more than assumptions, there is literally no way to give those assumptions any teeth. A further problem: you said it's being chaired by members of the two parties. They are the source of most of the problems, so they,re going to fix... themselves? How? Reductions in the scope and power of fedgov??? The problem is that they're disregarding the current constitution! There is nothing remotely vague or unclear about the commerce clause, yet all three branches claim they can compel the people to buy insurance. But if we just pass another law/amendment, that'll fix everything.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments, the motivation, I even agree to some extent with the approach. But the assurances fall flat, there appear to be no safeguards, and there's no contingency or exit plan if things should go awry (see the Bracken novels). I still think the most likely outcome is the dissolution and breakup of the deceased and decaying remains of the USA. But that end has fair odds in any event.   Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I may not have covered everything, please let me know. Would not survive a challenge? The constitution clearly gives Congress authority to set rules for a convention. If Congress said a majority of States was adequate for ratification, how could that even be challenged? Who would even have standing to offer a challenge? All your assurances are nothing more than assumptions, there is literally no way to give those assumptions any teeth. A further problem: you said it's being chaired by members of the two parties. They are the source of most of the problems, so they,re going to fix... themselves? How? Reductions in the scope and power of fedgov??? The problem is that they're disregarding the current constitution! There is nothing remotely vague or unclear about the commerce clause, yet all three branches claim they can compel the people to buy insurance. But if we just pass another law/amendment, that'll fix everything.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments, the motivation, I even agree to some extent with the approach. But the assurances fall flat, there appear to be no safeguards, and there's no contingency or exit plan if things should go awry (see the Bracken novels). I still think the most likely outcome is the dissolution and breakup of the deceased and decaying remains of the USA. But that end has fair odds in any event. I'm not aware of any language in the Constitution that gives Congress any say in an Article V process other than officially calling the convention and establishing which means of ratification by the states will be employed. All of the current 27 amendments were ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states per the Constitution. If Congress "says" ratification can be accomplished with fewer than 3/4ths of the states, presumably that law would be challenged by one or more of the states to the Supreme Court. Even the crappy Court we have now would have no choice but to over-turn a less-than-3/4ths for ratification law. With respect to the bi-partisan approach being used by the states to establish convention rules of order, I don't see the problem. One key driver for a convention is to re-establish the role split between the fed and the states, which means the states increase their power and jurisdiction per the Framers intent. The D and R elected officials at the state level are no angels for sure, but they're not the source of the problem in Wash DC. I fully expect they will be excited to see money and power returned to the states. Many say the fed govt is not following the Constitution. This is only correct with respect to the Constitution as originally written and amended. The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is being adhered to by the fed govt for the most part. What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:42:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not against this idea. But I worry about ulterior motives and any playbooks the left has to use a convention to their advantage. They have laws prewritten and ready to submit when a national crisis occurs and the political climate is good for the law to be submitted and passed. I'm worried about the same thing here. That a playbook exists for a convention and what they do during that time to push some really terrible stuff. Example - A convention is called. During said time a national tragedy occurs such as a school shooting. Emotionally vulnerable citizens and leaders start attacking the 2nd amendment and it gets repealed. Has this been studied? Do we know what is likely to be brought to the table from varying states? I'm saying - Don't ask the question unless you already know what the answer will be. If the research has been done and we know about any playbooks and agendas and how to counter them and any media attacks then go for it. Unless the convention was called based on application from at least 34 states that included 2nd amendment matters on the agenda, 2nd amendment mods could not be taken up in a legal sense. They could take it up as a practical matter notwithstanding any delegate limitation/recall rules passed by the states. So in the scenario you set forth, a repeal of the 2A would need to get passed out of the convention by at least 26 states, then ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states. If 3/4ths of the states would ratify via a flawed convention, then presumably they would also ratify if Congress passed a repeal amendment via a 2/3rds vote out of both houses. That could theoretically happen at any time. The ultimate check on the convention is the 3/4ths ratification requirement. If a 2A repeal can get ratified, then we're screwed. Do you think there are at least 13 states that would vote against a repeal no matter what the national circumstances might be? I do. I haven't tried to make a list, but the 2A experts in GD should see if they can name 13 sure "no" votes for a 2A repeal... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:43:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's directly relevant to people who aren't either agent provocateurs or useful idiots (no personal attack intended). Well, if I have to choose between heeding the advice of an electrician I haven't met and who doesn't do his homework - and being a "useful idiot" for patriots and constitutional law experts like Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Robert Natelson, I'm going with the latter. Enjoy your time in Canada, New Zealand, or wherever you plan to go... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:50:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, if I have to choose between heeding the advice of an electrician I haven't met and who doesn't do his homework - and being a "useful idiot" for patriots and constitutional law experts like Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Robert Natelson, I'm going with the latter. Enjoy your time in Canada, New Zealand, or wherever you plan to go... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's directly relevant to people who aren't either agent provocateurs or useful idiots (no personal attack intended). Well, if I have to choose between heeding the advice of an electrician I haven't met and who doesn't do his homework - and being a "useful idiot" for patriots and constitutional law experts like Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Robert Natelson, I'm going with the latter. Enjoy your time in Canada, New Zealand, or wherever you plan to go... You should do some homework on logical fallacies, specifically ad hom and appeal to authority. Enjoy your attempts to let noted scholars like Harry Reid rewrite the Constitution, I'm sure the process will be completely above board and all legal requirements and Constitutional safeguards will be effective. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:51:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:51:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just knowing who my state would sent to something like this I could never agree. They do not represent my views. Would you support a convention with the right agenda irrespective of who your state sends as delegates? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:59:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:06:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't really see a downside. This will either speed up the war or maybe, just maybe get us on the road to a better future... Pretty much this. There really isn't any way to live with 40+ million FSA moochers for any great length of time. Even if you "fix" the system, those people have to go somewhere. It would not surprise me if that "somewhere" is created through balkanization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:11:27 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would not survive a challenge? The constitution clearly gives Congress authority to set rules for a convention. If Congress said a majority of States was adequate for ratification, how could that even be challenged? Who would even have standing to offer a challenge? All your assurances are nothing more than assumptions, there is literally no way to give those assumptions any teeth. A further problem: you said it's being chaired by members of the two parties. They are the source of most of the problems, so they,re going to fix... themselves? How? Reductions in the scope and power of fedgov??? The problem is that they're disregarding the current constitution! There is nothing remotely vague or unclear about the commerce clause, yet all three branches claim they can compel the people to buy insurance. But if we just pass another law/amendment, that'll fix everything.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments, the motivation, I even agree to some extent with the approach. But the assurances fall flat, there appear to be no safeguards, and there's no contingency or exit plan if things should go awry (see the Bracken novels). I still think the most likely outcome is the dissolution and breakup of the deceased and decaying remains of the USA. But that end has fair odds in any event. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I may not have covered everything, please let me know. Would not survive a challenge? The constitution clearly gives Congress authority to set rules for a convention. If Congress said a majority of States was adequate for ratification, how could that even be challenged? Who would even have standing to offer a challenge? All your assurances are nothing more than assumptions, there is literally no way to give those assumptions any teeth. A further problem: you said it's being chaired by members of the two parties. They are the source of most of the problems, so they,re going to fix... themselves? How? Reductions in the scope and power of fedgov??? The problem is that they're disregarding the current constitution! There is nothing remotely vague or unclear about the commerce clause, yet all three branches claim they can compel the people to buy insurance. But if we just pass another law/amendment, that'll fix everything.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments, the motivation, I even agree to some extent with the approach. But the assurances fall flat, there appear to be no safeguards, and there's no contingency or exit plan if things should go awry (see the Bracken novels). I still think the most likely outcome is the dissolution and breakup of the deceased and decaying remains of the USA. But that end has fair odds in any event. One more good point you raised...the intent of the Framers with respect to the commerce clause has been ripped to shreds by the Supreme Court. If/when a convention is ultimately called, I hope the commerce clause and the general welfare clause are debated (reduce the power and jurisdiction of the fed govt). As I implied in a previous post, the Framers, had they known, would have worded these clauses differently to prevent the abuses we're now having to labor under. The language in the Constitution needs to be tightened up to make it crystal clear the "commerce" means and what "general welfare" means in the context of federal power and jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:12:08 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should do some homework on logical fallacies, specifically ad hom and appeal to authority. Enjoy your attempts to let noted scholars like Harry Reid rewrite the Constitution, I'm sure the process will be completely above board and all legal requirements and Constitutional safeguards will be effective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's directly relevant to people who aren't either agent provocateurs or useful idiots (no personal attack intended). Well, if I have to choose between heeding the advice of an electrician I haven't met and who doesn't do his homework - and being a "useful idiot" for patriots and constitutional law experts like Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Robert Natelson, I'm going with the latter. Enjoy your time in Canada, New Zealand, or wherever you plan to go... You should do some homework on logical fallacies, specifically ad hom and appeal to authority. Enjoy your attempts to let noted scholars like Harry Reid rewrite the Constitution, I'm sure the process will be completely above board and all legal requirements and Constitutional safeguards will be effective. You're reading too much into it, Balog. I don't ask my electrician for legal advice, and I don't ask my legal counsel for advice on how to wire my house. If you want to pretend to be an expert on Article V and the constitutional, go right ahead. I believe people are generally smart enough to figure out who's a poser and who's for real. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:17:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mark Levin has proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment in his book The Liberty Amendments. And its repeal could certainly be proposed under the currently pending applications for a Convention of States. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I really won't support any change to the Constitution until the 17th is repealed and the vital balance against the popular vote is restored. Until America can understand the Constitution well enough to get that done, it is too fucking stupid to be messing with any part of the Constitution. Mark Levin has proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment in his book The Liberty Amendments. And its repeal could certainly be proposed under the currently pending applications for a Convention of States. I was going to ask if this was the plan that Mark Levin advocates. I don't remember the details, but he laid it all out. There really isn't a way for it to be hijacked like most of the posts here fear. ETA: I'm in! This is the best recourse we have right now. I'm saddened by all the naysayers here, but I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:17:52 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty much this. There really isn't any way to live with 40+ million FSA moochers for any great length of time. Even if you "fix" the system, those people have to go somewhere. It would not surprise me if that "somewhere" is created through balkanization. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't really see a downside. This will either speed up the war or maybe, just maybe get us on the road to a better future... Pretty much this. There really isn't any way to live with 40+ million FSA moochers for any great length of time. Even if you "fix" the system, those people have to go somewhere. It would not surprise me if that "somewhere" is created through balkanization. I agree. For the sake of my kids and future grandkids, I will try to get a convention done. If it doesn't happen or doesn't help, at least I tried. The Republic may already be dead, we just don't know it yet. I don't think it's over. Only God knows for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:27:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was going to ask if this was the plan that Mark Levin advocates. I don't remember the details, but he laid it all out. There really isn't a way for it to be hijacked like most of the posts here fear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I really won't support any change to the Constitution until the 17th is repealed and the vital balance against the popular vote is restored. Until America can understand the Constitution well enough to get that done, it is too fucking stupid to be messing with any part of the Constitution. Mark Levin has proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment in his book The Liberty Amendments. And its repeal could certainly be proposed under the currently pending applications for a Convention of States. I was going to ask if this was the plan that Mark Levin advocates. I don't remember the details, but he laid it all out. There really isn't a way for it to be hijacked like most of the posts here fear. The COS organization leadership is in contact with Levin. Levin recently endorsed COS, and serves as a legal advisor to COS. The COS application is not intended to be a point-by-point call for Levin's amendment plan, but the essence of the COS effort is consistent with what Levin is calling for (in his latest book, "The Liberty Amendments"). More info on Levin's involvement is on the Convention of States website under Endorsements, The Jefferson Statement link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:45:08 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:53:19 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're reading too much into it, Balog. I don't ask my electrician for legal advice, and I don't ask my legal counsel for advice on how to wire my house. If you want to pretend to be an expert on Article V and the constitutional, go right ahead. I believe people are generally smart enough to figure out who's a poser and who's for real. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's directly relevant to people who aren't either agent provocateurs or useful idiots (no personal attack intended). Well, if I have to choose between heeding the advice of an electrician I haven't met and who doesn't do his homework - and being a "useful idiot" for patriots and constitutional law experts like Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and Robert Natelson, I'm going with the latter. Enjoy your time in Canada, New Zealand, or wherever you plan to go... You should do some homework on logical fallacies, specifically ad hom and appeal to authority. Enjoy your attempts to let noted scholars like Harry Reid rewrite the Constitution, I'm sure the process will be completely above board and all legal requirements and Constitutional safeguards will be effective. You're reading too much into it, Balog. I don't ask my electrician for legal advice, and I don't ask my legal counsel for advice on how to wire my house. If you want to pretend to be an expert on Article V and the constitutional, go right ahead. I believe people are generally smart enough to figure out who's a poser and who's for real. You seem awful anxious to personalize this and make it about what I do for a living Instead of debating my ideas. Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it... Where have I heard of those tactics before? You a big Alinsky fan are you? Also, I don't mention what I do on here very often, and haven't in quite a while. Are you stalking me, or just doing opposition research to find something to try to leverage as an attack to marginalize my opinion? If I post opinions from Constitutional scholars opposing your little scheme will your head explode from the cognitive dissonance of trying to discredit the experts when your only argument is "experts say"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 7:31:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:02:25 AM EDT
[#30]
Why would I want a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of politicians, thereby suppressing the expression of the will of the people at the ballot box?
We're always so quick to demand more and more rules in the name of freedom (think about that for a moment), but it never occurs to us that it's the behavior of the people that is responsible. Over the last 120 years, we've allowed progressivism to do its thing, compromising here and there, until we're where we are today. The Constitution is not what's broken. The American people are the problem, whether it's because they are true Marxist ideologues, because they're ignorant and going along with the progressives, because they "go along to get along", because they simply don't pay attention, because they're apathetic, or whatever. Furthermore, why would we ever expect the politicians and (ironically titled) justices who routinely ignore the Constitution to respect new rules that we put in the Constitution? This is the same kind of thinking that results in saying things like, "People keep ignoring the many laws against murder. We need more laws that restrict guns." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:50:21 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The language in the Constitution needs to be tightened up to make it crystal clear the "commerce" means and what "general welfare" means in the context of federal power and jurisdiction. This statement illustrates another way in which those who propose and support this idea demonstrate that they are like babes in the woods. As any one paying attention to what is happening around them should know (and as any experienced attorney will tell those not perceptive enough to figure it out for themselves), there is no way to prevent a collection of judges from interpreting any set of words you may write in a fashion which you never anticipated or intended. As an example, no one seriously believes that those who wrote the 14th Amendment foresaw or intended the use to which it is currently being put. That hasn't stopped the judges. It hasn't even slowed down their use of that amendment to impose their vision of what is good on the people. Your amendments won't prevent their continuing to do so. In fact, new amendments would only open new avenues for expansion of government power by giving them new words to (mis)interpret. Assuming of course that the delegates don't take the golden opportunity you seek to give them to write an entirely new document which expands the power of government and ends the fig leaf that Americans enjoy some rights which the government cannot impair.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 9:40:15 AM EDT
[#32]
I'm opposed to term limits for the House. The People should be allowed to make all the bad decisions they want. That's the point of the House.
Even after 6 years of torture, I'm opposed to term limits for the President, as well. George Washington made a personal decision, in a time when the nation was small (compared to now), the budget was small, and law, rather than policy, governed the land. Now budgets and spend plans can be designed around long term strategies that are changed or abandoned every 8 years at a very minimum. That isn't enough time for subtle changes to exert enough influence, and drastic changes of direction are NOT how you turn a battleship. In addition, unlike the Senate which has enough members to mellow the effects of lame duck sessions, there is 1 president, and he needs to be performing all 8 years as if the next election depends on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:27:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. Sounds good. Harry Reid et al are currently re-writing the Constitution via litigation and the regulatory process, so the suicide that started 100+ years ago is well underway. No sense in trying to stop it. It amazes me that we're comfortable with letting the DC crowd do whatever it wants to do with the Constitution, but pulling the pen away from them and letting the states, which created the Constitution, fix it is apparently so much worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:38:53 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm opposed to term limits for the House. The People should be allowed to make all the bad decisions they want. That's the point of the House. Even after 6 years of torture, I'm opposed to term limits for the President, as well. George Washington made a personal decision, in a time when the nation was small (compared to now), the budget was small, and law, rather than policy, governed the land. Now budgets and spend plans can be designed around long term strategies that are changed or abandoned every 8 years at a very minimum. That isn't enough time for subtle changes to exert enough influence, and drastic changes of direction are NOT how you turn a battleship. In addition, unlike the Senate which has enough members to mellow the effects of lame duck sessions, there is 1 president, and he needs to be performing all 8 years as if the next election depends on it. If the People in 38 states decided to ratify an amendment that called for term limits on all members of Congress, would you support it as a decision the People wanted to make? Or should we never even put it on the table no matter how many People wanted it to happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:44:59 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem awful anxious to personalize this and make it about what I do for a living Instead of debating my ideas. Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it... Where have I heard of those tactics before? You a big Alinsky fan are you? Also, I don't mention what I do on here very often, and haven't in quite a while. Are you stalking me, or just doing opposition research to find something to try to leverage as an attack to marginalize my opinion? If I post opinions from Constitutional scholars opposing your little scheme will your head explode from the cognitive dissonance of trying to discredit the experts when your only argument is "experts say"? Your failure to recognize the truth (when it was easily accessible) and by implication, your accusation of prevarication, in one of of earlier exchanges tells me that you're not the type of person I want to spend any more time interacting with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:48:10 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds good. Harry Reid et al are currently re-writing the Constitution via litigation and the regulatory process, so the suicide that started 100+ years ago is well underway. No sense in trying to stop it. It amazes me that we're comfortable with letting the DC crowd do whatever it wants to do with the Constitution, but pulling the pen away from them and letting the states, which created the Constitution, fix it is apparently so much worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is needed is a few tweaks to the Constitution to underscore original intent, to re-establish state sovereignty and to disperse the power that has been concentrated in DC. You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. Sounds good. Harry Reid et al are currently re-writing the Constitution via litigation and the regulatory process, so the suicide that started 100+ years ago is well underway. No sense in trying to stop it. It amazes me that we're comfortable with letting the DC crowd do whatever it wants to do with the Constitution, but pulling the pen away from them and letting the states, which created the Constitution, fix it is apparently so much worse. So, the people you elected to govern aren't going to be the same as the people you elect to decide how you'll be governed? Is that how it works? Planning on banning the participants of this Convention from serving in office to avoid all conflicts of interest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:48:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This statement illustrates another way in which those who propose and support this idea demonstrate that they are like babes in the woods. As any one paying attention to what is happening around them should know (and as any experienced attorney will tell those not perceptive enough to figure it out for themselves), there is no way to prevent a collection of judges from interpreting any set of words you may write in a fashion which you never anticipated or intended. As an example, no one seriously believes that those who wrote the 14th Amendment foresaw or intended the use to which it is currently being put. That hasn't stopped the judges. It hasn't even slowed down their use of that amendment to impose their vision of what is good on the people. Your amendments won't prevent their continuing to do so. In fact, new amendments would only open new avenues for expansion of government power by giving them new words to (mis)interpret. Assuming of course that the delegates don't take the golden opportunity you seek to give them to write an entirely new document which expands the power of government and ends the fig leaf that Americans enjoy some rights which the government cannot impair..
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The language in the Constitution needs to be tightened up to make it crystal clear the "commerce" means and what "general welfare" means in the context of federal power and jurisdiction. This statement illustrates another way in which those who propose and support this idea demonstrate that they are like babes in the woods. As any one paying attention to what is happening around them should know (and as any experienced attorney will tell those not perceptive enough to figure it out for themselves), there is no way to prevent a collection of judges from interpreting any set of words you may write in a fashion which you never anticipated or intended. As an example, no one seriously believes that those who wrote the 14th Amendment foresaw or intended the use to which it is currently being put. That hasn't stopped the judges. It hasn't even slowed down their use of that amendment to impose their vision of what is good on the people. Your amendments won't prevent their continuing to do so. In fact, new amendments would only open new avenues for expansion of government power by giving them new words to (mis)interpret. Assuming of course that the delegates don't take the golden opportunity you seek to give them to write an entirely new document which expands the power of government and ends the fig leaf that Americans enjoy some rights which the government cannot impair..
Some of the damage done by federal judges can be addressed by imposing term limits. The rest of it can be addressed by giving the states the power to over-turn Supreme Court decisions by a super-majority vote. Again, if the delegates want to amend the Constitution and replace it with The Communist Manifesto, fine. Send it to the states for ratification. If it gets ratified, fine. Everyone in GD will be living in New Zealand by then anyway it appears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 10:56:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the People in 38 states decided to ratify an amendment that called for term limits on all members of Congress, would you support it as a decision the People wanted to make? Or should we never even put it on the table no matter how many People wanted it to happen? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm opposed to term limits for the House. The People should be allowed to make all the bad decisions they want. That's the point of the House. Even after 6 years of torture, I'm opposed to term limits for the President, as well. George Washington made a personal decision, in a time when the nation was small (compared to now), the budget was small, and law, rather than policy, governed the land. Now budgets and spend plans can be designed around long term strategies that are changed or abandoned every 8 years at a very minimum. That isn't enough time for subtle changes to exert enough influence, and drastic changes of direction are NOT how you turn a battleship. In addition, unlike the Senate which has enough members to mellow the effects of lame duck sessions, there is 1 president, and he needs to be performing all 8 years as if the next election depends on it. If the People in 38 states decided to ratify an amendment that called for term limits on all members of Congress, would you support it as a decision the People wanted to make? Or should we never even put it on the table no matter how many People wanted it to happen? No, I would not support it, and I would expect the Senate, who SHOULD NOT REPRESENT THE POPULAR VOTE, to keep it from happening. If the people want it to happen, it should pass in the House, but fail in the Senate. A Convention bypasses the checks and balances put in place, which should be a further indicator it is just a bad, bad idea. To be honest, the phrasing of your response to me makes me question your understanding of checks and balances. And just because the uneducated masses want something doesn't mean it's an intelligent or well-considered idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:00:56 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, the people you elected to govern aren't going to be the same as the people you elect to decide how you'll be governed? Is that how it works? Planning on banning the participants of this Convention from serving in office to avoid all conflicts of interest? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By Balog You'll forgive us if we are not overbrimming with excitement at letting you "tweak" the Constitution, it's been molested enough as it is. So what's your solution? Leave everything as-is? Given a choice between "Well at least I'm doing something!" and making it worse and doing nothing I'd take doing nothing, yeah. But thankfully I don't need to hold to your false dichotomy, so I'll focus on non-suicidal ideas that don't involve Harry Reid and Fauxcahontas et al rewriting the Constitution. Sounds good. Harry Reid et al are currently re-writing the Constitution via litigation and the regulatory process, so the suicide that started 100+ years ago is well underway. No sense in trying to stop it. It amazes me that we're comfortable with letting the DC crowd do whatever it wants to do with the Constitution, but pulling the pen away from them and letting the states, which created the Constitution, fix it is apparently so much worse. So, the people you elected to govern aren't going to be the same as the people you elect to decide how you'll be governed? Is that how it works? Planning on banning the participants of this Convention from serving in office to avoid all conflicts of interest? That would just mean lobbyists would be the delegates for the States. They control most of the elected officials anyways and half of them were elected officials at one time or will become in a future date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:13:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. There will be be some hidden codicile that onlt the wonks will know about and in the middle of the night the convention will be transformed into something no one knows and it will be a huge cluster. we will all have to eat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:15:03 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. Me neither. I don't trust the Democrat controlled states. To live up to their word. They would like nothing more to limit the power of the citizens. They rule over. Ever met a Democrat, that wants to limit government? we all know that what it SAYS and what it DOES are completely different to what WILL HAPPEN |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:15:47 AM EDT
[#42]
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. I not sure if this is a con con |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:17:26 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There will be be some hidden codicile that onlt the wonks will know about and in the middle of the night the convention will be transformed into something no one knows and it will be a huge cluster. we will all have to eat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. There will be be some hidden codicile that onlt the wonks will know about and in the middle of the night the convention will be transformed into something no one knows and it will be a huge cluster. we will all have to eat. So, what do you suggest as a solution instead? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:20:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of the damage done by federal judges can be addressed by imposing term limits. The rest of it can be addressed by giving the states the power to over-turn Supreme Court decisions by a super-majority vote. Again, if the delegates want to amend the Constitution and replace it with The Communist Manifesto, fine. Send it to the states for ratification. If it gets ratified, fine. Everyone in GD will be living in New Zealand by then anyway it appears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The language in the Constitution needs to be tightened up to make it crystal clear the "commerce" means and what "general welfare" means in the context of federal power and jurisdiction. This statement illustrates another way in which those who propose and support this idea demonstrate that they are like babes in the woods. As any one paying attention to what is happening around them should know (and as any experienced attorney will tell those not perceptive enough to figure it out for themselves), there is no way to prevent a collection of judges from interpreting any set of words you may write in a fashion which you never anticipated or intended. As an example, no one seriously believes that those who wrote the 14th Amendment foresaw or intended the use to which it is currently being put. That hasn't stopped the judges. It hasn't even slowed down their use of that amendment to impose their vision of what is good on the people. Your amendments won't prevent their continuing to do so. In fact, new amendments would only open new avenues for expansion of government power by giving them new words to (mis)interpret. Assuming of course that the delegates don't take the golden opportunity you seek to give them to write an entirely new document which expands the power of government and ends the fig leaf that Americans enjoy some rights which the government cannot impair..
Some of the damage done by federal judges can be addressed by imposing term limits. The rest of it can be addressed by giving the states the power to over-turn Supreme Court decisions by a super-majority vote. Again, if the delegates want to amend the Constitution and replace it with The Communist Manifesto, fine. Send it to the states for ratification. If it gets ratified, fine. Everyone in GD will be living in New Zealand by then anyway it appears. Which the USSC would rule to be unconstitutional. " It is peculiarly the province of the courts to say what the law is." It doesn't have to go "... to the states for ratification." What you can't grasp is that you can't control anything about the process. The new document could be put to a plebiscite. The document could provide that an affirmative vote of 50% plus 1 vote would be sufficient to ratify it. Now imagine what happens when the Cook County Illinois board of Elections is counting votes. 
The only precedent for such a convention teaches us that those who are seeking one are playing with fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:22:14 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really won't support any change to the Constitution until the 17th is repealed and the vital balance against the popular vote is restored. Until America can understand the Constitution well enough to get that done, it is too fucking stupid to be messing with any part of the Constitution. this. We need our republic back |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:24:57 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. The fact that the current crop of communists in Washington would be the ones writing the new Constitution.
What, you thought "the people" would have a say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:28:02 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that the current crop of communists in Washington would be the ones writing the new Constitution.
What, you thought "the people" would have a say? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK. What are your objections? Quoted:
Not a fan of this idea. The fact that the current crop of communists in Washington would be the ones writing the new Constitution.
What, you thought "the people" would have a say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:29:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn straight... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. OldCarGuy -- Your reply is appreciated as is your service to advance a CoS application in PA. There's a lot of fear and misinformation around this process, and I am not deterred by it one bit. I've heard the cries and whines of naysayers all my adult life and never pay much attention to them. I'm certainly willing to listen and consider rational concerns and objections from knowledgeable individuals. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this thread are simply not based on fact or logic. So, I am pressing ahead. We're going to make this happen and restore our republic - or we're going to die trying... Damn straight... If you get your way and it turns out that you are wrong, and the process is hijacked, would either of you be willing to step forward and be held accountable? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:40:34 AM EDT
[#49]
The problem with the constitution is not the text, it's the government being unwilling to adhere to it. I don't see how changing the text can help, and I can seem limitless possibilities for how it can hurt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 11:43:06 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, delegates from the states will be writing proposed amendments - not a new constitution. And they will be limited to the subject of reining in the power of the federal govt. It's going to be a Convention of States, not a constitutional convention. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK. What are your objections? Quoted: Not a fan of this idea. The fact that the current crop of communists in Washington would be the ones writing the new Constitution. What, you thought "the people" would have a say? Once again... the Articles of Confederation. What was a Convention to add amendments became a Convention to replace it. I'm a student of history and if there is one thing I have learned. If you don't learn from it you are doomed to repeat it. Also what is there to stop them from creating an amendment that scraps the current Constitution altogether? It could be written in this fashion. Amendment 31 This Amendment shall by power vest in it by the Constitution and the People hereby abolish all previous Amendments listed before and allow for the creation of a new Constitution on or after the date of April 23rd, 2017. Ratification of the new Constitution shall be by a policy determined by the New Constitutional Convention and it's Delegates.
|
|
|
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.
