Tag for when I get time to watch.

Initial feeling is no. The Constitution is not the problem, the people who have sworn to uphold it are the problem.

OP help me out and explain how the Constitution is broken?

It's the people not the document.....

Your President blatantly disregards the document right now. Has committed treasonous acts to ignore it....

And your suggestion is to change the document?

And who exactly will enforce it? You? Cause your welcome to enforce it now. Right now.... In fact a strong argument could be made that anyone including yourself would be constitutionally protected if you did. I'm not saying you would survive, only that it would be an option.

Changing the laws/rules/wording isn't going to do shit unless someone is willing to lay down thier lives to enforce it, and since no one is doing it now please please explain to me what will change.

Such a well thought out, reasoned response.

All of the above. Hammer to nail.

The people who do not vote them out are the problem.

An Article V CoS would get out of control no matter what you guys who are for it think.

How so?

The Constitution as originally adopted and amended is not broken.  What is broken is the Constitution we live under.  It was created by the Progressives via regulatory actions and by the Supreme Court by twisting the original document into something that would be unrecognizable to the Framers.  That is what needs to be addressed.  There are fundamental structural and systemic problems with the federal government that can only be addressed by some form of action by the states if the republic is going to survive.  Article V included a state convention option for 2 reasons:  (1) the Framers knew the day would come when the fed govt would become tyrannical, and (2) they wanted the states to have recourse short of another revolution.  If those of you whom oppose this think the Framers made a huge mistake by wording Article V the way they did, but every single word in the rest of the Constitution is sacrosanct, then just say so.  I believe there may be still be enough statesmen in the state houses to save the republic.  And all of you who think it will be ignored or won't make a difference, what's the harm in trying?  There's absolutely nothing that stops the states from convening a "constitutional convention" tomorrow other than political will.  If they wanted to do that, they sure as hell would waste their time with the Article V dance.  Article V is about amending the existing Constitution, not drafting a new one.  There are many of us working with COS.  I think many in GD will be surprised how much progress is made in 2015 towards getting the convention called.  At least 20 states are expected to introduce COS resolutions during their 2015 sessions...

That's a great sentiment but has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked.

I guess I have a hard time being convinced when a lot the answers avoid the hard questions.

If you want to respond like a politician it really doesn't help people see how your cause will be any different. Not a jab just an observation.

Straight answers to direct questions might help getting more people to listen.

this...

I for one am not wringing my hands or sitting around. I just happen to disagree with what you believe will work.

See if the above responses approach being direct answers.  If not, I'll keep trying

This country and its circumstances are vastly different from those of his time.  A convention back then probably would not have been all that risky.  Today it could be disastrous.  The potential is strong enough to warrant extreme caution at the suggestion of a convention.  The idea that a ton of good will come of it is laughable under today's circumstances.

Yep. People here love say how retarded most the country is but when a "revolution" or "Convention of States" thread comes up every person in the US is seen as being in lockstep with GD.

bigstick61, I deeply and profoundly respect you and cannot think of time that I have ever disagreed with you on matters of the founding and the Constitution.  I believe that states proposing or abolishing amendments under Article V is the last best hope for our Constitutional Republic.  This past week in Washington DC has proven to me the ballot box no longer works when it comes to the likes of Boehner, McConnell and the National Government. I am afraid that Article V is the only thing that may avert the final solution of the cartridge box - and this frightens me to the core.

I'm not sure there is a peaceful solution.  Given that the militia is essentially (if not technically) dead, one would have to rely on rabble if peace is not an alternative (might as well not bother in that case) or the Federal military, which itself is a potentially dangerous solution.  The country has been heavily corrupted at every level, not just politically, but socially (but then, politics is often a reflection of the society governed).

As nice as a successful constitutional convention, other successful constitutional amendments, a return to the limited franchise and other non-democratic institutions, and abolishment of income and other oppressive taxation would be, I have no illusion that such things are not too far removed from being pipe dreams in this day and age.  I truly wish that the case was otherwise.  If we're not past the point of no return, we sure are damn close.

Honestly if I thought this would work at all I would support it.  Basically to make it happen we would have to split the country into sections and have each section do their own otherwise it would be a cluster.

Thomas Jefferson already pointed out the means to fix this, we just have too much to lose currently to take it.

(myself included)

Nothing will come of it.

Amending the constitution will not fix the country because the constitution is already being ignored at will.

Nothing will fix the country short of a complete change in the character of the American people.  Or at least in the 60 percent of the population that are functionally retarded.

It would get out of control, it would get out of control and we would be lucky to survive it.

True enough.

The problem we have is that we no longer have a body of people that can be trusted. Our leaders at all levels with almost no exceptions are lawless and without principle. Hence all kinds of rules and intent can be written down, and all involved will nod their head solemnly and swear that they will follow them.

and then simply ignore all of it and do what they want.

Happens every day. I see no way to overcome it, except to not give the chance.

I don't see anyway that the federal governemnt, that has all the power and money to the point it needs no one else, is going to pay a whit of attention. to anything anyone tells it to do.

It lives for itself, it is its own living breathing sovereign entity and I don't think it sees itself as beholden to anyone or thing BUT itself.

So sure go ahead I guess. I suppose 150 years too late is better than never.

Its also probably too slow at this point.

How many of you know the difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of the states?

Yes, I am aware of that.  As I mentioned earlier, the courts have assumed for themselves the power of constitutional amendment.  Some rulings don't even pretend to reference the constitution.

Thank you for he additional information.

However the big question is:

Who will enforce it?

Your answer was the courts. That doesn't work now. The Supreme Court itself has become on many levels a policy making body. Just look at the ACA ruling to see that.

And the courts aren't really the enforcement arm of our government. My main question is in all this planning and debate who will really enforce it?

The police? C'mon surely no one is that naive? How about the military? Only if they are allowed too... Which is a slippery slope no American should ever wish for. A local militia? Where is it and show me a big enough one to hold the government accountable.

The only way I could ever support your view point is if you had a way to enforce it. And at this time you don't.


Edit to address the your president statement.

I meant your president because I have done almost everything possible to remove myself from being governed. It takes a lot of hard work and almost daily attention to limit our current governments hold on me. But I believe I have been able to do about 90% of just that. My day in and day out life has little to no contact or interaction with the .gov. It doesn't affect me much  at all anymore. Now does it still touch my life. Yes, a very very small amount. But as you have stated nothing is perfect and my plan isn't either. But the hardwork and dedication I have done has finally paid off.
So yes he is your president because I chose the other path that is an option to us all....

To praphrase some others: people will only be governed by their own permission and each person must decide when to remove that permission.

Anyone who thinks that a convention called to propose amendments will be populated primarily by men and women devoted to controlling the Federal government and enlarging the liberties of the American people needs to think again.

While some delegates will undoubtedly fit that description, there is no reason to believe that a majority will. Without such a majority the effort to limit the government and enlarge liberty is doomed.
Worse, without such a majority, the convention would endanger that liberty which remains to the American people.

Anyone who thinks that if, by some miracle, a convention proposed good amendments and if, by some bigger miracle, those amendments were ratified the courts would not "interpret" the amendments in ways which would be contrary to the original intention simply doesn't know what has happened in the legal system during the last 100 years.

You are right, it is the people in a sense.

But it’s a lot more complex than that. It’s also tradition. See, people do things a certain way because they have always done things a certain way and this applies to the Constitution too. Take the Commerce Clause. It clearly does not mean what the courts says it means. But one court says that “x” can be done under the commerce clause and that sets a precedent. Soon it’s not just “x” that is being done under the commerce clause, it is an entire alphabet of government bullshit.

Any system of rules for anything will undergo this kind of thing over the course of decades of use. This applies to board games people play at home, it applies to rules in sports, it applies to laws, and it applies to constitutions.

The Constitution is not being ignored by most of the government. It’s being interpreted incorrectly. Congresscritters still have to stand for election and they have to leave power when they are voted out, so do Presidents. Both houses of Congress have to pass bills before the President can make law. The military and the bureaucracy still have to get approval from Congress to spend money. Taxes can’t be raised without Congresses approval…

A Convention of the States isn’t going to create legislation. It’s going to create new procedures that the Government will follow. There’s a difference. Procedures are just procedures, they aren’t necessarily Conservative or Liberal.

For example… Suppose there was a new Amendment to add a third house of Congress called the “House of Repeals.”
- Every state would appoint 4 members to the House of Repeals. The terms would be for 8 years maximum, offset by 2 years each. No one could serve in the House or Repeals for more than 8 years.
- The House of Repeals would have the power to...
Repeal any Federal law or remove any regulation on a simple majority vote. The entire bill would have to be invalidated so this does not become a line item veto. The House of repeals could vote to repeal at a later date, giving the other houses of Congress time to write a new law which replaces the old law, minus the offensive provision.
Remove any cabinet member from office or remove any Federal Judge on a two thirds vote. The removal of a judge or cabinet member could be based on high crimes and misdemeanors or a disregard for the Constitution, moral corruption, mental feebleness, or any other thing which the House of Repeals feels makes the person unfit to hold office.
On a three fifths vote the House of Repeals could remove any other bureaucrat or military officer from public service for the same reasons.

Any member of the House of Repeals can call for a roll call vote to consider repealing legislation. Only a one fourth minority would be required. This would stop the leadership of the House of Repeals from blocking the removal of offensive legislation.
…
Now, if that was put in the Constitution it would be followed. The members of the House of Repeals would get appointed. They would draw the prescribed salary and laws they voted to repeal would be repealed. Judges they voted out would be voted out.

Oh, the Left would find some way to largely subvert this just as they do everything. But nothing is perfect.

That’s the kind of stuff that a Convention of the States would consider.

All you need is thirteen solid red state legislatures to say no to a amendment and it kills the admendment.

You are correct our only hope is to start shooting and blowing up infrastructure now. It is the only sane thing to do.

Stop talking facts we need to start shooting now it's are only hope. The founders put the 2nd in the constitution so we could start shooting first. Seriously you can't talk any sense into a stupid baboon.

That is why one of the new amendments should allow the state legislatures to impeach and remove the President any senator, congressman, supream court justice or anybody else in the federal government. Plus strict term limits and a lifetime ban from lobbying. If they ignore all of that then you can start shooting and blowing up bridges.

That's. Scary.

Is that really something that is being tried? 200 people? That's it? 200 people get to decide?

(Maybe I read it wrong and if so correct me but you stated 4 people per state we have 50 states so my math says 200 people)
I guess Guam and Puerto Rico are left out? As you didn't mention territories.

Not only no but hell no. If that is really an idea being put forth for this then not only am I against it, I might actually have to work hard against it.

Why not put your energies toward something like having a sunset clause written into law. That way the laws automatically go away unless reaffirmed. Instead of placing all that power in just 200 peoples hands.

You also use the word "appointed" to this position. So these 200 people aren't even elected? They are appointed? That is insanity.

There is a solution which isn’t necessarily violent. Sometime I’m going to have to write out the plan in detail just so I can reference it in detail. The short version is that we do need a new Civil War. But the weapons in this Civil War are not going to be guns and cannons.

You’ve heard of the “three percenter” concept I’m sure. Well, just imagine three percent of the American population actively becoming really involved in the political process. That’s 9 million people.

Fighting an actual war with guns requires a lot of sacrifice. You will sleep out in the cold and mud, you will lose all of your property, your home, your job, your savings, and possibly your family. You risk being killed or maimed. You face, capture, torture, imprisonment, and execution. I point this out because that’s the level of sacrifice many are willing to make for Liberty. My plan requires some significant sacrifices, but none on that level.

9 million people can generate a lot of political clout. For example, Boehner apparently just betrayed the Republican base by passing that budget. Imagine if people in his district picked some decent guy to run against Boehner in the primaries next election. It doesn’t matter who he is, find some newly retired guy with a Conservative history at some church or gun club. He might have never run for office before, so much the better. Now imagine that 9 million people wrote the guy a donation check for $10. That’s it, just ten bucks. Boehner would be facing a primary opponent who is already funded to the tune of $90,000,000.00. That’s an insane amount of money for a primary campaign. It would be like a middle school fist fight where one of the kids shows up with Mike Tyson, Mr. T, Hulk Hogan, and Brock Lesnar, all in their prime and all wanting to kick some ass. But getting Boehner out of office isn’t the point really. The point would be to serve as a warning to other Republicans. Make it plain that Boehner and his cronies were to be removed from any leadership position in the Republican Party and any congress critter who supported them for a leadership position would risk getting the same beatdown.

Do the same thing to a bunch of other RINOs. Maybe their opponent doesn’t need the full $10 donation from everyone. But if 9 million people spent a total of $100 to primary worst 20 or 30 RINOs in the Senate and House then we would have put the fear of God and the terror of the voters back into the hearts of the entire Republican Party.

That’s the kind of political clout 9 million people can generate. And that doesn’t even begin to describe what 9 million political volunteers can do.

9 million people willing to donate a total of $1,000 a year to political causes is enough to outspend every union, special interest, corporation, and rich donor combined. Even union money becomes background noise compared to the sound of $18 billion dollars being spent every 2 year election cycle.

There’s more to my plan, but this is a big part of it. We need to organize in a way that can’t be subverted by existing politicians. The way to do that is to not be organized or even give ourselves a name. Consider the Tea Party and how it was vilified. Well, if the movement doesn’t have a name then it becomes very hard to attack.

We also need to make politicians face the consequences of their actions in a very real, legal sense. It’s dangerous to criminalize political decisions. But when politicians step over the line into criminality, and they do quite often, they need to be facing prison… or worse.

People like to complain that they vote and nothing ever changes. But people need to understand that voting is only one tiny part of politics. If we got 3% of the population onboard, we could dominate politics completely. Anyway, the big problem is to get 9 million people onboard and participating. But that’s always the hard part with anything.

We wouldn't survive it.





I don't know if we would want to survive it.
 

It is amazing the frustration shown in this thread, from the people who know better than the rest of us, and who have the answers, but no one will listen to them.  

If only they were king!  the trains would surely run on time.

I support the idea of this, but possibility of the players being bribed or coerced scares the shit out of me.  

How far is the fed gov willing to go to maintain and increase it's power by manipulating the players.

CIA/NSA/FBI/IRS

I'm afraid your dream of empowering the states at the expense of the Federal government died long before you were born.

Robert Selph Henry wrote concerning the Union victory in the War Between the States, "  The old union of states federated together for specific and limited purposes died, to be succeeded by a new nation in which the states, North and South alike, have contentedly sunk from the sovereignty they so jealously maintained in 1787 to become little more than convenient administrative subdivisions of government."

The Story of the Confederacy, page 1. The book was written between 1926 and 1931.  

You do know that the Constitution we have now came from just such a meeting, where the delegates were authorized only to revise the Articles of Confederation... right?

OP, say we do go thru a convention of the states or constitutional convention?  And say we do something like, just one example, eliminate the EPA? Think about how many jobs that will eliminate?



If I were to threaten your job, would you fight me tooth and nail to defend it?  Not only this, look at how much power we would be taking away from DC.  Do you think that the politicians on either side of the isle will give up this power willingly?



Don't get me wrong, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. But, arguing the point that a convention of the states or constitutional convention will be the end of it is asinine.  To make my point completely clear. Don't think the Feds will give up all that power just at the drop of the hat.
Just IMHO.

What are they going to do declare martial law and start bombing the 38 plus states that voted for it? Unless they go to that extreme and convince the military to start killing their own people to keep them in power then their is not much they can do other than cry!

They don't need the military. They have the courts, which are the final arbiter of what your amendment means.
Once the Federal courts have finished "interpreting" your amendment it will mean the opposite of what you thought it meant.

That is why you give the states veto power over the courts.

With like a 2/3 majority of the legislatures of course.

We're past that and it's time to just hit the reset button.

Yes you start shooting people and I will grab the C4.

They will withhold the .fed $
Much more powerful then any bomb.

Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states.