User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:29:54 PM EDT
[#1]
Doesn't matter the states would hold such a convention, the inside the beltway professional politicians would contaminate, infiltrate, poison and destroy the intent to achieve greater power.
Now, if the purpose of said convention were only to repeal the 17th, then we would have something. But every politician involved would introduce scope creep to get their pork project into the mix. You have to fight the beast from within. Senator Ted Cruz needs assistance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:30:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:31:05 PM EDT
[#3]
There is nothing wrong the the current constitution. The problem is that the government treats it as a loose set of general guidelines rather than a rigid framework for the powers of government. I don't see how changing what it says will do any good when the problem is the government ignoring it. I can see how a convention can bring on a metric fuck ton of fail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:37:59 PM EDT
[#4]
The politicians in Washington have become unresponsive to the people. The founders believed that could happen and put article V in the constitution so the states could go around the federal government and fix the problem and return power to the states.
I do not understand the mindset of we stay on the course we are on which most agree is fucked or hit the "RESET BUTTON" but under no circumstances can we use Article V because that would be insanity 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:40:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:50:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 1:59:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is nothing wrong the the current constitution. The problem is that the government treats it as a loose set of general guidelines rather than a rigid framework for the powers of government. I don't see how changing what it says will do any good when the problem is the government ignoring it. I can see how a convention can bring on a metric fuck ton of fail. The problem is the politicians will not police themselves or obey the constitution. So you amend the current constitution to allow the states to step in and fix them. I do not believe to much in a runaway convention because 38 States have to approve each new amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:16:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is why you give the states veto power over the courts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 
The sound you hear is my point going over your head. Since the courts are make the final decision on what the amendment means, the states get a veto over the courts only if the USSC says they do. The chance that the USSC will subject itself to the possibility of its decisions being vetoed by the states is zero. Fortunately for the states and the courts the confrontation will never come to pass. The people who man those " ... convenient administrative subdivisions ... " do not want the power you dream of thrusting upon them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:22:40 PM EDT
[#9]
FPNI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:22:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. Because the main thing is states have to remove the power the federal government has taken for it self over the years and put new checks in place on the president, congress and the courts to make sure we do not repeat this. If we do impeachment of all federal government politicians and officials should reside in the hands of the state legislatures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. Because the main thing is states have to remove the power the federal government has taken for it self over the years and put new checks in place on the president, congress and the courts to make sure we do not repeat this. If we do impeachment of all federal government politicians and officials should reside in the hands of the state legislatures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:29:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education.
There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:34:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct our only hope is to start shooting and blowing up infrastructure now. It is the only sane thing to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You want the same people who fucked it up to fix it. It doesn't work that way Nope. Congress' ONLY role is to confirm that the required number of states has applied for a convention. After that they are outside of the process and this is a movement by the STATES. lol and the state are any better.... You are correct our only hope is to start shooting and blowing up infrastructure now. It is the only sane thing to do. well go for it pal. It the last thing I want, but it is arfcom and they love that sort of thing. will there be a COS? Yes. When Washington DC wants one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:42:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Amen. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:43:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:43:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sound you hear is my point going over your head. Since the courts are make the final decision on what the amendment means, the states get a veto over the courts only if the USSC says they do. The chance that the USSC will subject itself to the possibility of its decisions being vetoed by the states is zero. Fortunately for the states and the courts the confrontation will never come to pass. The people who man those " ... convenient administrative subdivisions ... " do not want the power you dream of thrusting upon them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.
The sound you hear is my point going over your head. Since the courts are make the final decision on what the amendment means, the states get a veto over the courts only if the USSC says they do. The chance that the USSC will subject itself to the possibility of its decisions being vetoed by the states is zero. Fortunately for the states and the courts the confrontation will never come to pass. The people who man those " ... convenient administrative subdivisions ... " do not want the power you dream of thrusting upon them. You miss my point if a amendment is passed that says the states can overturn a USSC decision and the legislatures can impeach and convict then they all loose their cushy for life jobs. The USSC has no power if tomorrow they rule Obamas amnesty unconstitutional and Obama says fuck you and their is not enough votes in Congress to impeach and convict what is the USSC going to do about it? Answer nothing they can do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 2:46:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I for one am not wringing my hands or sitting around. I just happen to disagree with what you believe will work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, you guys can sit around and wring your hands. Our nation is in a critical period. One day, when may granddaughter asks what I did, my reply won't be that I sat on my hands and criticized people who were trying to get this country back on track. I for one am not wringing my hands or sitting around. I just happen to disagree with what you believe will work. Then what, pray tell, do you believe will work? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:02:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then what, pray tell, do you believe will work? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, you guys can sit around and wring your hands. Our nation is in a critical period. One day, when may granddaughter asks what I did, my reply won't be that I sat on my hands and criticized people who were trying to get this country back on track. I for one am not wringing my hands or sitting around. I just happen to disagree with what you believe will work. Then what, pray tell, do you believe will work? I believe that every person should sit down and clearly define what they are willing to take. Where they draw the line and how far they are willing to go. Write it down and read it daily. Live it everyday. I will not presume to tell others what they should accept. We are a country of individuals. It's time we started acting like individuals again. As adults we know the consequences of our actions, and as an adult you have to be willing to deal with those consequences. Your welcome to try to get more laws passed or more rules changed. Go for it. But do you daily buckle under the current structure? Or do you practice what you preach? Because I do practice what I have said all throughout this thread. And I am very aware of the consequences of my choices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:09:29 PM EDT
[#18]
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. I don't think a presumed lack of enforcement is the real issue. Obviously most laws are currently enforced, the primary issues are (1) the court actions/interpretations that resulted in the laws that are unconstitutional, yet still enforced, and (2) a concentration of federal power in the executive branch primarily due to the complete abdication of constitutional power by the Congress. Right now what is "unconstitutional" is up for debate, and it's time to start cutting it off. There is no question in my mind that if 38+ states ratified an amendment that resulted in any loss of federal power, it would be enforced. The progressives do not have the power to directly confront an action like that and succeed. They do it over time via the Courts and the federal bureaucracy. We need to set them back to 1900 or so and make them start over. So for me, concerns about enforcement is not a reason to not go down the state convention path. 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. Understand. I choose to take the fight to them, using the same system they used to enslave us to beat them back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:11:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I agree as soon as things are "fixed", the deterioration begins again. So we won't let our guard down. But eventually our offspring will. It's human nature. And Article V will be there for them too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:13:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. We don't need a "House of Repeals". We already have the state legislatures. We need less structure at the federal level, not more... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:15:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All you need is thirteen solid red state legislatures to say no to a amendment and it kills the admendment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it was decided and announced before the calling of said convention that its agreed-upon purpose would be to establish amendments for a balanced budget, a Presidential line item veto, federal term limits and to convert the federal tax system to a flat tax with the agenda not to be changed, then I would support it. But with the possibility of a convention with an open agenda, where troublemakers could get in and fuck things up grievously by trying to abolish the 2nd or even the entire constitution, I don't support the idea. And until the situation is for the agenda to be hammered out so that there is no chance for a quiet revolution to take place during a convention I cannot support having one. All you need is thirteen solid red state legislatures to say no to a amendment and it kills the admendment. Even better, all you need is one house of the legislature in 13 states. The ability to block is extremely high, hence the hurdle for passage is extremely high. All by design... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:15:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many of you know the difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of the states? DING DING DING!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:18:56 PM EDT
[#23]
GD won't get along with any other alternative short of living of it's SHTF fantasies.
Any other solution is failure in it's eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:21:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? I really don't mean to sound flip and I apologize in advance if I come across that way but, educate yourself. It's only $4. That's less than lunch at McDonald's. You will be a better person for having done so.  And it is used so even if you don't like Mark Levin, you won't be putting any money in his pocket.
To attempt to answer your question though... If we're to the point where our federal government is ignoring an overwhelmingly clear mandate by the states (assuming a successful Article V Convention) then we're more fucked than any convention will be able to fix, leaving my last two aforementioned options - secession where left and right can go their own separate ways (hopefully peacefully), or outright civil war where free men and women will simply resist tyranny through force of arms and a lot of people will die. Actually I'll amend that. There is another option. A continued slide into servitude to an ever expanding Leviathan state. So here are your options: - Article V Convention to attempt to peacefully reign in the government since our conventional means aren't working - Breaking our country apart - Open warfare and bloodshed in our streets and neighborhoods - Tyranny Your choice. I'd really rather not break our nation up or have us devolve into another civil war so, why not give the Article V Convention a try. If it fails/backfires/whatever, in case you hadn't noticed, we're already swirling the drain anyway so it won't matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:25:06 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. This is my fear as well. That we are no longer a civil society, that we no longer have the stomach to fight for a constitutional republic. We are too fat, lazy and comfortable. We shall see. Given what's happened to the nation, I shudder to think of what the signers of the D of I would say to us if they could come back from the grave. We have disgraced them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:28:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it was decided and announced before the calling of said convention that its agreed-upon purpose would be to establish amendments for a balanced budget, a Presidential line item veto, federal term limits and to convert the federal tax system to a flat tax with the agenda not to be changed, then I would support it. But with the possibility of a convention with an open agenda, where troublemakers could get in and fuck things up grievously by trying to abolish the 2nd or even the entire constitution, I don't support the idea. And until the situation is for the agenda to be hammered out so that there is no chance for a quiet revolution to take place during a convention I cannot support having one. 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? Not true. The charters to the delegates from at least 10 states did not restrict them to just amendments. And if they had, why did all 13 states ratify the Constitution? They didn't have a choice? Hell, back then if they were pissed off enough at the delegates, they could have hung them for treason. Pussies they were not... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:29:44 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. You are correct. The political battle immediately prior to, during and after any convention, no matter the outcome, will be unlike anything we have ever seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:31:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:33:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eh, they will just "buy" their way in anyways... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is only one thing that needs to happen and that is the repeal of the 17th Amendment. If the states legislatures still had representation in the fed govt, we would not be in this position. ETA. the 17th upset the checks and balances and bastardized the fed govt into having virtually no restrictions, because everybody is popularly elected. That is the problem. Eh, they will just "buy" their way in anyways... Maybe, but at least they'll be paying (and be obligated to) the state governments...that alone would be a huge improvement... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:38:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. I have read the constitution, doesn't seem unclear to me. But they've fucked it up, so what will stop that this time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:38:48 PM EDT
[#31]
The result of a convention, or the achievement of a convention, is surplus. It's the change in political atmosphere a convention becoming plausible solidifies that's the reward. The deep state is parasitic on formal government, not independent of it; so a genuine threat to the structure of formal government is likely to disturb the functions of its informal mechanisms. Whether USG associated factions are temporarily subdued, or provoked into overreaction, the people profit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:39:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:42:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sound you hear is my point going over your head. Since the courts are make the final decision on what the amendment means, the states get a veto over the courts only if the USSC says they do. The chance that the USSC will subject itself to the possibility of its decisions being vetoed by the states is zero. Fortunately for the states and the courts the confrontation will never come to pass. The people who man those " ... convenient administrative subdivisions ... " do not want the power you dream of thrusting upon them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.
The sound you hear is my point going over your head. Since the courts are make the final decision on what the amendment means, the states get a veto over the courts only if the USSC says they do. The chance that the USSC will subject itself to the possibility of its decisions being vetoed by the states is zero. Fortunately for the states and the courts the confrontation will never come to pass. The people who man those " ... convenient administrative subdivisions ... " do not want the power you dream of thrusting upon them. We shall hopefully see very soon. Again, the political and Constitutional power associated with the ratification votes from at least 38 states will overcome anything the USSC wants to do, at least for many decades... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:43:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then the states stop sending those dollars to Washington. They take the money from the states and redistribute it back to the states. So your saying that the fed doesn't use anything other then state money? Just trying to see if that is exactly what you belive.... No we borrow and print also but tax dollars come the people and corporations located in the respected states. That is why when the economy goes to shit they have to borrow more because less money is flowing from the states into the Treasury. And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... Why not push for private business owners not being turned into tax collectors. Make employees send thier own taxes instead of making businesses do it. That might get some legs and would accomplish more the a convention.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 3:45:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
well go for it pal. It the last thing I want, but it is arfcom and they love that sort of thing. will there be a COS? Yes. When Washington DC wants one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You want the same people who fucked it up to fix it. It doesn't work that way Nope. Congress' ONLY role is to confirm that the required number of states has applied for a convention. After that they are outside of the process and this is a movement by the STATES. lol and the state are any better.... You are correct our only hope is to start shooting and blowing up infrastructure now. It is the only sane thing to do. well go for it pal. It the last thing I want, but it is arfcom and they love that sort of thing. will there be a COS? Yes. When Washington DC wants one. DC doesn't need a convention. Congress can proposed amendments anytime they want. All the hand-wringing in this thread is effectively over whether or not we should replace Congress with a group convention delegates. It is sad that so few understand what Article V is all about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:03:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have read the constitution, doesn't seem unclear to me. But they've fucked it up, so what will stop that this time? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. I have read the constitution, doesn't seem unclear to me. But they've fucked it up, so what will stop that this time? Two of the biggest problems with the way the Constitution is worded has to do with the difference between what the Framers meant by "general welfare" and "commerce" and what those words mean today. Liberal/progressive USSC Justices have used those two clauses to effectively destroy huge portions of freedom and liberty. Our Framers thought they had effectively closed off that from being done by the feds in the Constitution. The language in the Constitution needs to be updated to reflect what the Framers meant in 2014 language. That won't happen overnight. It took almost 100 years to get to the level of bastardization we're at, and it will take many years to complete the fix. There are very clear, very precise things that can be done to begin repairing and reconnecting the chains that the Framers threw over the federal beast. The libs/progressives did it to us incrementally, and that's how we'll fix it. But in a lot less than 100 years I hope... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:07:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The result of a convention, or the achievement of a convention, is surplus. It's the change in political atmosphere a convention becoming plausible solidifies that's the reward. The deep state is parasitic on formal government, not independent of it; so a genuine threat to the structure of formal government is likely to disturb the functions of its informal mechanisms. Whether USG associated factions are temporarily subdued, or provoked into overreaction, the people profit. Can you imagine what the mood will be in DC if we get close to the 34 state threshold for a convention that is intended to directly confront the excesses and abuses of the fed govt? It will be so, so sweet to watch. They will scream, threaten and attempt to bribe those last few states to not pass the applications. It will be crystal clear to all who the real statesmen are in DC (if there are any)... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:10:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not push for private business owners not being turned into tax collectors. Make employees send thier own taxes instead of making businesses do it. That might get some legs and would accomplish more the a convention.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... Why not push for private business owners not being turned into tax collectors. Make employees send thier own taxes instead of making businesses do it. That might get some legs and would accomplish more the a convention.... Works for me. I presume it would take a federal law change to make that happen, and the feds would never do it. Hence, a convention of the states... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:20:31 PM EDT
[#39]
After a considerable amount of thought, I now support this.
It would either result in a correction to the out of control govt or conditions that will start the next American civil war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:22:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Works for me. I presume it would take a federal law change to make that happen, and the feds would never do it. Hence, a convention of the states... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... Why not push for private business owners not being turned into tax collectors. Make employees send thier own taxes instead of making businesses do it. That might get some legs and would accomplish more the a convention.... Works for me. I presume it would take a federal law change to make that happen, and the feds would never do it. Hence, a convention of the states... I think one law change would be easier... But we will see I guess... Best of luck to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:22:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Excellent book |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:23:37 PM EDT
[#42]
This is bad news. The rules have been set and the numbers of delegates from each state have been set. Hint: they match current electoral college votes
We dont follow the Constitution now, what makes you think they will follow a new one? Or if your interests will be kept in mind when proposing to limit your free speech, you right to bear arms, your right to due process? This is pandoras box, and it isn't the only way to add an amendment. Hint again: its been done before... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 4:30:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? I will give it my best shot sir. Right now if the USSC ruled against you or me who in forces it? All federal and state agencies correct? If they rule against POTUS and congress does not have the votes to convict after impeachment and the POTUS has the AG in his pocket what then? Nothing is the answer. Give the States the power to impeach and convict all at the federal level then the only option they have is to convince the military to march on their own people. I have been out since 97 and that would never have happened then. My son serves now and from what he has said about his buddies grunts have not changed. Good luck getting them to turn on us. If 38 states approve new amendments to the constitution in a way laid out in the constitution their will be a lot of butt hurt and screaming but it happened because it had the support of the majority of the american people. What does that mean? It means the military will not prop them up. So to be straight they will bite the bullet because they have no other option without the support of the military. Some ass wipe can say he will run for another term fuck term limits! Not if the state does not put him on the ballet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:14:47 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are correct. The political battle immediately prior to, during and after any convention, no matter the outcome, will be unlike anything we have ever seen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. . You are correct. The political battle immediately prior to, during and after any convention, no matter the outcome, will be unlike anything we have ever seen. I think this would absolutely out anyone against the Republic |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:17:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will give it my best shot sir. Right now if the USSC ruled against you or me who in forces it? All federal and state agencies correct? If they rule against POTUS and congress does not have the votes to convict after impeachment and the POTUS has the AG in his pocket what then? Nothing is the answer. Give the States the power to impeach and convict all at the federal level then the only option they have is to convince the military to march on their own people. I have been out since 97 and that would never have happened then. My son serves now and from what he has said about his buddies grunts have not changed. Good luck getting them to turn on us. If 38 states approve new amendments to the constitution in a way laid out in the constitution their will be a lot of butt hurt and screaming but it happened because it had the support of the majority of the american people. What does that mean? It means the military will not prop them up. So to be straight they will bite the bullet because they have no other option without the support of the military. Some ass wipe can say he will run for another term fuck term limits! Not if the state does not put him on the ballet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whole lot of ignorance on display in this thread. Some folks really need an education. There's a reason The Founders included this last ditch mechanism at the birth of our nation. I honestly think that it is the last remaining option barring secession, and the high likelihood of bloodshed associated with it, or outright civil war, and the guaranteed bloodshed associated with it, that those of us who wish to remain free can do so. Again, learn something. It will only cost you $4 if you go get a used copy. Can't ask for a cheaper education than that. http://i61.tinypic.com/35661.png Educate me.... Who enforces it once it is done? Others have said the courts, but the courts don't enforce things. Please please explain to me who is literally going to be the hands to make the .gov abide by it? It seems to be the only thing that no one in this thread who endorses this idea will answer... Will you be the one to answer it for me? I will give it my best shot sir. Right now if the USSC ruled against you or me who in forces it? All federal and state agencies correct? If they rule against POTUS and congress does not have the votes to convict after impeachment and the POTUS has the AG in his pocket what then? Nothing is the answer. Give the States the power to impeach and convict all at the federal level then the only option they have is to convince the military to march on their own people. I have been out since 97 and that would never have happened then. My son serves now and from what he has said about his buddies grunts have not changed. Good luck getting them to turn on us. If 38 states approve new amendments to the constitution in a way laid out in the constitution their will be a lot of butt hurt and screaming but it happened because it had the support of the majority of the american people. What does that mean? It means the military will not prop them up. So to be straight they will bite the bullet because they have no other option without the support of the military. Some ass wipe can say he will run for another term fuck term limits! Not if the state does not put him on the ballet. Let's try this again.... Currently it is agreed outside the beltway that many of our elected officials have broken the law. And it is very clear they have ignored the constitution. I am asking for specifically who will enforce the "new" laws. Cause right now no one is. So please tell me who will in this future time you are hoping for... US marshal's, FBI, CIA, treasury department? USDA? Hell even the dept of education has a swat team. How about border patrol? Local cops? Militias? National guard? What I am looking for is for you to name EXACTLY who is going to enforce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:30:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is only one thing that needs to happen and that is the repeal of the 17th Amendment. If the states legislatures still had representation in the fed govt, we would not be in this position. ETA. the 17th upset the checks and balances and bastardized the fed govt into having virtually no restrictions, because everybody is popularly elected. That is the problem. I don't know if the 17A is the only thing that needs fixing - but, it'd make for one helluva start! Great post! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:36:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I would love to see how they would interpret a repeal of the 17th amendment. Not much wiggle room there. Plus, the intent of the convention would be crystal clear, so no way to spin that. Me too. Use simple language " The 17th amendment to the United States Constitution is immediately and permanently repealed." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 5:46:37 PM EDT
[#48]
I hear ya OP......but either our current Constitution either allows this bullshit or is powerless to prevent it.
I firmly believe we are not voting our way out of this one and our country has grown too big and too diverse. (Elevator Theory). Once a building grows to a certain scale....the support structures begin to overwhelm the original purpose of the building. The Elevators, HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, take over so much of the building that the building can no longer serve it's own purpose. We will Balkanize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 6:21:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know if the 17A is the only thing that needs fixing - but, it'd make for one helluva start! Great post! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is only one thing that needs to happen and that is the repeal of the 17th Amendment. If the states legislatures still had representation in the fed govt, we would not be in this position. ETA. the 17th upset the checks and balances and bastardized the fed govt into having virtually no restrictions, because everybody is popularly elected. That is the problem. I don't know if the 17A is the only thing that needs fixing - but, it'd make for one helluva start! Great post! There are many things that need fixing. But if state legislatures got their vote back, I think the other things would get fixed by them controlling the senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2014 6:23:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think one law change would be easier... But we will see I guess... Best of luck to you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And you propose we get all companies and individuals to withhold sending in their federal tax dollars? I'm actually cool with it, but why not push for that now instead of spending years rewriting the current system. Skip the middle man so to speak. I would love to see massive non-compliance on April 15, with a significant percentage of taxpayers (>30%) in violation of IRS rules. That would be a huge problem for the fed govt to deal with, and would be a political disaster for everyone in DC. One thing that would be good is a suggestion by Levin that the filing date be moved to the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. So you would go to the polls the day after you filed. If you really want to see an overnight tax revolt, do away with federal tax withholding as well. Force everyone to write a check or watch their stuff get sold off... Why not push for private business owners not being turned into tax collectors. Make employees send thier own taxes instead of making businesses do it. That might get some legs and would accomplish more the a convention.... Works for me. I presume it would take a federal law change to make that happen, and the feds would never do it. Hence, a convention of the states... I think one law change would be easier... But we will see I guess... Best of luck to you. I agree it would be much easier to pass a single law. The problem is those who have to pass it would be very adversely impacted by it. They'll never do it. |
|
|
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.
