Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 12/9/2013 11:53:00 AM EST
Sorry if there is already a thread on this, but I seen this on the Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/09/gaining-steam-nearly-100-lawmakers-descend-on-mount-vernon-to-talk-convention-of-states/

"Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.

Such a convention, as outlined in article five of the Constitution, would allow state legislatures to vote on amendments to add.
No constitutional amendment has been added this way, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a means to push back against the federal government.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34, must approve an application for a convention to occur, according to the Constitution’s article five. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures.

Lawmakers on Saturday discussed term limits on U.S. lawmakers and certain limits on federal taxation and spending as possible amendments, Red Millennial noted.

State legislators stressed Saturday the bipartisan nature of support for the discussed amendments, citing a recent poll that shows 74 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment while another 75 percent support congressional term limits.

Saturday’s Mount Vernon meeting was organized by Indiana state Sen. David Long and Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga.

There has been growing support for the idea of a convention, but there is also healthy skepticism.

Still, regardless of whether one thinks it’s a realistic idea, Virginia and South Carolina have both pre-filed applications for a convention, meaning some are taking the idea very seriously.

Saturday’s meeting represents the most recent attempt by legislators to discuss seriously the possibility of adding amendments to the Constitution through a convention."


Shouldn't we be concerned about this?
It could be good, but could also turn very bad for us, don't you think?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 11:55:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 11:57:51 AM EST
Paging TravisMcgee. TravisMcgee to the white phone please.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 11:59:10 AM EST
It's a start.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:01:10 PM EST
They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:01:26 PM EST
When was the last time lawmakers met and didn't bend us over?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:01:32 PM EST
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:02:05 PM EST
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:04:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bushmaster1984:
It's a start.
View Quote


Yes, making changes to the Constitution means we the people are at the mercy of law makers...it makes me feel a little uneasy..

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:06:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrFeelgood:
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
View Quote


Good luck with that. I'm sure the Supreme Court will help.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:06:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:07:10 PM EST
Here's their website:

Article V Caucus

Look at what they are about and then make up your mind.

YMMV

112
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:08:25 PM EST
They need to add repealing the 17th amendment to their agenda.

The problem is that the individual states have no representation in Congress while the People have too much power.

Repealing the 17th would end that situation.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:08:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrFeelgood:
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
View Quote


I'd support a few changes as long as they let me make the changes
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:08:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:09:26 PM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:09:14 PM EST
Motion to repeal Obamcare?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:10:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:11:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bushmaster1984:
It's a start.
View Quote


It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:11:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility.


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.





Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:12:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ragedracer1977:
Paging TravisMcgee. TravisMcgee to the white phone please.
View Quote


Matthew Bracken is a prophet.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:14:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cosmo05:
They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country.
View Quote


I agree. Make it 10 years or some other number that puts them beyond the reach of most politicking but lifetime has to go. All we end up with is sleeping geezers.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:14:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cosmo05:

They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country.
View Quote

This.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:14:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility.


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.





This
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:15:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:19:25 PM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:16:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sixnine:
When was the last time lawmakers met and didn't bend us over?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote


I couldn't tell you the last time the government did something for me instead of to me.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:16:20 PM EST
This is a good thing, it may be the last best hope for peaceful restoration of the Old Republic. The alternative will be painful.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:16:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:24:31 PM EST by b4MARSOC]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cosmo05:
They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country.
View Quote


May agree but how 'bout this: Just like a jury trial one member of the Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional.

eta: not my idea - but heard it here
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:17:43 PM EST
I we had to make the Constitution today, we would be fucked. There would be no "Miracle at Philadelphia".
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:18:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hobbsar:

They need to add repealing the 17th amendment to their agenda.

The problem is that the individual states have no representation in Congress while the People have too much power.

Repealing the 17th would end that situation.
View Quote

And that.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:19:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrFeelgood:
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
View Quote


Not quite. Some new measures could have promise.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:21:27 PM EST


Not
Fucking
Good


When was the last time they did this ?

Is this going to signal the start of repeated beat downs from the existing tyrants until a convention goes their way ?

Like prevously mentioned many times .....enforce the existing constitution and many issues would right themselves .
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:21:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:22:10 PM EST by Bubbatheredneck]
A Constitutional cap on taxation is about the only solution we have left before being taxed into oblivion.

Funny, the avg guy, regardless of income, party or race, thinks the max tax rate should be around 25% or so. So it could be a populist issue in wavering states.




Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:23:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BuckeyeDoc:
Motion to repeal Obamcare?
View Quote


Or a state compact to render Obamacare illegal within state signatories. Then sell insurance across state signatory lines, tort reform - loser pay, accredit doctors, and then sell catastrophic insurance to residence from outside the signatories. Then actively recruit the likes of Mayo and Cleveland to move to a 'free state'.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:23:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Paddler112:
Here's their website:

Article V Caucus

Look at what they are about and then make up your mind.

YMMV

112
View Quote




But it will be used for bad eventually. It can work both ways.


This is bad
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:25:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:25:45 PM EST
Mark Levin is a driving force behind this movement. He's on top of it.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:26:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:27:19 PM EST by Luchs]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrFeelgood:
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
View Quote


Roberts unequivocally demonstrated that the Supreme Court has no interest in doing so, and is in fact the greatest threat to it.

If anyone suggested to the founding fathers that the government can force people to engage in commerce, they'd have been hit over the head with a cane.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:27:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ultramagbrion:


Not
Fucking
Good


When was the last time they did this ?

Is this going to signal the start of repeated beat downs from the existing tyrants until a convention goes their way ?

Like prevously mentioned many times .....enforce the existing constitution and many issues would right themselves .
View Quote


Easier said than done.

Business as usual in Washington DC is done with the approval of the SCOTUS.




Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:27:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By livfreely:




But it will be used for bad eventually. It can work both ways.


This is bad
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By livfreely:
Originally Posted By Paddler112:
Here's their website:

Article V Caucus

Look at what they are about and then make up your mind.

YMMV

112




But it will be used for bad eventually. It can work both ways.


This is bad


It is already bad and will only get worse.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:29:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By makintrax73:


Easier said than done.

Business as usual in Washington DC is done with the approval of the SCOTUS.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By makintrax73:
Originally Posted By ultramagbrion:


Not
Fucking
Good


When was the last time they did this ?

Is this going to signal the start of repeated beat downs from the existing tyrants until a convention goes their way ?

Like prevously mentioned many times .....enforce the existing constitution and many issues would right themselves .


Easier said than done.

Business as usual in Washington DC is done with the approval of the SCOTUS.



Yep.....dont we all know it
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:30:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
A Constitutional cap on taxation is about the only solution we have left before being taxed into oblivion.

Funny, the avg guy, regardless of income, party or race, thinks the max tax rate should be around 25% or so. So it could be a populist issue in wavering states.




View Quote


I agree, but the only thing the article said is:" term limits on U.S. lawmakers and certain limits on federal taxation and spending as possible amendments, and discussed amendments, citing a recent poll that shows 74 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment while another 75 percent support congressional term limits. "
It all sounds kind of vague, them didn't give much detail..

Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:31:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:36:37 PM EST by ultramagbrion]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


RFI

A convention of states has never been assembled.

This is not a Constitutional Convention in which the existing Constitution is replaced with a new document. However, politicians being what they are, a close watch is required to insure a package of amendments adverse to the Republic is not proposed.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By ultramagbrion:


Not
Fucking
Good


When was the last time they did this ?

Is this going to signal the start of repeated beat downs from the existing tyrants until a convention goes their way ?

Like prevously mentioned many times .....enforce the existing constitution and many issues would right themselves .


RFI

A convention of states has never been assembled.

This is not a Constitutional Convention in which the existing Constitution is replaced with a new document. However, politicians being what they are, a close watch is required to insure a package of amendments adverse to the Republic is not proposed.


RIF ?

I didnt see where it hadnt been done yet .

And yeah....a close watch is absolutely good advice ......but quite possibly in vain

Im all for term limits and tax reforms but you know it wont stop there ...the fuckers will force it into the socialist favor before long , just wait and see
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:32:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By b4MARSOC:


May agree but how 'bout this: Just like a jury trial one member of the Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional.

eta: not my idea - but heard it here
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By b4MARSOC:
Originally Posted By cosmo05:
They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country.


May agree but how 'bout this: Just like a jury trial one member of the Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional.

eta: not my idea - but heard it here


I like it. The net effect would be less laws overall. We might lose a few beneficial ones, but an overall bias toward liberty is good for everyone.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:33:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:


Matthew Bracken is a prophet.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By ragedracer1977:
Paging TravisMcgee. TravisMcgee to the white phone please.


Matthew Bracken is a prophet.


Yes he is. Funny how he is sailing away right about now.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:34:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility.


This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V.





You might want to do some reading. What was the purpose of the meeting which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:35:22 PM EST
Mark Levin has been all over this. They are laying the ground RULES for a limited Constitutional Convention. They are ensuring that when/if a CC is convened it will not be a free-for-all.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:35:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DrFeelgood:
Screw that.

We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it.
View Quote


Thank you
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:37:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/9/2013 12:39:40 PM EST by matto4785]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:


It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WindKnot1-1:
Originally Posted By Bushmaster1984:
It's a start.


It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason.


Edit: I misread.

Any change would require 3/4 of the states to agree to it. Not an easy task.
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:39:23 PM EST
Is it Fo time yet?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:41:37 PM EST
They don't follow the Constitution now what difference would it make?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 12:46:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By raf:
Nothing gets passed if 1/4 of the States disapprove.

Put another way, nothing gets passed unless 3/4 of the States approve.

IMHO, it would be a practical impossibility to get anything in the Bill of Rights diminished, including the Second Amendment.

As of the moment, I'm strongly inclined to favor such a move. The alternatives should such a Convention fail to at least begin to turn things around are horrible to contemplate.
View Quote
NY, CA, MA, MD, VT, OH, WA, OR, CO, PA, IL and MI are less than 1/4 of the states.

This is a 17th Amendment work-around. Restoration of the power of the states. Good stuff.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top