Satin Doll; Don Corleone; AuH2ORepublican; Usagi_yo; RipSawyer; entropy12; RKBA Democrat; Georgia Girl 2; ConradofMontferrat; Dead Corpse; tonyinv; onedoug; Dan Miller; gunnyg; Star Traveler; LyinLibs; plain talk; LS; TomGuy; AEMILIUS PAULUS;sickoflibs; familyop; The_Republic_Of_Maine;
The problem is not with the existing document, but rather the refusal of man to adhere to the document. That cannot be changed by altering the document.
Ummm ... probably the complete removal of the US Constitution from being used in courts and in law.
FWIW, I don’t believe we have enough people who are cognizant of the meaning of Liberty to have a Constitutional Convention that would not result in something much worse than what we have now.
Once you start the Convention, nobody can guarantee what will come out of it. There are too many people who are idiots when it comes to political philosophy and history who would be present at this Convention.
Bottom line? I think it is a dumb idea.
Given the ignorant and depraved state of the electorate and the body politic, I do not see how a convention could do anything other than make things worse. Making new law is not a cure for lawlessness and anomie.
I am not opposed to Article V. I am opposed to those presently in government who ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And there is no one with the leadership to oppose them.
Constitutional and State conventions are wonderful ideas WHEN A CABAL OF FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS HASN’T OCCUPIED EVERY OFFICE FROM DOG CATCHER UP TO THE U.S. PRESIDENCY.
They didn’t seize our government in a bloodless coup by ‘being shy,’ so I don’t understand why folks thing the NWO cabal would ‘not brother’ rigging the ______ Convention the same way they’ve rigged the White House, Congress, CIA, FBI, IRS, Border Patrol and DHS.
STEP 1 - expose and remove the Regime.
STEP 2 - hold whatever damn Conventions you want.
In other words, you don’t perform open heart surgery on a patient while al-Qaeda stampedes around the operating room shooting machine guns and clobbering people over the head with crobars.
Thomas Jefferson had seen this problem coming as evidenced by the following excerpt from his writings.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Since I believe that it would be easier for the states to amend state constitutions instead of trying to amend the federal Constitution, the states need to amend their constitutions to require parents to make sure that their children are taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers (and limited power to lay taxes) the way that the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
In fact, Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes should be amended into all state constitutions, and also the federal Constitution.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
My concern is the same of the founding fathers. They realized that the particulars of any written constitution or law will be set to be subverted or undermined before the ink is dry.
So for this reason they decided to create constitutional bodies with different prerogatives, but all sharing the idea that each would use their power to prevent the others from becoming too powerful.
While this regulated growth of government for quite a long time, the growth continued, until government became unmanageable. Their error was in not including an *ordinary* pruning mechanism to *reduce* the size of government in an equally slow and methodical manner.
The two most commonly suggested ideas for constitutional amendments are oriented for this purpose: a balanced budget amendment, and a presidential line item veto.
The 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, accelerated the growth of government, in the name of “democracy”, which was a lie, by making senators “free agents” who no longer needed to be responsive to their individual states, but could devote themselves entirely to the growth of the national government. And senators adore this lack of constraint, so would strongly fight efforts to repeal this amendment.
And the same individuals, again in the name of “democracy”, which is again a lie, now seek to undermine the Electoral College, another check against unbridled national government power. To make the president only responsive to the large states, making primaries in the less populated states superfluous, and tilting the balance of power to the progressives.
Yet even in all of this, I do not oppose an Article V convention in any way, but warn that even at its grandest, it will have little change on the way things are done today. This change must happen voluntarily by strong conservatives in the office of the president and congress and the supreme court.
The president must work with congress to substantially *reduce* the power of the office of the president. And the congress, specifically the house and senate judiciary committees, must do a substantial structural and procedural reform to the federal judiciary.
Only when this is done by the government, will the constitutional changes brought about by the Article V convention be enabled, and the system so changed that it will take another hundred years for the progressives to corrupt it again.
Simplified:
Many state and local governments and their few most influential constituents are violating the Constitution at least as much as their comrades in federal government are doing (see federal funding).
Allowing those same people to subvert the Constitution is not a good answer.
My point is this. The founders were geniuses who had a very good grasp of human nature and history. They put together a very good system, and all subsequent attempts to "improve" it have been utter bollocks.
The people of today are idiots. I suspect that they will not propose ANYTHING which might actually improve our situation, but even if they do, I have little hope that anything truly beneficial could win the approval of 3/4ths of the states.
However, I am fully confident that ridiculous and freedom robbing measures can get proposed AND ratified with little trouble.
If proponents are successful at achieving an Article V convention, I will be more afraid of it than any folly of congress. If we had the votes to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment, we would not now be having the utter clusterf*** going on in Washington today. We would be able to solve the problems directly.
The belief that an Article V convention will improve our lot is just an irrational fantasy in my opinion.
Until those are published so WE can see them, I don't trust them.
Supposedly, the legislators in various states that are considering the A-5 are proposing their own lists of amendments.
Only state legislatures can determine selectors to attend the A-5.
The ‘people’ have no input into the content or A-5 selectors, except in electing their state legislators.
An amendment requiring that Congress pass appropriations for the expenses of states in complying with Congressional legislation. This would exempt state expenses in complying with the U.S. Constitution, and so apply only to acts of Congress. Plus the amendment should allow state governments to ignore Congressional legislation that Congress does not appropriate funds to reimburse state compliance expenses.
This would free up hundreds of billions of dollars in existing state taxes which presently pay for unfunded federal mandates (such as MedicAid), and let state legislatures instead boondoggle it all to people who will generously share with deserving state legislators.
Ya gotta set a thief to catch a thief.
I don’t buy the underlying premise. The existing Constitution is just fine. But if the people who are charged with obeying and enforcing it refuse to do so, then coming up with a new and improved Constitution isn’t going to much matter.
I view the article V efforts as being a generally harmless waste of time. Sort of like watching football. If it makes the folks who support it happy, then that’s just fine with me. They may even start some good conversations that make a few people think about the Constitution.
I’d rather work on my garden.
The Comcon is a tyrant's dream. I've been re-reading our "Patriot's History of the United States" and noted how extremely easy it was for the Founders to simply ignore the instructions from the states when they attended the Articles convention---and their charge was ONLY to revise the Articles.
The very first thing they did was agree to meet in secret. The second thing they did was to completely scrap the articles.
It baffles me why conservatives---who so far can't control the electoral system enough to control the House, Senate, and White House and ensure that a substantial majority of the USSC justices are conservatives---think that magically they will be able to control such conventions.
Who names the delegates to the Comcon? The state legislatures? Oh, that makes me feel safe. Governors? Strike two. Special Comcon nominating conventions? And so if, in OH or FL, we can't control the political apparatus to keep from electing Obama, somehow magically we'll control a Comcon nominating convention?
I know EXACTLY in OH who would be at such a convention: the DeWines, Tafts, Kasich, plus some of the old line Dem families for "fairness" and maybe 2-3 Tea Partiers.
A very good fictional book by a Freeper you might want to look at deals with this: Matt Bracken's "Foreign Enemies and Traitors." His scenario is exactly how I think it would play out.
Who will pick the delegates?
Will it not be the same political class that refuses to keep their oaths to support and defend the Constitution as it now exists?
Personnel IS policy.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I say NO.
Direct your limited resources of time, energy and money to throwing all the bums out. Replace them with folks who understand their oaths, and who have a proven commitment to keeping them.
There is no problem with the Constitution.
The problem is adherence thereto and enforcement thereof.
If people won’t be persuaded by plain words, more words won’t help.
I reject your premise. Nice try though.
If this country’s House of Representatives cannot summon up the courage to impeach this president, then I have to wonder if it is possible to get this country to call for another Constitutional Convention. Maybe this could happen after an impeachment.