Posted on 12/17/2014 8:35:06 AM PST by SleeperCatcher
Our founding generation didn’t have peaceful means to frame their government. We can avoid violence far worse than their Revolution by letting the people exercise their God given and constitutional right in Article V.
BTW, the “SHIFT” key capitalizes the first letter of sentences.
The fact that three-quarters of states STILL must approve any new amendment that would come out of a state convention.
This is a state-controlled process. And what is your alternative?
This process was included in the Constitution specifically for times like these. Indeed, the document would never have been approved and sent to the states for ratification if this part of Art. V had not been included.
There is no way to know that ahead of time, but what is certain is that our system has been hijacked by statists, authoritarians and special interests and doing what we’ve been doing simply does not work anymore. We have already seen evidence that this last election did not matter to those establishment elites (on both sides - but really there aren’t two sides).
Time’s a-wastin’.
This doesn’t matter because increasingly, they don’t need “our” financial support. The Establishment donor class essentially has said as much by promoting Jeb Bush right out of the gate. That was a message to all other candidates: “Don’t bother; we have chosen who we want and we have the monied resources to get him on the ballot.”
How do you propose we “enforce the Constitution we already have,” when to do that we must rely on the same people and institutions who are responsible for violating it on a daily basis?
The founders gave us this option to address precisely the situation we have in Washington, D.C., today. We should use it.
This is precisely the attitude “they” are hoping we stick with.
How do you think “they” would be able to “head a convention of the states off at the pass?” This is a constitutional process, and as the article stated, the FEC has already ruled that there is no way the process can be thwarted.
We won’t know for sure if we don’t try though, will we?
Read the suggestions in the article and read Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments.” Very well explained and easy to understand. And has he has said, they are ONLY suggestions.
Do you trust your state elected officials more than those elected to the federal Congress? That is the measure of citizen involvement.
One other thing - the process does not need the support or participation of “leftist” states; it only needs 38 states to call for the convention. Further, the amendments would likely be spelled out beforehand so delegates would be aware of what they were sent by their state legislatures to consider.
Have you ever participated in politics at a state level? I have. State-level politics are where those who aspire to 'greatness' are. They are rife with corruption. Like it or not, anything arising from 'the states' will be driven by the 2 political parties (Uniparty) and their mechanisms. Do you really think 'the people' will have any meaningful input?
That's cute.
Our founders recognized that for America to Great she must be Good.
This culture is nothing near good, and it would be folly to allow morally corrupt people to re-frame our highest law.
Our highest law is just fine, it is the scumbags who unceasingly seek to undermine and pervert it that are the problem you seem to want to address.
The scumbags will continue their attacks regardless of what well-meaning script is rendered.
Don't put so much faith in the mechanism, the people 'in charge' are the problem, and they are rotten to the bone.
Given that everyone in your opinion is rotten, what is the solution, the route to possible restoration of freedom?
The problem: "Politicians are corrupt." The need: "We must have a political system which does not involve corrupt people." There are several solutions.
The easiest one is to use a phone book for selection of Representatives and Senators. Just like it's done with jurors. Mandatory service. Keep their names secret. Limit their term to 3 months. (Nobody can be corrupted that fast, I hope.) The reason here is that randomly selected people will do better than a collection of smart people who intentionally drive the country into the ground.
As that is not easy to implement, another solution would involve fitting every elected official with a bomb in a nice, ornate collar that cannot be removed. (I'm stealing this from Stanisław Lem.) Every town will have portraits of officials, with a button under each one. If voters press the button under some portrait too many times, the collar explodes, and the state needs another election.
Is it possible to maintain a representative democracy with the way the representatives are elected today? I don't think so. The crowd is too easy to buy. Not necessarily with money, though that also works. One can buy the voters with widespread advertising; with promises; with looks; with hope (well, maybe not anymore.) The crowd is not necessarily a good elector. Perhaps hundreds of years ago, when not every citizen could vote, the voters were a bit more educated and a bit more demanding. However nowadays the voters are simply emos that are driven in the desired direction by professional herders. Unless that is changed, the voters will always be electing the most corrupt candidates because good guys finish last.
Oh, by the way - this problem is present on the same scale in all democracies. Japan, even though we think it is one of better educated countries, repeatedly elects people who, how should I say, are not the best. Hollande today is not exactly the most beloved leader of France. Every government on this planet is corrupt. So the problem is not necessarily in the basic law of the country, but simply in the people who choose to interpret that law however they want today. In most cases they are democratically elected. In this aspect, is democracy viable? Communism was also looking great... in 1848. Now we laugh at it because we know why it cannot work.
Let’s go for it. Just the fact that the effort is being made to “make it happen” will scare the crap out of the younger RINOs. The crusty old farts like McCain, Mitchell and Boehner will be retired or dead. The latter is fine with me. Let them go on to that big “Senate Cloak Room in the sky” (or wherever).
Let’s go for it. Just the fact that the effort is being made to “make it happen” will scare the crap out of the younger RINOs. The crusty old farts like McCain, Mitchell and Boehner will be retired or dead. The latter is fine with me. Let them go on to that big “Senate Cloak Room in the sky” (or wherever).
What is under discussion is an Article V Convention. This is NOT a "Constitutional Convention".
And given the astronomical number of times this has been explained it's really difficult to comprehend how we still see posts like yours. It's as if you walked in on the middle of a conversation and made some pretty embarrassing assumptions about what the conversation was about.
On the other hand you may know very well that you are spewing crap and are doing it with a purpose.
Finally, after building your fictitious straw man you dispense with it with the remark, "only a complete idiot would sign up for that". Fortunately "that" is a bunch of crap that exists only in your fevered mind, and that no one is asked to "sign up" for any such thing.
the computer does the capitalizing automatically, i prefer to do my own thing, as a free man and not beholding to small f fascists.
and by the way, using abbreviations is a bigger grammatical faux pas...
and people nowadays are stupid, some can’t understand unless first words are capitalized... never to enjoy an ee cummings poem
Ok...I listened to the entire video carefully...
My understanding is this would NOT be a Constitutional Convention...rather a ‘State’ Convention....Levin explains the difference.
The question was raised that.....Amendments are proposed when the Constitution is ‘WRONG’ on an issue, not when the government is ‘DISOBEYING’ the Constitution....
So If the government (representatives voted for) are disobeying the Constitution, how then can added amendments fix things?
....” let’s ENFORCE the Constitution we already have”....
This comes back to my question as well...Amendments are proposed when the Constitution is WRONG on an issue, not when the government is DISOBEYING the Constitution....
If the government (representatives voted for) are disobeying the Constitution, how then can added amendments fix things when it is a runaway congress and entire governance of “representatives” who are not paying attention to the constitution as it is.?????????
We vote..but right now there’s no time....??????
There’s a difference between a Constitutional Convention...and what Levin is speaking here reguarding a “State” Convention....
......”nowadays the voters are simply emos that are driven in the desired direction by professional herders.... Unless that is changed, the voters will always be electing the most corrupt candidates”.....
It’s also media ownership and all the country and global oligarchs know that and why they buy news organizations and or support them.
I do agree with the idea it begins here at the bottom....why not just have a coup’ via our military and put Cruz and his 20 some Senate fellows right into office.....done deal!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.