REVEALED: Parler’s New CEO Wants Convention That Would Let George Soros Rewrite The Constitution

National File ^ | Feb 21 | JACK HADFIELD

[wombatsrule]

Ahh the good old days, memories.

Nothing like heading out after Church to the county fields at the back of ‘ol Rebs’ BBQ ribs, Pulled Pork with a pickle, and a little sippin.

And the Event of the day for one and all

The “One Handed Buick tossing” contests.

We painted our Red, they went faster.

ROFL

Thank you for the recall of a childhood joy ;-)

Blessings

[Irenic]

I agree, I’m all for the CoS but not a ConCon.

I doubt it will ever happen and I think we may be too far gone and too divided to have anything come of of a CoS.

I don’t like Parler and nobody will change my mind on that.

[precisionshootist]

"Former Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1988 that “there is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia echoed this sentiment in 2014. “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention,” said Scalia. “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”"

I find these justices comments very disturbing as there is no possible way someone like Scalia or Burger could be ignorant of the process. What are they afraid of?

I will stand by my statement, there are no truly conservative judges. Why would Scalia make such an ignorant and misleading statement? There is NOTHING to fear about a Constitutional Convention for the very fact that all that can be done in convention is to propose things that then must be voted on by each state and passed by three fourths of said states. That is a bar high enough that there is simply no possible way anything radical could pass unless the huge majority of the people in every state supported and voted in support of it. If that were the case then by definition it's not radical. Again there is NOTHING to fear from a convention unless maybe you are a government elite who may secretly be afraid of losing his or hers position of power. Scalia knows this so again why would he make this statement? Maybe the answer is he is conservative as long as he does not lose any power.

[unread]

Again, for what it’s worth...

https://conventionofstates.com/news/constitutional-convention-vs-a-convention-of-states

[Jacquerie]

The states agreed to nine.

[beancounter13]

I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation and then the history of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

What started out as a simple desire to make some small changes turned into an entirely new Federal System with a new form of government and absolutely no respect for the constitution then in effect.

Anything can happen when you put a bunch of people in a room when each of them believes that they have the power of the people and no underlying limits on their power.

Yes, it worked out well then, but past performance is no guarantee of future success.

[beancounter13]

Again, which of the 13? Rhode Island wasn’t even there. All 13 were supposed to approve any changes to the Articles.

[beancounter13]

Don’t get wrapped up in terminology. They didn’t call it a ‘Constitutional Convention’ in 1787. If they would have, many delegates might not have gone. Most did not believe they were going to eliminate the Articles.

We call it that because that is what occured there.

[precisionshootist]

I'm sorry but this article is pure propaganda. It's an outright attempt to scare people away from a Constitutional Convention.

There is no way in hell someone like Soros is putting money into promoting a COS. The only concern Soros has with a COS is derailing it, period. Why? Because there is no possible way to get his communist agenda ratified as part of our Constitution by three fourths of the states. Leftists have known this from day one of our Constitution. Would it not have been a heck of a lot easier during a democrat controlled congress to propose replacing the second amendment with something that takes away the individual right to bear arms? Of course it would have so why when democrats have many times controlled congress have they not made such and attempt? The answer is because it would be a complete and utter waste of time as the is ZERO chance it would EVER be ratified by the states. If the Left had the votes to change the Constitution THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT A LONG TIME AGO! Good grief this is beyond stupid.

[Jacquerie]

Put aside the JBS and educate yourself:

Whatever Happened to the Articles of Confederation Part I.

There are six more.

Check them out.

[precisionshootist]

" I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation and then the history of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. What started out as a simple desire to make some small changes turned into an entirely new Federal System with a new form of government and absolutely no respect for the constitution then in effect. Anything can happen when you put a bunch of people in a room when each of them believes that they have the power of the people and no underlying limits on their power. Yes, it worked out well then, but past performance is no guarantee of future success."

I think your statement makes it clear you still don't understand the process. This bunch of people in a room have no power to change ANYTHING. The only thing they can do is propose a change and that is it. Then WE THE PEOPLE get to decide if anything becomes part of the Constitution. It takes three fourths of the states to ratify a change. Good luck getting anything even remotely radical to pass that bar.

[beancounter13]

I know there were plenty of issues with the articles, and I have seen commentary that there were abridged because many states we’re almost ignoring them anyway.

That being said. Proponents here seem to be standing on some legal pillar that says, ‘a convention only has so much authority’.

I am questioning that pillar. Why does a convention only have so much authority? Who will stop a convention from doing something else?

Scalia was right: Anything can come out of a convention.

[PerConPat]

LOL...Maybe you should read more... James Madison in The Federalist #40: “...in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

I am not trying to change your mind or tell you that your position is wrong. I don't fear a COS, especially if the state applications are structured to not allow for increases in federal power. I acknowledge that there is no guarantee that humans will abide by any document, including the Constitution itself. Who knows?

The Confederacy certainly was of the opinion that there was no need to concern itself with a "rigid adherence" to a formerly ratified laws, so I see your point of view. This discussion is made moot, IMO, by the final action by RI in 1790. Might have been a another matter if RI had refused to sign on the doted line.

I like Madison's take.

[beancounter13]

I understand the process as you have defined it, and I disagree with your assessment.

We are merely discussing theory. The only time this has been actually tried, the result was a completely new constitution irrespective of what the old one stated.

‘A republic, if you can keep it.’

Be warned and beware.

[beancounter13]

Yes, Madison was pretty flippant about the Articles on Confederation, wasn’t he?

I will leave you with my previous post.

[PerConPat]

Yes, Madison was pretty flippant about the Articles on Confederation, wasn't he?

Are you of the opinion that the US Constitution was unlawfully brought into being?

[beancounter13]

If you choose to stand on the legal pillar that says a COS cannot make dramatic changes, then yes, the current constitution is not legal because the delegates that went in 1787 did not have the power to draft a new constitution.

That said, I am of the opinion that anything can come out of a convention which is based upon our known history.

To that end, I do not wish to see any kind of convention where delegates gather believing they are supported by the power of the people.

[precisionshootist]

"I understand the process as you have defined it, and I disagree with your assessment. We are merely discussing theory. The only time this has been actually tried, the result was a completely new constitution irrespective of what the old one stated. ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ Be warned and beware."

Then explain this statement.

"Anything can happen when you put a bunch of people in a room when each of them believes that they have the power of the people and no underlying limits on their power."

What is it you think can happen that gives you concern? What power do you think these people in a room have?

You understand that the option to call an article V convention was added as a PROTECTION to the peoples right to change their government. It's there in the event the people want to change things but the government refuses to do so. Lastly, if adding the article five convention option could easily put our republic in danger why would the founders have added it?

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

“What would prevent a Convention of States from deciding that they need a new constitution? “

The Constitution. Right there in black and white. This is how COS works:

“Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Do you see anywhere anything about a new constitution? Of course not. Anything coming out of a COS except proposed amendments will be ignored, of course.

Seriously, yours is a a ridiculous argument. You are not making sense.

[PerConPat]

I respect your opinion.

The Declaration of Independence did not meet with universal approval in the colonies. And I'm certain the British parliament did not consider it to be a legal document. There is always risk in politics.

The prospect of a packed SCOTUS etc. leaves me to believe a COS might eventually be the only way to avoid violent upheaval. That is the basis of my opinion.