Posted on 02/21/2021 1:09:03 PM PST by RandFan
Mark Meckler, the new interim CEO of Parler, currently supports a Convention of States that could give George Soros and other interests the power to rewrite the Constitution. Meckler, who was appointed as interim CEO of Parler following the removal of founder John Matze, currently runs the Convention of States Project, a supposed “grassroots” organization pushing for a convention under Article V of the Constitution.
The project describes itself as a “national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress,” which initially sounds appealing.
However, a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argued that such a restriction on an Article V convention would be impossible, with states unable to control what a convention could and could not discuss, and nobody else having clear constitutional control over the convention.
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?”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalfile.com ...
“Perhaps you might want to count the number of posts that presented similar posts to mine.”
are you following or leading?
We can go round and round about this....
It’s unlikely a convention would be held, if one were to be held right now would be a great time...
Republicans hold the majority in Governors and in State Legislatures.....
I would worry less about the liberals running amok than Democrats starting a war if they got rolled....
They want things like eliminating the 2nd Amendment and Electoral college...
Then we counter with major election reforms, Term Limits, Balance Budget, Judicial Reforms, etc....
You meet fire with fire and they will be less likely to get their way, especially when they figure out that Republicans hold the majority in the States...
We will just have to agree to disagree.
I still believe that any kind of convention dealing with the constitution will be the death of the republic. Even Texas and Florida could not guarantee solid blocks of conservative delegates. Too many possibilities from Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Miami-Dade, etc.
I think a convention will ultimately result in a Parliamentary system, and we will not be able to stop it.
Agree to Disagree is fine, but I would ask you to consider what’s happening now...
We have a Judiciary that makes laws...we have states that were in open defiance of Federal Immigration law...
We have states allowing governors to shut down business, enforce a dress code and stop religious services...
We have elections with no safeguards or integrity at all.
We have career politicians on each side that we can’t seem to get rid of...
We have two very unequal systems of justice, one for the elites, one for the average person...
I could go on, but I ask, do we really have a representative democracy now ?? I say yes, but we won’t if we continue much longer...
And that makes a difference why?
Sorry but I’m not really into decoding your posts.
These principles had been articulated repeatedly by the Continental Congress, the various colonies and innumerable local communities, and in abundant speeches, sermons, and pamphlets over the preceding decades. Americans knew that these principles could be ignored, abused, and forgotten, and that republics needed to stay connected to their roots. Thomas Jefferson would draw on the Virginia Declaration to write the Declaration of Independence.
Among these “fundamental principles” were the natural rights of life, liberty, property, safety, and happiness; accountable magistrates; separation of powers; government by consent; due process; and a “firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue.”
The problem obviously hasn't been too many Conventions of the States; instead the problem is there have been too few.
I support a convention of states. Does that mean I’m george soros’ pal?
Undo the 17th...
I think it’s a bad idea. Too much can go wrong. We’re not dealing with a classically educated populace any more. We’ve become a nation of ignorant Gimmedats.
I don’t disagree with you. I just think that a convention convened to tinker with the constitution will only make matters worse in the end because it cannot be controlled.
I think our best hope is to let the system fail. Then, the best survivors can pick up the pieces and move forward.
Who is John Galt?
I do not disagree with your reasons. I merely disagree with your assessment that a convention that is established to tinker with the constitution can be controlled.
The last time such a convention was held, a new constitution was drafted, ratified, and implemented even though that was not the intended purpose of the convention. The more I ponder this issue, the more I am convinced that such a convention will be the death of the republic. I foresee the federal system replaced by a Parlimentary State like those established in Europe because the academics love those.
‘A republic, if you can keep it.’
I think those words are quite prophetic. Be warned and beware.
The article says meckler is a george soros stooge because he supports a convention of states.
I eat peanut butter. I’m not a Jimmy Carter fan.
Article V may not be as surgical as some suggest. “. . .or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. . .”
The words “call a convention for proposing amendments” sounds very like a gathering where delegates would propose amendments. I do not see it as constrained by anything more than the instructions that each state legislature gives to its delegation.
Also, if we take the model of the founding convention in Philadelphia, each state has ONE vote.
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.