They refuse to honor their responsibilities now so what is there to make anyone believe that they will honor the next one?
I have always looked at the people who want to dissolve our nation and form several smaller countries as more than a little off the mark. Then I listened to the new Mayor of NYC in his communist rant during his swearing in ceremony. Really he is stating that he wants a communist situation in NYC. He is telling everyone that he intends to have this communism as soon as he can make it happen. He even wants us to believe that somehow taking a ride in a horse drawn carriage is a great economic sin that denotes us as racists or salve owners. SCREW HIM.
We have become a different people. There are now the liberals who live in the beehive cities who believe that their way of life is all that there is in this country. Their way of life is all that matters or all that can possibly be important. They are wrong but way to limited in vision to understand this. I would ask these people to take a few seconds and think about where their food water and power comes from. They also need to ask themselves where all their waste goes when they have consumed all the things that the cities are forced to import.
After they take a few seconds to realize that they are not self sufficient but totally dependent on the people they want to deny importance to then need to ask themselves one more question. What will happen to the cities if for five days everything going into and out of their cities was just stopped. Nothing in and nothing out. No trucks bringing food, no water in the pipes or canals, no power in the big tower lines, and no waste water or garbage going out.
They seem to think we have no value and our opinions and votes should not or do not count. Sooner or later we will have to demonstrate to them that they are badly mistaken.
Splitting up our nation is not something I want to see happen but I'm beginning to believe that it is the only way for rural America to survive in liberty and freedom.
We don't need a new constitution for all, we need the cities to have one of their own. We will keep the one we have.
A little off topic, but I think the first thing that must be done, before anything else, is to bring about an end to voter fraud. That should be on the front burner for all of us, unless of course for those who ardent communists, the status quo is working well for them!
The COS’s purpose is to Keep and Restore our current Constitution. Conservatives have been trying to get congress to “do everything that is needed to force our president congress and courts to follow the constitution we now have...” BUT, in spite of all that, its gotten only worse. MUCH worse. The COS, IMHO, *IS* the next step (before, as you state, we resort to break-up... or CW-III). The COS will not change one word or punctuation mark of the Constitution. It WILL add amendments, and some may change prior amendments (eg, repeal of the progressive’s 17th amendment).
I know “They refuse to honor their responsibilities now...”, but *they* are still on the surface abiding by it while stretching the envelope and finding any rational to get around it. We need to propose amendments to tighten up the language, put in place term limits, require budget with an amendment rather than legislation, and so on. If this were not so, then the game is over, and go directly to CW-III/break-up. BUT, I do not believe that is the case yet... (and, fwiw, I’m in a behind-enemy-line state!).
If the masterminds on the Potomac followed the constitution, there wouldn't be need for an Article V amendment convention, nor for FreeRepublc.
As a plan of limited government the constitution is gone. It is way beyond time to restore it. There is no guarantee that will happen.
They refuse to honor their responsibilities now so what is there to make anyone believe that they will honor the next one?
Through structural changes of the sort that cannot be ignored. The first reform is to boot the popularly derived demagogues from the senate and return the senate to the states. James Madison determined this vertical separation of power between the states and the new government they created was central to securing our liberty. He was right and we have suffered mightily from the mistake of the 17th Amendment.
DaBilgetroll has two great links in his post. Here at ConventionofStates.com in the right sidebar are FAQ.
>>Before we go on to change our constitution we need to do everything that is needed to force our president congress and courts to follow the constitution we now have.<<
Exactly right.
Why change everything when we can simply enforce laws already on the books? We can’t just change everything that’s good. We have to fight like hell to keep it.
We will keep the one we have.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicity forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee