Posted on 03/20/2015 7:25:15 AM PDT by GILTN1stborn
Well, maybe comments, thoughts, and behind the scenes actions like you describe above are what he's afraid of, too. My concern is over one of "who will watch the watchers?" To put it in a more relevant context, "who watches the organizers and deciders of the CoS?" How were they chosen?
It is easy to say there'll be safeguards, rules, decorum and consensus about what's to happen, but I can't help but to think about that line "the most careful of battle plans are thrown out the window when the first shot is fired." I am disillusioned about it because you rarely, rarely can find someone nowadays in government, politics, or conservative activism that actually does what they say they will do.
A case in point for me is the recent expose about the actual candidate donation rates (% to candidates) of the top Tea Party sentiment/affiliated PACs. Frankly, they are embarrassing and disgusting IMO, and they certainly don't give me good reason to believe in the best hopes of a CoS.
Yet all these background foundational explanations result in one paragraph. In the end, only that one paragraph is operative.
The Framers’ process was intended to make the natural right of the people to suggest changes fairly easy to achieve.
However, changes should not be made lightly. That is why three-fourths concurrence is a wise and high bar.
You explained far more of yourself than you know.
I understand and agree with the spirit of a CoS. I just don’t think I have much hope for it. This country can’t even come to grips with the likes of Ferguson and its aftermath and the basic problem it represents. Couple this one thing with all the others of the tyranny we call government now, and I just think some very nasty unintended things could happen.
I don’t want to stop a CoS, but I don’t want to have rainbows blown up my keester about how this and how that will go, either.
I’ll shut up now and go my way. If it (CoS) does happen, I’ll certainly hope for the best. :0)
There’s no need to get personal and snide. I haven’t done anything of the sort with you.
You don’t wish to learn. I view it as factual, not personal.
So, you as one of the CoS proponents would likely be a participant, and you, given your assessment and dismissal of my concerns would be perfectly content to “keep people like me” out. There was another poster here who voiced that same thought at another here who had CoS concerns.
The problem with CoS proponents is that there is a lot of talk, supposition, ‘background’ on something that has never happened before ‘all going according to some master plan’.
Attack those concerned seems to be the order of the day it seems. Good tactic. It works well with Democrats.
And your solution is? There is nothing wrong with having discussions about the good, the bad and the ugly. However, other than the suggestions for revolution, where are the alternate solutions that are also Constitutional? The founders gave us Article V for good reasons.
I’m done on this topic. You guys go on off and do it now.
The founders gave us a Constitution and system that is premised on the basis of having honest men implement it. We do not have that now. Our Constitution, laws, and mores have been assaulted continually for several decades by the most vile and evil people imaginable and have been used against us to no good end. To expect a pristine process like Article V to occur with no interference is folly.
Nevertheless, good luck to you. I hope it works out like you envision.
In a lot of cases, up to half of the state budget money is actually federal matching funds. How the feds get their tentacles into state matters is by the promise of money. The reason we had a federal speed limit was due to federal matching funds. States can balance their budgets and spend without raising their state taxes due to this. They are happy. People in the states are happy. They don't need to know the details.
In the end if Article V passes, you'll see possibly two scenarios. One is enough sides team up in a turf war and roll over another side. It's possible. The other is to make deals to avoid a turf war and loot the federal treasury the same or more as it is now. (But it's a balanced budget - well, more taxes then. The delegates don't have to face the people - ever)
I refuse to donate to any national group that claims to speak for the tea party. They aren't tea party. They are noise machines who collect money, spend it on themselves, and rarely help candidates. The only national group I've seen do ANYTHING is Americans for Prosperity.
Now many of the local tea party groups don't have much money and do good work with the money they have. They also actually give a damn about the issues like we do.
Article V is written in 18th Century legalese. My explanation is written in modern English. No suppositions, just explication.
Bkmk
I agree with much of what you say, except the founders did understand that there was and would continue to be, evil in the world. That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. I do not believe anyone expects the process to be pristine and easy. In fact, I think it will dangerous, difficult and very ugly. The left will come out in full force to attack us. They will use the IRS, NSA, DOJ, HSA and thuggery to threaten and silence patriots. Our state represenatives that have stepped up to this effort already know this. They do not put forward this effort lightly. I will support them and pray because I think, that in light of the widiots (wuss+idiot) and the leftists in DC, it is our best last chance before we go the way of Rome.
I have logged many volunteer hours with AFP in addition to some other smaller grass roots groups. I try to be so careful where I donate my time and money. That is why I was upset about NAGR.
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.