[Publius]

[dware]

The question to be answered is, “How shall we reclaim liberty?”

Trump/Cruz 2016

[Political Junkie Too]

Article VI says that treaties are the Supreme law of the land. Supreme law cannot be imposed on the states without their consent. The Senate was the body that represented the states in Congress, so only the Senate is involved in accepting the terms of a treaty for the nation. The crime against the nation that McConnell, Corker, and the Uniparty committed is to allow a minority of states impose Supreme law on the country through a failed cloture vote, instead of letting a super-majority of states choose what will be Supreme law of the land via the treaty process.

Article V lets the states create Supreme law via the amendment process. Is this really scarier than how our current Congress just created Supreme law without ANY advice and consent from the states?

-PJ

[Snickering Hound]

They don’t follow the Constitution we have now, what difference would one with fresh ink make?

[aimhigh]

The Communist constitution had a lot of freedoms. But the text didn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what’s in the constitution if the Democrats take full control.

[Thud]

If we want state legislatures to pass resolutions authorizing an Article V Constitution Convention, we must give them some almighty powerful incentives. That is not difficult. We proponents of an Article V Convention should offer them some proposed amendments that will be of immense benefits to individual state legislators, and to state legislatures overall.

Here are two such:

Throw the entire Congress out of office, and bar them from ever returning, so state legislators can replace them and get the much more lucrative graft available to Congressmen and Senators. The wording of such an amendment would be simple:

No person who, as of the effective date of this Amendment, is now serving, or has served, all or any portion of a term in the Senate or House of Representatives may be elected to, appointed to, or sworn in as a Senator or Representative.

Wording of the next Amendment would be tricky, and getting it right will require a lot of work by lawyers, politicians and scholars. My idea is to eliminate unfunded federal mandates, which I define as those required only by federal statutes and regulations as opposed to compliance with the US Constitution. That would free up (my guess, but it isn’t wild-eyed) about 20-30% of all present state budgets for state legislators to happily boon-doggle.

Plus this proposed amendment should require the federal government to reimburse the states for the 5-10 years of unfunded federal mandates prior to the effective date of this amendment. Put a cap on that of about a trillion dollars.

My idea here is to also offer state legislatures a trillion dollar bribe to pass Article V Constitutional Convention resolutions. We’d save a lot more than that in a few years if such a Convention is held and actually proposes amendments for the states to ratify.

[Monorprise]

The Federal Constitution as it stands now is a meaningless document not doing anyone any good. It will remain that way until our State alter the Constitution as to enable them to practically reclaim and thus decentralized federal power.

That must be the sole aim of a convention if nothing else is accomplished the State must acquire a tool to enforce the Federal Constitution as written directly. NOT thou federal employees who’s consent they can never rely upon.

[DoodleDawg]

It’s definitely safer because nothing will be accomplished. I can’t think of any of the major problems we face that could be fixed by an amendment that could be ratified by 38 states.