Posted on 02/16/2017 4:35:33 PM PST by ameribbean expat
One of Gov. Greg Abbott’s emergency items moved one step further Thursday when a Senate committee recommended a resolution that would back a convention of states.
The Senate State Affairs Committee approved Senate Joint Resolution 2, by state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, which calls for a national convention that would allow states to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution — an action that could only happen with a two-thirds majority, or 34 states, signing onto the idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
You got that right, even politicians are clueless about our Constitution. I talked to my state rep today because they want a large tax hike on businesses, in this state, so they can close the projected budget shortfall for 2 years. She is a democrat and told me our businesses have to "pay their fair share", uhg.
I asked her what will stop these businesses and individuals from practicing federalism? She absolutely had no clue what I was talking about so I kept asking. She tried to end the conversation so I explained what stops these businesses and individuals from leaving the state to states that their governments are not out of control.
She would never give me an answer to that and thanked me for the call. I could tell I did frustrate the heck out of her, lol, especially after she said she would go her best for our "democracy". I had to politely correct her that we are not a mob-rules democracy but a Constitutional Republic. My state rep is a sad example of those that are so misinformed.
CGato
I spent my entire day on this today. Perhaps before you make your generalized judgement you should read the text of the meeting today, watch the meeting from the Congressional archive or mearly educate yourself on how few votes it would actually take to defeat any proposed amendments.
You know, since you weren’t sitting in the room today listening to the reading of the amendments passed I’ll give you one break on your snarky remark. But I was there. Did read it. And the constraints put on the delegates today as well as on the state legislators themselves to limit delegates and representatives to only a narrowly defined list of limiting federal bloating were all there.
We pushed for those today!
I am exhausted and happy. Granted we’ve got to keep doing this till we’ve added Texas to the states who have approved the resolution. But today was a good day.
For me it was even sweeter when I discovered after the fact that my daughter and a friend were watching live from 350 miles away. Then tonight I received a congratulatory text from a son-in-law in Alabama. Apparantly they are all Facechat or Snapbook sharing. I don’t do any of that so I didn’t have a clue I had kids and grandkids watching my testimony :)
VERY HAPPY to hear those going for the convention are pushing for term limits our government WILL NEVER be by the people until WE have term limits!!! The founders NEVER EPECTED these BASTARDS to stay in government a lifetime and become VERY WEALTHY by serving the people!!!
Liberals control most large urban areas. They control few states, about 12. But they are far from controlling 38 states which are what is needed to ratify a constitutional amendment.
The Article V process is a states level process, so there’s practically zero chance that progressives can get anything using Article V. If they had a chance, they would have long ago tried and they have never tried.
If the Article V process was a popular vote process, then yes, you would have a point. But because you don’t understand the process, you cannot contribute to the thread other than making statements showing your lack of knowledge. In the future, you should study up a subject before showing blind ignorance; just a suggestion.
Starting when? 1865?
How about start leaving it alone since before 1913? I’ll settle for that.
But since it is doubtful you have a time machine, people are going to rectify the horror leftover of 1913. In that year, 3 constitutional amendments were passed, the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th. The 18th was repealed. The 16th and the 17th remain to be repealed.
The people of 1913 were stupid. And they were duped. The political parties played chicken with each other and threatened amendments to the Constitution in the form of the 16th. It was never supposed to be taken seriously but it was.
The 17th started as an Article V process in a way that was different than how it ended up. It was taken out of the hands of grassroots movements who were persuaded that Congress would ‘handle it’. Congress wrote it so that US Senators would no longer have to deal with state legislatures and could win voters by having the most cash. The result is a near complete corruption of Congress.
The types of amendments that are needed are very structured. Examples are illustrated here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3523449/posts?page=15#15
> “How will rewriting parts of it suddenly make them obey it?”
Your question answered here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3523449/posts?page=15#15
Candidate Donald Trump now President wants term limits by a Constitutional Amendment.
Doubtful he will get it through Congress because it takes away from them and gives to the states and the people.
President Donald Trump is uniquely able and qualified to bypass the media and Congress and go straight to the people. He can lead an Article V movement; yes, he can.
Here’s an example amendment that rectifies the poor judgment of 1913:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII (State Franchise Sufferage) +++TERM LIMITS+++
To restore effective franchise suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3:
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
Other examples are illustrated here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3523449/posts?page=15#15
Thank you.
Publius lists states where the legislatures are completely onboard, both chambers. Note that Governors are not in the loop. They can influence but they are not hardwired in the process.
There are many more states where one chamber has passed a resolution. There are more than 30 that have introduced legislation to participate.
The process is working and growing. The election barely slowed it down. The process was early on impeded by ignorance, disinformation, and deliberate obfuscation. But those tactics have failed as legislators grow increasingly aware of the process and the safety of the process.
You got it.
The year 1913 was an awful year for the US Constitution.
That year saw the 16th, 17th, 18th passed.
The 18th was repealed.
It’s time to repeal the 16th and 17th but Congress will NEVER do it.
That leaves it to the states and the people to do it using Article V.
“You had best surrender right now as you’ve no desire to fight.”
Where in my post(s) did I suggest that we “surrender”? Where?
Your response is so ridiculously obtuse that it could easily be confused with trolling.
There are lots of things we can do to fight. Passing more laws on paper, ones that a majority of judges, elected representatives and bureaucrats are just itching to “interpret” in the most unfavorable way with respect to the Republic’s long-term survival, is an absolute waste of time and money.
Christians, conservatives, and constitutionalists have complete authority over their homes. The number one long term strategy to defeating the statists is to remove one’s children from government schools. Anyone who has children and the resources (time, money) to withdraw said children from these socialist indoctrination camps, but has failed to do so, is part of the problem. They are the real surrender monkeys.
Any attorney worth their salt will tell you that just about every single law school in this country teaches that there is no need to read the Constitution, because it only means what judges tell us what it means.
Article 1 Section 8 is pretty clear about the role of the federal government. Ignored. Money should be gold and silver. Ignored. No blanket surveillance of citizens. Ignored. Do we really want to devote time and money to writing new rules that our elected representatives, bureaucrats and judges will simply “interpret” however they wish? How about we instead elect state reps, governors etc who will stand up to the feds (and if necessary call out the state guard or state police to interpose)? How about we take long term steps and pull our children out of the government school system??
“You got that right, even politicians are clueless about our Constitution.”
In some case they are clueless, in other cases they simply don’t care about the Constitution or their oath of office. In their mind, you are an extremist for bringing up basic civics. Part of the cluelessness comes from the fact that most politicians are attorneys. Most attorneys are focused not on truth or principles, but on prevailing in their arguments.
Go dig a hole, put your head in it, and say goodbye to living as a winner.
“Scotus amends the Constitution at-will.”
Yep.
I love the balanced budget amendment crowd. Many of these people think that a balanced budget amendment will bring fiscal discipline to the federal government. They forget that the federal government never lowers spending year over year. So the balanced budget amendment would lock in tax increases. Congress, being unwilling to be the bearers of bad news, might even defer to the Courts (unelected) to write our tax laws to achieve a balanced budget.
Of course, no one will “force” the federal government to stick to its responsibilities under Art 1 Sect 8.
Another one is flat/fair tax proposals which don’t even get rid of the 16th amendment, meaning that we could have a high national sales tax one year, and a national sales tax-income tax combo one year later!
“Go dig a hole, put your head in it, and say goodbye to living as a winner.”
Only trolls and gatekeepers respond with personal attacks against honest and reasoned arguments. LOL!
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.