Is our Constitution strong enough?

You have no idea if this is true or not; your own partisan blindness renders you incapable of thinking for yourself in this matter.

 

This, especially in contrast with his opponent, is why Trump won.

 

I disagree with @Kode on basically everything, but not here. The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech.

It seems to me that the only people with money can say anything that is actually audible. Doesn't sound very free to me.

 

Ahem, if media was working to protect the constitution, you would know the following as history BEFORE our lawful and peaceful revolution.

This document has links to the letter sent to the clerk of congress and other aspects related.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file47.pdf

Such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states.

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article1...eks-official-congressional-count-on-apps-html

However, congress refused to start counting applications occuring before the letter. The speakers were sued.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf

That suit, of course was denied. Government is deeply unlawful. These .pdf's by Bill Walker explain the developing status.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration Attempts Termination of Article V Convention

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file77.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file78.pdf
______________________________
Basically congress is trying to get rid of the 2nd way Americans can democratically control the federal government, Article 5. Congress colluding with the court and corporations have already hijacked politics, the 1st way to democratically control government. Article 5 happens through states and when 38 states are proposing amendments from conventions in them, congress and the court have no authority over the amendment.

 

You have the same rights as someone that is rich.

 

This is the clause you feel is being violated? In that case, what emoluments has Trump received from the United States, or from individual states?

 

No, I posted the wrong one. Try Article I, Section 9:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

 

Uh-huh. And, when a foreign state pays its office lease, or a foreign diplomat pays his bar tab, which of these actions have he taken?

 

Yeah, that's what I figured. I just thought it was pretty funny that, in response to RiseAgainst saying "You have no clue what the emoluments clause is", you posted the wrong clause. As though it were your intention to prove him right.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hillary Clinton accepted about 40,000,000 dollars from the Hedge Fund lobby. Trump rec'd 19,000 dollars.

 

There is evidence that Democracy can't thrive where the IQ is less than 100.

 

Actually i did not say that. I quoted that quote from the OP.

Anyway, there is a school of thought that says civilization cannot survive because we are not cut out for it. Endgame by Derrick Jensen
Perhaps one reason is that some folks think they are too smart for our own good.

 

I never said I didn't. I simply can't afford to pay for my speech like the rich can.

 

So? Make more money! Don't blame others because you fail at it.

 

[QUOTE="Kode, post: 1067462700, member
But in reality the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared.
.[/QUOTE]

There was no "double dip recession". The next recession wasn't until more than a year after President Reagan left office.

No president deserves credit or blame for economic changes that take place in the first year of their administrations or economic changes that take place more than a year after they leave office.

 

Who is charging the rich to speak? They can afford bigger soap boxes, but that's not necessary. Just have a better argument than the rich.

 

One wonders how you even drag yourself out of bed.....

 

Only every other eight years.

 

So headed toward another 1968 Chicago Democrat Convention?

Here is a better way. The preamble to our Constitution recognizes that it is forming "a more perfect union" to secure our rights for ourselves and our children, and ongoing process. There are two ways to draft constitutional amendments, either in Congress or by 34 State Legislatures acting in concert. Ratification is the same for both methods, approval by 3/4ths of the States.

Missouri, the "Show Me State", showed the nation what it means to stand up against ever-increasing federal overreach, by passing the Convention of States Resolution.

In the last day of the 2017 session, the House joined the Senate and passed the resolution by an overwhelming margin. Texas did the same last week, marking the 11th and 12th states to join the Constitutional Revolution.

The momentum is growing, and the grassroots are on the march to the necessary 34 states to call the first ever, Convention of States to rein in the scope, power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

I predict as this number approaches 20, the DC establishments of both Parties and the Media will flip their lids!

But that the Constitution route, not the street violence that the Left and the hooded antifa types favor.

 

The revolution, in my opinion, isn't a Constitutional revolution, but more of a cultural one. This last election shows that many Americans are not happy with the status quo, but they seem to be unhappy for a variety of reasons. Some are unhappy with economics- the stagnation of wages, lack of personal security with their job, and uncertainty that they will be able to send their kids to college, purchase a house, and that near 0% interest rates haven't allowed their savings to grow much, so there is some anxiety concerning retirement. Some are unhappy with gridlock in DC and the inability of Congress to pass laws that help the average American with health care, taxes, etc. Some are unhappy in general. I see that as the 1960s type of dissatisfaction where we had anti-war protests, the sexual revolution, Civil Rights marches and demonstrations, bra burning next to draft card burning next to flag burning, the drug culture, counterculture, and a musical revolution. Some are sick of our country being involved in constant and endless war, putting the homeland at risk for retaliation. I'm not endorsing riots or violence whatsoever. It may come to that though. Jefferson did say that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots, so there is always the potential for violence when sides become intractable. I so miss the time we had moderates in both parties that could work together.

Major societal changes followed the 60s. I see the same kind of thing happening now. People expect elected representatives to do what is right for the American people, but see elected representatives doing what their big-money donors want them to do, and that isn't in the best interest of the average American.

As to the Constitutional Revolution, I'm not confident we have the kind of people in public office that will ensure changes to the Constitution won't be detrimental to the American people. Once you open it up to change, it can get out of control and we may end up with a Constitution that no longer supports the rights we now enjoy. Both previous Constitutional Conventions were held in secret. I don't believe the majority of Americans trust a secret meeting that will determine the future of the Constitution anymore, even if they want broad, sweeping changes that only can happen in a Con-Con.

 

That's a very real concern that I don't think gets enough attention.

At the Federal Level, we don't. That is why the Framers made sure we could enact changes with no involvement of the Federal Government should the Federal Government develop into one that no longer heeds the voice of the People.

13 states can block any ratification.

 

And those 13 states represent 7% of the people.

 

Exactly. It takes very broad agreement to amend the constitution.