Time for Article Five, Convention of States?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Just_Saying, May 26, 2017.

  1. Just_Saying

    Just_Saying Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    Let's face it folks, think our corrupt government has kicked the proverbial can so far down the road it went over a cliff and rolled into hell.

    When states, judges, and the majority of governmental agencies go rogue and break basically every law to over rule the president especially regarding issues people elected him to fix, it's definitely time to vote for Article five convention of states. This was a loophole if you will which was put in place by our founding fathers just for this time in history when corruption would rear its ugly head and threaten to overtake the government. Twelve states have already opted in so we're one third of the way there! We need this to happen people because as you can see, this country is never going to get back on tract until it does. And YOU can help make this happen by contacting your congressmen and women to let them know you want your state to join the crusade.

    Surely after witnessing the incessant barrage of in your face corruption that's happening every day aired by a completely biased left wing media other conservative state legislators will opt to do the same. But if not and nothing is done, at the current rate thing's are going, the country will continue to depreciate until it's too late. All one has to do to see how corrupt thing's are is to consider all the power the left has managed to achieve over the past eight years. Let's face it, even though the republicans managed to take all three branches of government this past election, the left still continues to run the show! And that's power of the worst kind. Just think what will happen if the left wins back those branches!

    Anyone unclear what this will mean and what's on the horizon for America. only needs to observe what's happening in Venezuela whose own citizens have been calling America radio stations to warn people the hell that country is going through which had a booming economy just like the U.S. and not that long ago.

    So I'll bet you're wondering what is Article 5 convention of states, right? Well I'm glad you asked because I just happened to enclose a nice link which explains it in detail, please read and afterwards contact your congressmen and women.

    Oh and incidentally Mark Levin who is an attorney, conservative radio host, staunch patriot, and a brilliant man in my opinion, brought this to my attention and now I'm passing it on in hopes of saving this once great nation that used to belong to "WE THE PEOPLE"!

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n..._Questions_Printable_3-12-2015.pdf?1426178728
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
  2. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what constitutional amendments should we do???
     
  3. Just_Saying

    Just_Saying Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    Well aside from taking a serious amount of government away which has grown way too large and out of control, we need to work on the first amendment which currently seems to be one sided. For example, if at all possible, news reporting agencies should need to be regulated to make sure their content is truthful, unbiased, and fair. Most including myself realize too many regulations is how we got into this mess in the first place but in certain cases such as the first amendment, which is probably are most important one, regulations would be needed just to stave off the crap currently happening in the news.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
  4. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama and team signed into law the fake news bill before he left. Now it's up to Trump to combat fake news and use his newly granted powers.
     
    22catch likes this.
  5. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The preamble to our new Constitution would be 100 pages long and it would take a year to clarify who we the people are, so have at it.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. mirimark1

    mirimark1 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2017
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    28
    ZERO Admendment should happen to the constitution. Anyone who wants to revise the constitution (even TRUMP) Should be DEPORTED.
     
  7. 22catch

    22catch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    2,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No OP. No Amendments to the Constitution.
     
  8. 22catch

    22catch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    2,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I get the frustration with Fake news but no one believes the MSM anymore unless it suits their personal narrative.

    The current thread 15 pages long using the WSJ as a source for a report they did on Gop collusion with Guccifer? I just proved the WSJ fake news. Flat out fabrication.

    Taken so far out of context to suit their narrative it should be criminal. But it's not and I will settle for them all losing complete credibility
     
    The Mandela Effect likes this.
  9. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good luck trying make that happen.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. It's time:

    Term limiting federal judges is a good idea. Unlike congressmen, they have no other check on their authority, and thirty-plus years in positions of authority is too much power for any person.

    Limiting the commerce clause and eminent domain will blunt the legal tools the government has used to encroach on private property and the free market.

    Congress has already been working to reassert its power over regulatory agencies, including by repealing “Chevron deference”, an amendment would further strengthen Congress in this direction.

    The repeal of the 17th Amendment may be the single most effective and important means of re-imposing meaningful checks on the national government. Restoring the Senate to its rightful role as representative of the States, not the people, reintroduces a vital mediating institution, restores a prop of republicanism; and takes a step away from the mass plebiscitary democracy (i.e., mob rule) that the Founders rightly feared.

    We Need To Clarify The Right to Privacy
    “The right to privacy shall consist in each citizen of the United States retaining ownership and possession of identifying information about themselves.”

    The right to privacy should be understood as an extension of the right to property: we own identifying information about ourselves; having such information taken without our consent by the government or by private corporations is a form of theft. The right to privacy is a vital bulwark guarding citizens against concentrations of power in both the public and private sectors, and strikes me as a clear and reasonable implication of existing enumerated rights in the constitution.

    We also need to recover the free exercise of religion clause to protect it from creeping state-sponsored progressive “secularism”, that is, progressive fundamentalism. The national government is no longer the neutral umpire it was designed to be under 18th century classical liberalism. Thanks to a century of progressive governance, the state is now in the business of endorsing certain lifestyles, identities, and private companies against others. The bloat, inefficiency, and corruption of the state stems from its assumption of a quasi-priestly role to adjudicate whose beliefs are on the right side of history and whose are a veiled form of bigotry and hate speech. The goal of a new amendment would be to restore classical liberal state neutrality.

    It’s Time To Clarify The President’s War Powers
    We need an amendment clarifying the president’s war powers. I differ from some conservatives and libertarians in that I do fret about the president deploying military force without a formal Congressional declaration of war. Let’s give Congress the authorization they need. The President’s authority as commander-in-chief should not be absolute and should be subject to some form of Congressional oversight and, in some cases, authorization.

    There should be an amendment expressly authorizing Congress to impose a requirement for national service.

    There should be an amendment granting the president blanket authority to reorganize the executive branch while defining and limiting what that authority consists of. Any executive in any organization would have the authority to reorganize his institution. It is absurd—and it is one of the reasons our government is massively irrational and inefficient—that the President does not have the same authority over the executive branch. This is one area in which Congress has too much authority over the executive.

    There should be an amendment expressly forbidding the courts from invoking “evolving standards of decency” or international law. The “evolving standards” doctrine dates from 1958 and is an obvious Trojan Horse for smuggling into constitutional law whatever prejudices, biases, and values are the most fashionable among the intelligentsia at the time. Banning “evolving standards” would effectively enshrine originalism, or something close to it, as the mandate for the judicial branch.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/10/12-amendments-constitution-needs-not-article-v-convention/
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    The Mandela Effect and 22catch like this.
  11. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you want to reincorporate the fairness doctrine?
     
  12. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We need to enshrine cradle to grave rights to housing, sustenance, health care, education through the vocational training up to the ages of 21, a job if people can't get one paying a reasonable wage, clothing and adequate recreation and rest and upon death a suitable dignified burial.

    Also an end to States rights the states should forever after be nothing the Federal government being the dominant authority limiting things to county and lower governments. Take out the middle man.
     
  13. 22catch

    22catch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    2,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not in disagreement with you on most of your items but one. I do.. Recommend caution in any way supporting the OP because your thoughtful post is not their intent.

    Freedom of the Press and or the 4th Estate requires no Constitutional Amendment and will not be allowed. That really was the crux of his post.

    Zero tolerance for that OP! I believe the left controlled media has lost all credibility. I also believe that we can address that without a constitutional amendment. Screw that I know we can.

    I do disagree with you respectfully on a Presidents war powers. Or rather the ability of a POTUS to engage threats quickly without Congress's approval. To not have that ability removes alot of if not all capacity for the element of surprise. I'm sorry but the complete and utter dysfunction of our Congress now and in times past supports the status quo.

    Are we as citizens to fall prey to a bunch of bought and paid for by either money or ideological line sycophants? The current Congress couldnt manage a lemonade stand on their own

    No.. POTUS retains this ability. Just my opinion.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  14. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I think that the United States needs a political reckoning. We need to figure out what we want and how best to achieve it.

    The Founding Fathers certainly made mistakes, and they knew that better than anyone else. What they crafted was, in my opinion, the best political system the world has ever seen. But it needs some work, because it's running into its worst crisis ever.

    To begin, we need to recognize that political parties will exist. The Constitution was written around the idea that parties would not exist. Further, we need to be absolutely clear just what the Federal government is or isn't allowed to do. When Hamilton and Madison, the two who knew the Constitution best, came to disagree about that almost immediately it was clear that there was a problem.

    Americans are far too tribalized. What I know about your view on abortion should be no predictor for your view on Islam or race relations or gun control, but it is. There's a reason for this, people essentially have two parties to choose from. This is a result of our electoral system. Again, our electoral system would be fantastic if there were no parties. But there always will be parties, because our voices our louder in unison.

    The problem comes into play when there are only two parties, because it's impossible to represent a country of 340 million people with two parties.

    So yes, I think we should have a Constitutional convention. Understand that our Founders would be absolutely horrified to see our current state of political affairs.

    EDIT: Jesus, do I always write that way? That hurt to read.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    Zorro likes this.
  15. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. Open laughter, mocking and redicule of their silliness seems to be working rather well. As well as the continued understanding that they have NO rights under the first amendment all of us don't equally enjoy.
    Good points. The next time Congress thinks the President has overstepped himself on War Powers, I would like to see Congress bring up and Authorization to Use Military Force, and then vote it down. See if the President has the guts to step over that, and if he does, impeach him and cut off his funding.

    But, they don't do that, do they? I wrote my Congressman and asked him to do that when the US, without Congressional Authorization got involved in the Syrian and Libyan conflicts, but of course, he did nothing.
     
  16. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ...or we could just make political parties unconstitutional, and thereby enforce the Founders' original intent.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  17. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The right to assemble and petition as groups is important. Keep in mind that it was the Founders themselves who formed the first political parties.

    Think about what it would mean to ban parties. What exactly would be illegal? Groups of people with similar ideas putting candidates forward and supporting those candidates?

    Tell me how you would go about banning parties, because I think that any practical measures toward that end would be tyrannical.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  18. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, you'll always have "groups" (people bought by finance, people bought by big oil, ...). But not "official" parties. I'm talking about organization in government. Non-tyrannical measures would include:
    • Returning to "most votes=president, second most votes=vice president" instead of a party gaining control of both offices.
    • Constitutionally prohibit Congress from organizing along party lines (no "majority party" or "minority party").
     
  19. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Meh. Sure.
    Of no practical effect. They could simply say "I'm a conservative" and "I'm a liberal" and act as they do normally. It's not like whips and minority leaders have to be official positions.

    And none of this solves the actual problem. The problem is that people are unwilling to vote for third party candidates because they don't want to "throw their vote away." That's a reasonable position to take in a single-vote first-past-the-post system.
     
  20. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,291
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Repeal the 14th and substitute
    something that cannot be so broadly interpreted
    as to over turn the Bill of Rights.


    Modify the 4th Amendment to declare "electronic footprints" such as cell phone privacy is covered as an extension of "papers & effects" - just like a hard line phone call.

    How's that for starters.

    Moi :oldman:

    r > g


    canada-invade-cover.jpg
    Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
    regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
     
  21. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A person can easily say "I'm X ideology" (and there are many ideologies, the only reason things are always framed as liberal vs. conservative is because of the two party system) and not listen to some unofficial whip. If the positions aren't official, then why would one congressman let himself get told what to do by an equal?

    Of course it solves the problem. If there are no parties, then there are no third party candidates. And if you're talking instead about ideologies, then there is no such thing as a "third ideology".
     
  22. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, the Obamas and Clintons woulda loved that idea.

    And you figure 38 states would ratify something like that because...?

    And you find support for that idea in the Constitution where, exactly?

    If that was their original intent, surely evidence to that effect can be found in the DoI or the Constitution; so where the hell is it?
     
  23. Concord

    Concord Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,856
    Likes Received:
    876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or not listen to an "official" whip. It's almost like it's not different at all!

    No, it doesn't, because there are still only two realistic candidates. People will rally behind the "lesser of two evils" in our kind of system. Not an ideal way to elect people.

    And of course there's a third ideology! Why the hell should your view on abortion be predictive of your view on the budget, foreign policy, or gun control? The fact that people fall pretty firmly into one of two camps shows that we're tribalizing.
     
    jimmy rivers likes this.
  24. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps you can show me where political parties are mentioned in the DoI or Constitution. George Washington was famously against parties, and warned against them in his farewell address.
    John Adams said:
    Clearly, the political system we live under is not what was intended.
     
  25. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except that they clearly DO fall in line. Party line voting is the norm.

    If there were no parties, why would there only be two realistic candidates?

    There is no "third" ideology; there are countless ideologies.

    That is obviously a result of the two party system. Of course your view on abortion shouldn't have anything to do with your views on gun control. It is only because Ds and Rs force people to pick a "package deal" that they NOW fall into those camps. It is artificial.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    Strasser likes this.

Share This Page