Constitutional Amendment Convention Gaining Momentum

[LagerHead]

IMHO. In this day and age, a constitutional convention would scare the pants off of me. Let's not hope for desperate measures that could very well back fire on U.S.

 

We're way past the need for desperate measures. We're $17 trillion in debt, our rights are being hacked away faster than the Amazon rain forest, and all of our politicians are bought and paid for. I don't know if we could accidentally do more damage than our "representatives" do intentionally on a daily basis. 

 

There are several articles over at Daily Kos of folks wetting their knickers over the thought of those meddling conservatives at an Article V convention foiling their schemes. This is the most recent one. It is worth supporting if only to keep the wailing and gnashing of teeth up over there.

 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260066/-Alert-Art-V-Convention-Threat-Grows-Dec-7-2013-Assembly

 

The fact that the Daily Kommies objects is all the proof you need that it's a good idea. 

 

I don't think it would be a good idea...  too many things could go wrong.

 

Sounds like a quote from every anti-gun organization on the planet talking about carry permits. The facts is there are plenty of things that could go right as well. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

As long as we know what is going to be discussed and voted on before the convention. Having a bunch of politicians get together to discuss something as huge as an amendment might corrupt some that we think cannot be corrupted. Those in power see those of us who are armed as a threat. They have classified us as terrorists, declared us as mentally ill for wanting to own guns and attack any service member who declares their oath to the Constitution. For several decades those in power have tried to remove guns from our hands because we are a threat to their corrupt ways. Some, or maybe even all, might see a Constitutional Convention as a quick way to remove the threat and assure they remain in power.

 

The place to fight is at the local level, we have been in last place as far as getting involved. Make calls, donate time and money as well as just engage people in conversations. What we do now is sit on our hands and wait for someone to come along we agree with. But if that doesn't happen then we decide not to vote as a means of protest. I know it is easier to sit around and do nothing and even easier to not go to the polls but if we do not support out candidates long before election day we will never see their name on a ballot.

[Dane]

The problem with this is that the same people that would be attending are the same people causing the problems. Politics was not intended to be a career, it was intended to be a service to your country. We will not see change so long as there are political parties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem with this is that the same people that would be attending are the same people causing the problems. Politics was not intended to be a career, it was intended to be a service to your country. We will not see change so long as there are political parties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Not at an Article V convention.

Has anyone thought about all those amendments
past the Bill of Rights? If you're so worried about this, and to the point of the scenario in Matthew Bracken's trilogy, consider the steps that happened in his book, and consider today's
political mix. It would take a lot more to cause
his scenario to happen. I doubt it could happen
like that, especially after all the damage the
President has done to his party.

This might be the best time to do it. Read Mark
Levin's book and then make up your mind. Edited December 11, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Jamie Jackson]

Excellent discussion.

There are some very good points being made...6.8, Dennis, Dolomite, and others.

 

I think on many levels it comes down to trust. Trust in our fellow citizens, will they/we do what's right? Demand what's right? or, as for so long, will apathy prevail? Folks...I just don't know...

 

My gut tells me the best path is through regaining control at a local, and State, level. Active involvement and participation.

 

Our elected officials at the Federal level have proven time and again that they do not represent us...they only represent their own desire for personal power. They have for many years ignored our Constitution and bastardized and morphed the 3 branches into unrecognizable entities.

What makes anyone think they would adhere to any move to restore our God Given and Constitutionally (supposedly) Protected Rights?

 

I wish I had more faith in our system...make that our collective desire and willingness to sacrifice to ensure that the "system" works.

 

I don't even recognize the America I grew up in anymore. To quote the book, "I Miss America".

 

I accept responsibility for my own apathy and inaction in my life. We hang our own swords.

 

But it's the "Rule of Unintended Consequences" that I am most concerned about should a Con-Con occur.

 

I haven't read Levin's book...maybe I should.

 

I don't know where this all will lead. But I do see where we're going if we continue to do nothing. And it doesn't bode well for what's left of us.

 

Whatever path we choose, I guess we choose along with the consequences of that choice. I personally will continue to Pray for guidance.

 

But my concern, my fear, is that a Con-Con will send that balloon up...maybe it's what's needed...maybe it's inevitable.

 

:2cents:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

An amendment to the Constitution, when voted on at the convention, has to make it there, first, then be sent to every state for each

state to vote on. It isn't just the den of thieves in DC.

 

There's a heck of a lot of reading many should do before they think only of unintended consequences, which are always present.

Look at most of the laws for the past fifty years, some of which you and I might have agreed on. I can safely say most of them

should be canned, and the fools who didn't question them more, should never again be able to propose another bill.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just what will enforce that the Fed will abide by changes to the Constitution any more than they abide by the existing one?

 

It embraces any parts that further its agenda and ignore or subvert the parts that don't.

 

- OS

That is about to change, especially with both houses potentially being in Republican control. And, if, by chance an Article V

does happen and key amendments get passed, some politically correct racist SOBs can cry all they want. The welfare

cheats can cry or get a job. Several things would be mandatory with a balanced budget Amendment, not just a feel good

law. Have you read Liberty Amendments, Mac? It may not happen, but sometimes just the threat can kill political hacks.

 

I realize the Republican leadership is still embracing a lot of the Democrats positions, and the national GOP is still playing

to lose, but the statewide enthusiasm among Republicans toward conservatism is one of the things that can either kill the

party and start a new conservative party, or throw the bum RINOs out. The Rockefeller guys(GOP) are losing popularity

as much as the Democrats. The communist influence is being seen and understood by even those on the left.

 

Now, if we just sit around and do like the last two major cycles and don't push for the gains as in 2010, we might as well

eat some cake at the gay wedding, shouldn't we? I'd rather see the states get back in the game with an Article V and reassert

things like the Tenth Amendment, strengthen the budget issue by requiring a balanced budget, not just a budget, and

maybe deal with taxes, and put that damned so-called Commerce Clause back in it's proper meaning so the thugs can't

use it to masturbate by it.

 

If the government decided to not pay attention, that will be the time you clean your rifle and load up and see how many

people want to move forward with the cake or not.

 

Those people on welfare and all the other government programs to get fat will get out of the way, also. How long do you

think a bum would be in the fight?

 

When the money runs out...

[gun sane]

There's more in the Constitution for individual and states' rights than there are for the feds.  Much of the authority that's been usurped by the federal government has been done under the "peace and safety" banner, but we've given them an inch and they've taken a mile.  We've seen several new law enforcement agencies created under Homeland Security which was originally the states' responsibility.  The EPA was started because nobody wanted dirty air or water.  Now industry is hamstrung by thousands of EPA laws with climate change junk science opening a new front against profitability.

 

Don't forget that colonies--states if you will--came before the United States.  It was they that created the federal government, not the reverse.  That's why Article V is written the way it is.  The framers granted Congress the authority to make amendments but also extended equal authority to the states, just in case Congress got too big for its britches.  And even the congressional amendment process requires 3/4 states' approval.  The primary foundation of government is the people and the states, according to the original design.  That's what this convention business is all about.  If the federal government ignores new amendments created by the convention and ratified by the states...well, that's what the second amendment is all about.

[JayC]

Just remember that Article 5 grants the rogue government not the states the power to setup the constitutional convention.

 

Then lets look at Article 5:

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

So congress sets up the requirements for delegates to the convention, and you can't have those crazy terrorist tea party members as members...  then once they come up with the new Amendments to the Constitution, Congress declares the same people they hand selected to run the convention from each of the states are now the "conventions" of each state.... which can ratify those amendments right then and there.

 

We now have new amendments to the Constitution without a single state legislature, or voter approving a single one of them.

 

Article 5 isn't written well, they never imagined that Senators would be directly elected, so it never occured to the framers to place more restrictions on congress in Article 5.

 

Just remember that 'Heritage' was all for an Obamacare style healthcare solution back in the 1990's, it's not like there aren't a bunch of neo-cons in the republican party who would love to make some changes to the Bill of Rights anyway possible during an Article 5 convention.

 

Things are bad, they're getting worse...  there is a far greater chance that an Article 5 convention would result in things getting much worse quicker, than getting even a slightly bit better.  Just remember for every person that thinks like you, Chuck, and myself, there are ten people who think government doesn't have enough power like Robert, DaveTN and DaveS who call themselves republicans.

 

The argument between establishment republicans and establishment democrats isn't over whether the government needs more power or not, only where IN government they need more power.

 

Our present day life is becoming less and less free. Congress and the President pay no attention to the people, more each day.

Less people speak up in opposition to what they say and do "in our names". Even with Obamacare being the "Law of the land",

so sayeth John Boehner, the opposition party, the Republicans are cowering about it. With the federal government's continual

encroachments on our liberties by snooping on us, turning us against each other, not coming to the aid of an embassy, or a

border guard. The assault every year or so on the 2nd Amendment. TARP and the rest of the money. The lack of a budget since

when? Bush's last year. None since.

 

I'm all for it. Levin's ideas are sound. That writer for Heritage is how I used to feel. I think more productive things could happen

this way, if not for the idea that, one of these days we will be so wrapped up in tyranny, we won't be able to fight back against it,

God forbid anyone have the spine to do that, now. Each year this stuff gets worse, instead of better. The writer says there is a

trend pointing at politics swinging back in the other direction. I don't see it. I see about the same amount of spine in that as the

other thing I mentioned needing spine. This is a rogue government already. How much more do you want it to erode?

Edited December 11, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

You know I'm right there with you...  the country is broken...  but it's broken at a much more fundamental level than the federal government...

 

State, and local governments are just as broken if not more so than the Federal government...  Our own legislators are happy to allow clearly unconstitutional laws stand....  the waste money and spend our taxes dollars like drunken sailors just as bad as the congresscritters do...  What makes you think sending a bunch of those low lifes to an article 5 convention will solve anything?

 

I just don't think it can be solved through the political process anymore... I hope you're right, but an Article 5 convention scares me to death...  remember what happened last time the people were tricked into a constitutional convention?  The got a whole new constitution that gave a lot of rights away.

 

And we all should know the bad things that could go wrong. What we should also know if we continue cowering and letting Congress

and the President make fools and slaves of us, is that it is up to the people, for the time being, to deal with this, unless you like what

you have, now. I don't like to hear every day how the government can do this or that, or the ATF is committing crimes to entrap, while

at the same time, some tend to worship them and protect them from us. Sorry, but I don't bow down and kiss it like some do. We all know

how long this has been going on, and we all know this won't change overnight, yet, not enough of anyone will get behind and support

ideas like "Beat Lamar", or many of the ideas of the Tea Party that made 2010 a successful election cycle in the eye of tyranny on the

job.

 

It's more damned important to cry on someone's shoulder and make sure the baker gets punished and the gay gets his/her cake than

queering the tyranny, instead. Trouble is, the real coward is the one imposing the tyranny on us. We are letting them write laws that

are in direct violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is bullied into letting it stand on a technicality by a so-called conservative

Chief Justice. My God! How much more does it take? If it gets much worse, those who are still saying "cold, dead hands" will be saying

"more cake, please" or worse, "death is fine with me". Do you folks realize how far our country has fallen? In my lifetime it has gone straight

to Hell.

 

Where is Patrick Henry in our crowd?

 

[JayC]

The instant 38 states vote for a convention, their ability to control anything having to do with the convention ends...  Congress can select the members from each state, and can even have the same delegations approve the proposed Amendments the very same day.

 

The states can't legally place limits on what can or can't be voted on at the convention...

 

An article 5 convention would be a singularity, once started there would be no control from the states where it goes, or what it does.  Nobody can predict what comes out the other side. 

 

As long as we know what is going to be discussed and voted on before the convention. Having a bunch of politicians get together to discuss something as huge as an amendment might corrupt some that we think cannot be corrupted. Those in power see those of us who are armed as a threat. They have classified us as terrorists, declared us as mentally ill for wanting to own guns and attack any service member who declares their oath to the Constitution. For several decades those in power have tried to remove guns from our hands because we are a threat to their corrupt ways. Some, or maybe even all, might see a Constitutional Convention as a quick way to remove the threat and assure they remain in power.

 

The place to fight is at the local level, we have been in last place as far as getting involved. Make calls, donate time and money as well as just engage people in conversations. What we do now is sit on our hands and wait for someone to come along we agree with. But if that doesn't happen then we decide not to vote as a means of protest. I know it is easier to sit around and do nothing and even easier to not go to the polls but if we do not support out candidates long before election day we will never see their name on a ballot.

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Hate to say it but conservatives will never again hold both houses and the presidency.

We have reached the tipping point where there are more who will actually vote for the liberal agenda than conservatives that will show up to vote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

", or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,"

What's that mean, Jay? I don't see the part where Congress controls the process. Where does it say they do?

 

Don't the state legislatures control the delegates to the convention?

Edited December 11, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hate to say it but conservatives will never again hold both houses and the presidency.

We have reached the tipping point where there are more who will actually vote for the liberal agenda than conservatives that will show up to vote.

Based on what? The last two presidential election cycles? I don't think so.

 

If it's gone that far, it's already over and the federal government should be abolished. That's a big if.

[tnguy]

Based on what? The last two presidential election cycles? I don't think so.

 

If it's gone that far, it's already over and the federal government should be abolished. That's a big if.

 

Based on the ratio of moochers to producers.

[sgjay]

The problem with this is that the same people that would be attending are the same people causing the problems. Politics was not intended to be a career, it was intended to be a service to your country. We will not see change so long as there are political parties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

VERY well said!

[JayC]

As I read Article 5:

 

"The Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

 

I cut out the parts that don't apply to a Con-Con...  So congress shall call a convention...  which means Congress decides on how delegates to that convention are called, the decided who is or isn't seated at that convention, and decide how amendments can be proposed at the convention.

 

The states have no legal control over any of it....  Congress is completely in the drivers seat...  nothing in Article 5 prevents the Con-Con from writing an entirely new Constitution...  which is exactly what happened at the last Con-Con.  Once 2/3rds of the states make application to Congress, Congress is in charge not the states.

 

", or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,"

What's that mean, Jay? I don't see the part where Congress controls the process. Where does it say they do?

 

Don't the state legislatures control the delegates to the convention?

Edited December 11, 2013 by JayC

[gun sane]

As I read Article 5:

 

"The Congress, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

 

In the first chapter of his book, The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin addresses this unsettling phraseology:

 

 

Congress's role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial.  It could not be otherwise, as the Framers and ratifiers adopted the state convention process for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the congressionally initiated amendment process.  It provided a constitutional solution should "the [federal] Government......become oppressive."  (from James Madison's Notes on Debates.)  The text and plain meaning of Article V are inarguable.  In Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton--a leading advocate of a robust federal government--explained that "the national rulers, whenever nine [two-thirds] States concur, will have no option upon the subject.  By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged 'on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendment, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions to three fourths thereof.'  The words of this article are peremptory.  The Congress 'shall call a convention.'  Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.  And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air."

 

What Hamilton are saying is that since the state alternative is written into Article V, Congress, as a formality, must grant this convention whether they like it or not.  This and other objections to what we've been discussing here are answered quite specifically and clearly by Levin.  I join with 6.8 AR in urging you to read this book before making your mind up about this convention process.

Edited December 11, 2013 by gun sane

[JayC]

Levin in a smart man...  but the fact is there has never been a convention called under Article 5, we have no clue what a modern supreme court would do if Congress decided that calling a convention allowed them to set up the rules...  

 

I've read Levin's work on the subject and I'm not convinced the Article 5 process could not be used sometime down the road to remove vast parts of the bill of rights.  Or complete change the government...

 

There is no requirement that the convention be held in the open, subject to public oversight...  There are no requirements that votes be recorded on the passing of proposed Amendments. 

 

Congress would have the authority under Article 5 to decide all of that with no input from the states...

 

Mark Levin is a John McCain style establishment Republican, pardon me if I don't fully agree with his assessment that nothing could go wrong.  I don't think he and I agree on exactly what 'Liberty' means either...

 

In the first chapter of his book, The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin addresses this unsettling phraseology:

 

 

What Hamilton are saying is that Congress has to grant this convention whether they like it or not.  This and other objections to what we've been discussing here are answered quite specifically and clearly by Levin.  I join with 6.8 AR in urging you to read this book before making your mind up about this convention process.

Edited December 11, 2013 by JayC

[gun sane]

Mark Levin is a John McCain style establishment Republican, pardon me if I don't fully agree with his assessment that nothing could go wrong.  I don't think he and I agree on exactly what 'Liberty' means either...

 

I doubt we're talking about the same person.  The one who penned The Liberty Amendments is Mark R. Levin.  He is one of the champions of the Tea Party who advised Ronald Reagan's cabinet and has a popular radio program.  Sean Hannity calls Levin, "the Great One." 

 

Perhaps you're pointing to radio host  Mark Levine, who served as a legislative counsel to Barney Frank and often appears on Fox News to make a fool of himself.  Rush Limbaugh has called Levine, "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."

Edited December 11, 2013 by gun sane

[jacob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJdwc3q5s0o Listened to this via my blue tooth on the way home just now. Kinda breaks the book down and gives Mr Levin a chance to explain the intention of each amendment. I must admit this guy seems to have good intentions and does seem to know his history of the nation...

[JayC]

No I'm positive I'm talking about Mark Reed Levin, who is very much a neocon.  The fact that a neocon like Hannity is calling him "the Great One" kinda proves my point.

 

I doubt we're talking about the same person.  The one who penned The Liberty Amendments is Mark R. Levin.  He is one of the champions of the Tea Party who advised Ronald Reagan's cabinet and has a popular radio program.  Sean Hannity calls Levin, "the Great One." 

 

Perhaps you're pointing to radio host  Mark Levine, who served as a legislative counsel to Barney Frank and often appears on Fox News to make a fool of himself.  Rush Limbaugh has called Levine, "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."

 

[gun sane]

No I'm positive I'm talking about Mark Reed Levin, who is very much a neocon.  The fact that a neocon like Hannity is calling him "the Great One" kinda proves my point.

 

I didn't realize that.  I don't watch MSNBC.

[jacob]

[quote name="JayC" post="1077522" timestamp="1386812982"]No I'm positive I'm talking about Mark Reed Levin, who is very much a neocon. The fact that a neocon like Hannity is calling him "the Great One" kinda proves my point.[/quote] What is YOUR definition of neocon?? I kinda took him to be anything but...

[Oh Shoot]

I didn't realize that.  I don't watch MSNBC.

 

I'm lost. What does MSNBC have to do with it?

 

Levin and Hannity are "neocons"? When were they libs?

 

Reagan I suppose is the most famous neocon mentioned so far, if you consider his entire political life.

 

- OS