Is it time for Article Five Convention of States?

[IM2]

Let me just state this bluntly. No it is not time for an article 5 convention of the states.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, he paid and settled. That was obviously civil court, so there is no crime. Have a nice day!

Bu there was a crime. It was called fraud. And he was going to be found guilty of fraud so he settled out of court.

You can't settle criminal acts "out if court"! What are you, a 7th grader?

You lack of knowledge on this topic is only exceeded by every other topic. You don't have a clue!

Let's stay on topic here pal.

If you break the law, you are a criminal. Fraud is a crime. Trump committed fraud.

You need to educate yourself on the difference in civil lawsuits and criminal charges. There is a YUGE difference!

No, I'm just fine. A crime is a crime.

No, you are an ignorant shill.

 

[IM2]

Bu there was a crime. It was called fraud. And he was going to be found guilty of fraud so he settled out of court.

You can't settle criminal acts "out if court"! What are you, a 7th grader?

You lack of knowledge on this topic is only exceeded by every other topic. You don't have a clue!

Let's stay on topic here pal.

If you break the law, you are a criminal. Fraud is a crime. Trump committed fraud.

You need to educate yourself on the difference in civil lawsuits and criminal charges. There is a YUGE difference!

No, I'm just fine. A crime is a crime.

No, you are an ignorant shill.

Nah.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You can't settle criminal acts "out if court"! What are you, a 7th grader?

You lack of knowledge on this topic is only exceeded by every other topic. You don't have a clue!

Let's stay on topic here pal.

If you break the law, you are a criminal. Fraud is a crime. Trump committed fraud.

You need to educate yourself on the difference in civil lawsuits and criminal charges. There is a YUGE difference!

No, I'm just fine. A crime is a crime.

No, you are an ignorant shill.

Nah.

If you are not, why can't you prove me wrong on anything I have stated. If you are not ignorant, then you are just a contrarian who likes to argue even though you know you are wrong.

 

[IM2]

Let's stay on topic here pal.

If you break the law, you are a criminal. Fraud is a crime. Trump committed fraud.

You need to educate yourself on the difference in civil lawsuits and criminal charges. There is a YUGE difference!

No, I'm just fine. A crime is a crime.

No, you are an ignorant shill.

Nah.

If you are not, why can't you prove me wrong on anything I have stated. If you are not ignorant, then you are just a contrarian who likes to argue even though you know you are wrong.

I have proven you wrong consistently.

 

[Votto]

About 80% of Americans think Congress needs term limits. About the same number also thinks the US federal Congress needs a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

The only way to get either is through the Article V movement.

I believe there's also a popular surge toward reigning in the judiciary.

Indeed.

Mark Levin aptly points out that the case Marbury vs. Madison gave SCOTUS the supreme power to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. Thomas Jefferson blew a gasket and said that they should not be the sole power to do so, but lost the argument.

Now what we have here today is a continuous never ending Constitutional convention among 9 black robes. All one has to do is appoint stooges to the bench to change the Constitution, much like FDR's court packing scheme once SCOTUS shot down many of his policies.

 

[Votto]

About 80% of Americans think Congress needs term limits. About the same number also thinks the US federal Congress needs a balanced budget amendment of some kind.

The only way to get either is through the Article V movement.

....so who is going to attend this Article V movement and who picks the agenda?

That is up to those at the Convention.

The reason the provision was placed in the Constitution was on the presumption that if the Federal government became too powerful, then the states would have a legal means to reign back in their power. To date, it has never been done, but no one can deny how the power and influence of the US federal government has grown over time.

The US started off with the Articles of Confederation, but as President Washington aptly critiqued the Articles, it was not working because of, "no money".

Then the Constitution gave the Federal government more power so that it could run things more efficiently.

This worked for over a century, but Progs were not happy. No, they wanted an even stronger federal government so they amended the Constitution so that the Federal government could collect an income tax, something that SCOTUS has struck down as Unconstitutional at the turn of the 20th century. Then they created their own bank to simply print money they could not raise. This tipped the balance toward tyrannical rule by the feds and has been getting worse ever since.

Now to correct the damage that has been done by Progs to the Constitution, they must amend it themselves.

 

[Votto]

Let me just state this bluntly. No it is not time for an article 5 convention of the states.

Is that why about 12 states have already passed it?

Nervous?

 

[IM2]

Let me just state this bluntly. No it is not time for an article 5 convention of the states.

Is that why about 12 states have already passed it?

Nervous?

Not really.

 

[Votto]

Let me just state this bluntly. No it is not time for an article 5 convention of the states.

Is that why about 12 states have already passed it?

Nervous?

Not really.

I didn't think so. Now that the US federal Congress has all the money in the world, all they need to do is throw it around at its citizens and foreign countries to gain influence and dictate everything they want done.

A very formidable adversary to be sure.

So when does the party end? How much debt is too much or was Dick Cheney right, deficits don't matter?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You need to educate yourself on the difference in civil lawsuits and criminal charges. There is a YUGE difference!

No, I'm just fine. A crime is a crime.

No, you are an ignorant shill.

Nah.

If you are not, why can't you prove me wrong on anything I have stated. If you are not ignorant, then you are just a contrarian who likes to argue even though you know you are wrong.

I have proven you wrong consistently.

You have a serious detachment from reality. I suggest professional help immediately before you decide to harm yourself.

 

[Divine Wind]

....so who is going to attend this Article V movement and who picks the agenda?

That is up to those at the Convention....

Sorry, dude, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The state legislatures have to not only be picked first, but 2/3s of them have to agree on the proposed Amendments. Then that Amendment(s) needs to be ratified by 3/4s of those same state legislatures. In a nation divided roughly 50/50, IMHO, I do not see this going anywhere.

Article V​

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.

 

[Votto]

....so who is going to attend this Article V movement and who picks the agenda?

That is up to those at the Convention....

Sorry, dude, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The state legislatures have to not only be picked first, but 2/3s of them have to agree on the proposed Amendments. Then that Amendment(s) needs to be ratified by 3/4s of those same state legislatures. In a nation divided roughly 50/50, IMHO, I do not see this going anywhere.

Article V​

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.

As I've said before, about 80% of Americans favor such things as term limits for Congress and a balanced budget of some sort.

Do you believe in democracy or don't you? None of these two agendas will go anywhere without the Article V movement. It is either support the movement or watch democracy continue to get crushed.

Congress once cited corruption as the reason for limiting terms for the President. How are they any better? It is truly laughable.

 

[Divine Wind]

As I've said before, about 80% of Americans favor such things as term limits for Congress and a balanced budget of some sort.

Do you believe in democracy or don't you? None of these two agendas will go anywhere without the Article V movement. It is either support the movement or watch democracy continue to get crushed.

Congress once cited corruption as the reason for limiting terms for the President. How are they any better? It is truly laughable.

Agreed. And 92% of Republicans favor background checks for all gun buyers. So why don't we have such "common sense" gun laws? Becauses when the laws are actually written, reality sets in.

As for Term Limits, I agree. However, most of those 80% of voters mostly want the other guys to be term limited, not their own.

FWIW, what term limits would you set? One term? Good luck getting anyone but the unemployed to give up their career for two years as a Rep or six years for a Senator. Two terms? Same thing, although more people may look at Senator. Both currently make about $174K/year, but giving up a lucrative career for just a couple years would mostly appeal to those who don't have lucrative careers such as the unemployed, those wearing paper hats and those living in trailer homes, ghetto tenements and the like.

IMHO, I'd set a limit of 5 terms for Reps and 2 terms for Senators.

 

[Divine Wind]

Only according to Russian fake news, dupe. Believed by Comey. NOT reported by Fox, dupe.

Again you lead with ad hominems. Sad.

That's either a lie about Comey or you've been woefully uninformed. Secondly, do you deny the infamous tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch took place? If it didn't, why did Lynch recuse herself?

Sources: Comey acted on Russian intelligence he knew was fake - CNNPolitics.com
Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email was fake -- created by Russian intelligence -- but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process.

Democrats groan after Bill Clinton meets Loretta Lynch
Attorney General Loretta Lynch described her Monday meeting with Bill Clinton aboard a private plane as “primarily social,” but some Democrats are struggling to stomach the optics of the attorney general’s meeting with the former president while his wife is under federal investigation — while others are fiercely defending her integrity.

Lynch said she and Clinton talked only of grandchildren, golf, and their respective travels, but the fact that the two spoke privately at all was enough to rekindle concerns about a possible conflict of interest. Republicans have long called into question the ability of a Democratic-led Department of Justice to conduct an independent investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, based inside her Chappaqua, New York, home, during her tenure as secretary of state.

Once news of their meeting on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport broke, Democrats made clear that while the meeting was likely as innocent as Lynch described, it did not give the Justice Department the appearance of independence.

“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”

Coons, through his office, later walked back his assessment.

"Senator Coons believes that Attorney General Lynch has addressed this question and said they talked about their grandchildren, travels and golf, and nothing about matters involving the Department," Coons spokesman Jonathan Kott said. "Senator Coons, as a member of the Senate Judiciary committee knows Attorney General Lynch, has worked with her and believes that she is honest and trustworthy."

David Axelrod, a former top aide to President Barack Obama, tweeted that he took Lynch and the former president “at their word” that the Justice Department’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s email server did not come up, “but foolish to create such optics.”

 

[Kondor3]

The fellow is, quite simply, unfit for public office of any kind, never mind the highest office in the land.

Agreed, but Hillary was unfit due to her corruption, cronyism and crooked conduct. "We, the People" had to choose between two deplorable candidates and the lesser of two evils won the election.

I agree that we were only able to choose between two corrupt evils, however, our two choices actually can be summarized as...

1. corrupt, sane competence

2. corrupt, disturbed incompetence

And, unfortunately, "corrupt, sane competence" lost.

Perhaps the reason "corrupt, sane competence" lost was because of the much higher level of corruptness.

What happened to "honest, sane, competent"? Why was the highest office of the land boiled down to two candidates which you admit were both corrupt?

"sane competence" lost? LMAO Comey said the bitch was incompetent. Not sophisticated enough to realize what classified information was, and no reasonable person would have the conversations on an insecure system she did. That reeks of complete incompetence.

.

Correct.

Corrupt, sane competence lost.

She knew what she was doing.

She lied her ass off.

That's the "corrupt" part.

However, she also had considerable experience as a First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State (3rd in LIne of Succession).

As opposed to the Orange Orangutan, who, in a political context, couldn't find his ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Better a nasty liar like her, who could have gotten things done, rather than a nasty liar like him, who can't get $hit done.

 

[OKTexas]

The fellow is, quite simply, unfit for public office of any kind, never mind the highest office in the land.

Agreed, but Hillary was unfit due to her corruption, cronyism and crooked conduct. "We, the People" had to choose between two deplorable candidates and the lesser of two evils won the election.

I agree that we were only able to choose between two corrupt evils, however, our two choices actually can be summarized as...

1. corrupt, sane competence

2. corrupt, disturbed incompetence

And, unfortunately, "corrupt, sane competence" lost.

Perhaps the reason "corrupt, sane competence" lost was because of the much higher level of corruptness.

What happened to "honest, sane, competent"? Why was the highest office of the land boiled down to two candidates which you admit were both corrupt?

"sane competence" lost? LMAO Comey said the bitch was incompetent. Not sophisticated enough to realize what classified information was, and no reasonable person would have the conversations on an insecure system she did. That reeks of complete incompetence.

.

Correct.

Corrupt, sane competence lost.

She knew what she was doing.

She lied her ass off.

That's the "corrupt" part.

However, she also had considerable experience as a First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State (3rd in LIne of Succession).

As opposed to the Orange Orangutan, who, in a political context, couldn't find his ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Better a nasty liar like her, who could have gotten things done, rather than a nasty liar like him, who can't get $hit done.

If she knew what she was doing she belongs in jail, not the WH. She was either too incompetent to be charged or just a felon, you can't have it both ways.

.

 

[Kondor3]

Agreed, but Hillary was unfit due to her corruption, cronyism and crooked conduct. "We, the People" had to choose between two deplorable candidates and the lesser of two evils won the election.

I agree that we were only able to choose between two corrupt evils, however, our two choices actually can be summarized as...

1. corrupt, sane competence

2. corrupt, disturbed incompetence

And, unfortunately, "corrupt, sane competence" lost.

Perhaps the reason "corrupt, sane competence" lost was because of the much higher level of corruptness.

What happened to "honest, sane, competent"? Why was the highest office of the land boiled down to two candidates which you admit were both corrupt?

"sane competence" lost? LMAO Comey said the bitch was incompetent. Not sophisticated enough to realize what classified information was, and no reasonable person would have the conversations on an insecure system she did. That reeks of complete incompetence.

.

Correct.

Corrupt, sane competence lost.

She knew what she was doing.

She lied her ass off.

That's the "corrupt" part.

However, she also had considerable experience as a First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State (3rd in LIne of Succession).

As opposed to the Orange Orangutan, who, in a political context, couldn't find his ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Better a nasty liar like her, who could have gotten things done, rather than a nasty liar like him, who can't get $hit done.

If she knew what she was doing she belongs in jail, not the WH. She was either too incompetent to be charged or just a felon, you can't have it both ways.

.

Agreed.

She belongs in jail.

However, I would rather have a liar in charge who knows what she's doing, rather than a liar in charge who is frigging clueless in a political and diplomatic context.

 

[OKTexas]

I agree that we were only able to choose between two corrupt evils, however, our two choices actually can be summarized as...

1. corrupt, sane competence

2. corrupt, disturbed incompetence

And, unfortunately, "corrupt, sane competence" lost.

Perhaps the reason "corrupt, sane competence" lost was because of the much higher level of corruptness.

What happened to "honest, sane, competent"? Why was the highest office of the land boiled down to two candidates which you admit were both corrupt?

"sane competence" lost? LMAO Comey said the bitch was incompetent. Not sophisticated enough to realize what classified information was, and no reasonable person would have the conversations on an insecure system she did. That reeks of complete incompetence.

.

Correct.

Corrupt, sane competence lost.

She knew what she was doing.

She lied her ass off.

That's the "corrupt" part.

However, she also had considerable experience as a First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State (3rd in LIne of Succession).

As opposed to the Orange Orangutan, who, in a political context, couldn't find his ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Better a nasty liar like her, who could have gotten things done, rather than a nasty liar like him, who can't get $hit done.

If she knew what she was doing she belongs in jail, not the WH. She was either too incompetent to be charged or just a felon, you can't have it both ways.

.

Agreed.

She belongs in jail.

However, I would rather have a liar in charge who knows what she's doing, rather than a liar in charge who is frigging clueless in a political and diplomatic context.

He'll grow into the job or not, either way I'll take him over the felonious bitch any day. At least he didn't nominate a stone commie to SCOTUS, the bitch would have.

.

.

 

[Divine Wind]

I agree that we were only able to choose between two corrupt evils, however, our two choices actually can be summarized as...

1. corrupt, sane competence

2. corrupt, disturbed incompetence

And, unfortunately, "corrupt, sane competence" lost.

Perhaps the reason "corrupt, sane competence" lost was because of the much higher level of corruptness.

What happened to "honest, sane, competent"? Why was the highest office of the land boiled down to two candidates which you admit were both corrupt?

"sane competence" lost? LMAO Comey said the bitch was incompetent. Not sophisticated enough to realize what classified information was, and no reasonable person would have the conversations on an insecure system she did. That reeks of complete incompetence.

.

Correct.

Corrupt, sane competence lost.

She knew what she was doing.

She lied her ass off.

That's the "corrupt" part.

However, she also had considerable experience as a First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State (3rd in LIne of Succession).

As opposed to the Orange Orangutan, who, in a political context, couldn't find his ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Better a nasty liar like her, who could have gotten things done, rather than a nasty liar like him, who can't get $hit done.

If she knew what she was doing she belongs in jail, not the WH. She was either too incompetent to be charged or just a felon, you can't have it both ways.

.

Agreed.

She belongs in jail.

However, I would rather have a liar in charge who knows what she's doing, rather than a liar in charge who is frigging clueless in a political and diplomatic context.

They are not equal liars; Hillary is corrupt while Trump is more of a showman/bullshitter. Yes, he out of his depth but Hillary would further use the bureacratic machine for her own ends further corrupting our government. Trump is his own worst enemy and have effectively neutralized himself as President. At worst, nothing will be done under his administration. Under Hillary the power of the Clinton political machine would have been enhanced and we'd be under a far stronger threat of authoritarian rule than anything Trump can do.