Scalia and the Article V movement

[Votto]

There are those within the Article V movement that would like to restrict the power of SCOTUS. Like all other branches in the Federal government, they have assumed too much authority and answer to on one.

Case in point, in Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, one the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement.

 

[Votto]

For those who don't know what the Article V movement is, it is a movement for states to rise up and amend the Constitution devoid of any input from the corrupt and overreaching Federal government. It is the only way to save a system that needs an intervention, much like a drunk, before that drunk kills himself and the nation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There are those within the Article V movement that would like to restrict the power of SCOTUS. Like all other branches in the Federal government, they have assumed too much authority and answer to on one.

Case in point, in Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, one the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement.

I agree in the main. The Marbury ruling nearly throttled the baby in the crib, and we have been taking our chances ever since.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

 

[imawhosure]

There are those within the Article V movement that would like to restrict the power of SCOTUS. Like all other branches in the Federal government, they have assumed too much authority and answer to on one.

Case in point, in Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, one the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement.

Well, it is starting to look as if we will get our wish Votto. And these lefties know it will almost certainly be big trouble for them if it happens, which is why they attempt every avenue possible to put disinformation out there such as post 3. The reason they are in such a panic is obvious if you look at a map of which party controls how many states. I guess it is ok for their hero to get elected, then use EOs to govern going around the elected body of congress, but it is not ok for the States to impose their will collectively.

Do you think the left understands that if all these decisions were hammered through congress without EOs, this conversation would not even be happening? I suppose not.

Anyway, if the article 5 does happen, the left can thank Obama for that too! It wasn't even an issue until he decided to govern by EO. And so, what they have consistently claimed was so legal, absolutely constitutional, and wonderful to boot, will be exactly the reason their whole power structure will be brought to its knees. A fitting legacy for Obama, if I do say so myself-)

 

[BULLDOG]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

 

[BULLDOG]

There are those within the Article V movement that would like to restrict the power of SCOTUS. Like all other branches in the Federal government, they have assumed too much authority and answer to on one.

Case in point, in Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, one the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement.

Well, it is starting to look as if we will get our wish Votto. And these lefties know it will almost certainly be big trouble for them if it happens, which is why they attempt every avenue possible to put disinformation out there such as post 3. The reason they are in such a panic is obvious if you look at a map of which party controls how many states. I guess it is ok for their hero to get elected, then use EOs to govern going around the elected body of congress, but it is not ok for the States to impose their will collectively.

Do you think the left understands that if all these decisions were hammered through congress without EOs, this conversation would not even be happening? I suppose not.

Anyway, if the article 5 does happen, the left can thank Obama for that too! It wasn't even an issue until he decided to govern by EO. And so, what they have consistently claimed was so legal, absolutely constitutional, and wonderful to boot, will be exactly the reason their whole power structure will be brought to its knees. A fitting legacy for Obama, if I do say so myself-)

Feeling a little self aggrandized, aren't you? You have no more chance of changing the constitution than those idiots at the bird sanctuary had of overthrowing the government. Grow up, quit whining, and join the work of making our country better for everyone instead of pouting because you don't always get your way.

 

[imawhosure]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 17872

 

[BULLDOG]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

 

[imawhosure]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

 

[BULLDOG]

Call a convention and you get a runaway, a new Constitution, like last time. Go for it.

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is a possibility. The longer the current decline continues, the more I am willing to take the risk. America has become nearly unrecognizable in the last twenty years.

This can be done inwardly, or outwardly. Outwardly would be far more costly.

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Example, Maryland:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hj/hj0007f.pdf

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution,

Please post where I said the country was going against the Constitution. or remain a liar. If anything, I specified Democrats.

Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all

Please post where I "found out" any such thing, or remain a liar.

and now you want to do away with it.

Au contraire, I merely want to see the Democratic Party rendered completely impotent.

 

[imawhosure]

Well, make up your mind. Not too long ago, you were whining about how you thought the country was going against the constitution, Then you found out that the constitution didn't really support the teabagger mentality after all, and now you want to do away with it. Just admit you are a whiney little bitch who wants your way, no matter what it takes to accomplish that.

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...

And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.

 

[imawhosure]

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...

And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.

Sorry, not 2/3rds of the states involved, but rather, 2/3rds of the states in total.

To pass ANY article, they need 3/4 agreement.

So again, are you telling all of us that 3/4s of the states would over ride the bulk of the constitution; and in fact, are suggesting that 2/3rds of the states would agree to even attend if that was so?

RED HERRING-)

 

[jon_berzerk]

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...

And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.

Sorry, not 2/3rds of the states involved, but rather, 2/3rds of the states in total.

To pass ANY article, they need 3/4 agreement.

So again, are you telling all of us that 3/4s of the states would over ride the bulk of the constitution; and in fact, are suggesting that 2/3rds of the states would agree to even attend if that was so?

RED HERRING-)

not likely

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We are going to get that convention-) How do we know? Because the people who support Trump and Cruz are the same for an article 5 convention. We don't have to carry electoral votes to get it, so California and New York mean nothing more than Iowa or Nebraska.

The constitution (article 5) is going to be used to dismantle Washingtons power, no matter who is in charge. We are going to put them on a budget, meaning no more buying votes from either side. You are going to have to win on ideas, not freebies, because there won't be enough money to hand new ones out. To do it, you are going to have to kill existing programs and piss other people off.

And isn't that the way our government is supposed to work? Figure out what is important, then fund it...................instead of funding everything no matter the cost, so nobody gets pissed and votes for the other side?

Hey, it might actually help the left. People might say <"butter instead of guns." Point is, we can have that debate, win or lose, as long as we are not spending our country into oblivion.

Right. You want to rewrite the constitution. While you're at it, you might as well wish for a pony too. You won't get either one.

Now there you go again, lol. Not rewriting the constitution, that is a con-con, this is an article 5. Better do a little more studying cause it is going to happen. You can talk bravado all you want, just like those who say neither Trump or Sanders can get elected, and yet, if they are the nominees, one of them will, lol.

It is coming Bull, and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent it. Better for you to figure out how it works, instead of pretending it can't/won't happen.

Then what is an article 5 convention if not to rewrite the constitution? Please explain exactly what you think it might be?

He doesn't know that once a convention is called, no one can stop a runaway. He thinks it can be limited in scope but there's nothing in the Constitution that does that and the last time, when they were supposed to be just making changes, they threw the damn thing out and started over again, giving us what we have now.

Go ahead, boys, roll them dice but know this, no one can stop a runaway once the process starts...

And so, tell all of the nice people how many states have to vote for the change, change by change, not in a total package. Also, since the power to call this comes from the states, the discussion on what is to be decided upon has to be agreed to by 2/3rds of the states involved.

So, are you suggesting then that YOUR state representatives want to tear up the constitution in total and re-write it? Must live in a lefty state I am guessing, lol.

Once a Constitutional Convention is called, see above, no one has control of it. As I said, roll those dice, that's what would happen, it happened the last time they got together to "make a few changes"...