Article V Convention is Coming

[eagle1462010]

It takes 40 States to pass any proposed Amendment should the Article V Convention occur.

I'm all for proposing an Article V Convention, but I'd remind you that Larger possibly Liberal States would try to hijack the whole dang thing by trying to set rules about the number of delegates. The main problem will be the initial rules should it be called.

I'd only favor the rules being a One State One Vote at the end.
I'd favor a limit on the total number of Amendments allowed at the end of a Convention, and I'd propose that each State hold a vote to decide the fate of any Amendment.

 

[KNB]

Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act in 2001. Where were Teabaggers crying about government overreach then?

There was no TEA Party in 2001, numskull. And plenty of people like me objected to the Patriot act. 98 Senators vote in favor of it in 2001, so I hardly think it was a Republican thing.

Only 1 person read it and he voted against it. Everyone else voted for it without even knowing what was in it. EVERY Republican voted for it, and EVERY Republican voter defended it.

You don't get to complain about Obama doing the same thing that you loved Bush for doing.

 

[eagle1462010]

Progress Report | Convention of States

10 States have proposed legislation for calling Article 5.
Georgia has passed it in the Senate and House.
Alabama has passed it in the House.

It takes 38 States to call for an article V Convention.

I don't think states have ever actually passed resolutions calling for an Article V convention in the past, have they?

For the moment, this seems to have some momentum, and it will continue to have momentum so long as Obama is in office.

They have pressed and tried for such Article V Conventions in the past. The Senate and Congress have ignored these Conventions in the past, and have also hijacked the process by calling Amendments to Congress before a Convention could be formed.

This cannot be allowed to happen as they will never propose or accept Amendments like Term Limits, or limits to the size and scope of the Federal Gov't.

They are a major part of the problem, and are excluded in a Article V Convention.

 

[eagle1462010]

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.

As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.

Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:

 

[bripat9643]

Bush signed the USAPATRIOT Act in 2001. Where were Teabaggers crying about government overreach then?

There was no TEA Party in 2001, numskull. And plenty of people like me objected to the Patriot act. 98 Senators vote in favor of it in 2001, so I hardly think it was a Republican thing.

Only 1 person read it and he voted against it. Everyone else voted for it without even knowing what was in it. EVERY Republican voted for it, and EVERY Republican voter defended it.

You don't get to complain about Obama doing the same thing that you loved Bush for doing.

Every Democrat voted for it as well, dipstick. I'm a Republican voter who objected to it. It takes a special kind of partisan stupidity to blame it entirely on the Republicans.

 

[bripat9643]

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.

As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.

Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:

Why do we need Congress to call an Article V convention? Why can't the states simply hold one on their own and present the results as a fait accompli?

 

[eagle1462010]

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.

As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.

Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:

Why do we need Congress to call an Article V convention? Why can't the states simply hold one on their own and present the results as a fait accompli?

That is exactly what will have to occur should 38 propose it, as Congress and the Gov't will ignore it as they have done in the past............

Since the Constitution allows it they basically have no authority to stop it, so yes the States can simply tell them to stuff it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anything proposed has to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, so there are obviously limits to what it can do. I would be happy if it declared the Constitution null and void and we returned to the articles of Confederation.

Obvious limits? No, there are no limits. There are also no obvious ones. Feel free to list yours however. That would be fun to piss on.

Nothing is going to get approved by 3/4 of the states without widespread appeal. Of course, that's exactly what you object to. When the Constitution enforces term limits on Congress, when it forces Congress to balance the budget, when it reigns in the authority of the authority of the federal government to regulate commerce, when it restricts the ability of the president to wipe his ass on the Constitution, turds like you will whine like a bunch of 5-yea-olds who are overdue for a nap.

I don't have to whine about anything. In this country you couldn't pass a new constitution that said the Sky was Blue.

 

[eagle1462010]

17th Amendment to the Constitution ? U.S. Amendment XVII Summary

The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted on May 31, 1913, changed the manner in which United States senators were elected. Formerly elected to office by state legislatures, the Seventeenth Amendment provided for a constitutional mandate that United States senators be elected by the popular vote of the citizens of each state. It also provided for unexpected vacancies in senatorial seats due to various reasons, including the death of a senator, by allowing the governor of the affected state to appoint a senator until a special election can be held.

Repeal the 17th is high on my wish list. This would restore the original intent of the Republic. Allowing Senators to be the voice of the State Legislatures as intended by Constitution. The House was the intent for a popular vote for selection. This Amendment basically took away the voice of the States. Should a Senator go against the will of the State they could be recalled and replaced.

Basically, we have no need of a Senate as it is now by popular vote. Had the first intent been to be a Pure Democracy, then they never would have had a Senate at all.

Repeal of parts of the Federal Reserve Act are high on my list. Taking the Banks away from ownership of our currency. Last taken away by Andrew Jackson and the 2nd National Bank of America.

Term limits on Senators and Congress.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

My own specialty Amendment. No Federal Agency can enforce a New Regulation without the Consent of Congress. Meaning..............any new Regulation pushed forward by the EPA or via Executive order that would basically render a NEW LAW.......would have to be ratified by Congress.
Allowing broad interpretation of old laws to justify new regulations without consent of Congress should be banned.

 

[eagle1462010]

Obvious limits? No, there are no limits. There are also no obvious ones. Feel free to list yours however. That would be fun to piss on.

Nothing is going to get approved by 3/4 of the states without widespread appeal. Of course, that's exactly what you object to. When the Constitution enforces term limits on Congress, when it forces Congress to balance the budget, when it reigns in the authority of the authority of the federal government to regulate commerce, when it restricts the ability of the president to wipe his ass on the Constitution, turds like you will whine like a bunch of 5-yea-olds who are overdue for a nap.

I don't have to whine about anything. In this country you couldn't pass a new constitution that said the Sky was Blue.

LOL

Woodrow Wilson back in the day pushed it and they passed Amendments in Congress instead of Calling the Article V Convention that was on the table...............One of which was repealed, aka Prohibition...............

They also passed the Federal Reserve Act and created the IRS..........All by Amendments.

Just because it hasn't been done in a long time doesn't mean it can't be done. Very difficult to pass one today..............Absolutely.

 

[bripat9643]

17th Amendment to the Constitution ? U.S. Amendment XVII Summary

The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted on May 31, 1913, changed the manner in which United States senators were elected. Formerly elected to office by state legislatures, the Seventeenth Amendment provided for a constitutional mandate that United States senators be elected by the popular vote of the citizens of each state. It also provided for unexpected vacancies in senatorial seats due to various reasons, including the death of a senator, by allowing the governor of the affected state to appoint a senator until a special election can be held.

Repeal the 17th is high on my wish list. This would restore the original intent of the Republic. Allowing Senators to be the voice of the State Legislatures as intended by Constitution. The House was the intent for a popular vote for selection. This Amendment basically took away the voice of the States. Should a Senator go against the will of the State they could be recalled and replaced.

Basically, we have no need of a Senate as it is now by popular vote. Had the first intent been to be a Pure Democracy, then they never would have had a Senate at all.

Repeal of parts of the Federal Reserve Act are high on my list. Taking the Banks away from ownership of our currency. Last taken away by Andrew Jackson and the 2nd National Bank of America.

Term limits on Senators and Congress.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

My own specialty Amendment. No Federal Agency can enforce a New Regulation without the Consent of Congress. Meaning..............any new Regulation pushed forward by the EPA or via Executive order that would basically render a NEW LAW.......would have to be ratified by Congress.
Allowing broad interpretation of old laws to justify new regulations without consent of Congress should be banned.

I agree with all of those, especially abolishing the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. Actually, prior to the Federal Reserve, banks could issue their own bank notes, but they had to be backed by gold. No one would take them unless they could exchange them for gold. I think we should go back to that system. Today, the internet would make it possible for competing currencies to be used all over the country.

One proposed amendment I heard about is to have a Supreme Court with 50 justices, each one chosen by a state of the union. I agree with it in principle, but I don't know how workable it would be.

One I support is allow a majority of the states to overrule any legislation passed by Congress. Anything that makes legislation harder to pass has my approval.

 

[eagle1462010]

17th Amendment to the Constitution ? U.S. Amendment XVII Summary

The Seventeenth Amendment, adopted on May 31, 1913, changed the manner in which United States senators were elected. Formerly elected to office by state legislatures, the Seventeenth Amendment provided for a constitutional mandate that United States senators be elected by the popular vote of the citizens of each state. It also provided for unexpected vacancies in senatorial seats due to various reasons, including the death of a senator, by allowing the governor of the affected state to appoint a senator until a special election can be held.

Repeal the 17th is high on my wish list. This would restore the original intent of the Republic. Allowing Senators to be the voice of the State Legislatures as intended by Constitution. The House was the intent for a popular vote for selection. This Amendment basically took away the voice of the States. Should a Senator go against the will of the State they could be recalled and replaced.

Basically, we have no need of a Senate as it is now by popular vote. Had the first intent been to be a Pure Democracy, then they never would have had a Senate at all.

Repeal of parts of the Federal Reserve Act are high on my list. Taking the Banks away from ownership of our currency. Last taken away by Andrew Jackson and the 2nd National Bank of America.

Term limits on Senators and Congress.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

My own specialty Amendment. No Federal Agency can enforce a New Regulation without the Consent of Congress. Meaning..............any new Regulation pushed forward by the EPA or via Executive order that would basically render a NEW LAW.......would have to be ratified by Congress.
Allowing broad interpretation of old laws to justify new regulations without consent of Congress should be banned.

I agree with all of those, especially abolishing the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. Actually, prior to the Federal Reserve, banks could issue their own bank notes, but they had to be backed by gold. No one would take them unless they could exchange them for gold. I think we should go back to that system. Today, the internet would make it possible for competing currencies to be used all over the country.

One proposed amendment I heard about is to have a Supreme Court with 50 justices, each one chosen by a state of the union. I agree with it in principle, but I don't know how workable it would be.

One I support is allow a majority of the states to overrule any legislation passed by Congress. Anything that makes legislation harder to pass has my approval.

I can't agree with 50 Justices..........That would be crazy.........

States to overrule any legislation passed would be fixed by the repeal of the 17th anyway as they would now have the Senators as Delegates as originally intended. It would also fix item 2 on Supreme Court Judges as the Senate would have to Ratify the new Justice.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Needs to happen. Maybe we can end the hoarding of wealth by the 1%.

 

[percysunshine]

50 States times 3/4 = 37.5 States.

Guam is kind of like 1/2 of a State. That should do the trick.

 

[eagle1462010]

50 States times 3/4 = 37.5 States.

Guam is kind of like 1/2 of a State. That should do the trick.

Thanks for the correction. 38 States to ratify.

Still very difficult to do.

 

[KNB]

Without even reading the opening article, I can guess that this "movement" was started by some right-wing slave state organization still carrying on about Confederate "state's rights" to openly hate women, blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, etc. etc. etc.

The South lost. Get used to it.

 

[bripat9643]

Repeal the 17th is high on my wish list. This would restore the original intent of the Republic. Allowing Senators to be the voice of the State Legislatures as intended by Constitution. The House was the intent for a popular vote for selection. This Amendment basically took away the voice of the States. Should a Senator go against the will of the State they could be recalled and replaced.

Basically, we have no need of a Senate as it is now by popular vote. Had the first intent been to be a Pure Democracy, then they never would have had a Senate at all.

Repeal of parts of the Federal Reserve Act are high on my list. Taking the Banks away from ownership of our currency. Last taken away by Andrew Jackson and the 2nd National Bank of America.

Term limits on Senators and Congress.

Balanced Budget Amendment.

My own specialty Amendment. No Federal Agency can enforce a New Regulation without the Consent of Congress. Meaning..............any new Regulation pushed forward by the EPA or via Executive order that would basically render a NEW LAW.......would have to be ratified by Congress.
Allowing broad interpretation of old laws to justify new regulations without consent of Congress should be banned.

I agree with all of those, especially abolishing the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. Actually, prior to the Federal Reserve, banks could issue their own bank notes, but they had to be backed by gold. No one would take them unless they could exchange them for gold. I think we should go back to that system. Today, the internet would make it possible for competing currencies to be used all over the country.

One proposed amendment I heard about is to have a Supreme Court with 50 justices, each one chosen by a state of the union. I agree with it in principle, but I don't know how workable it would be.

One I support is allow a majority of the states to overrule any legislation passed by Congress. Anything that makes legislation harder to pass has my approval.

I can't agree with 50 Justices..........That would be crazy.........

States to overrule any legislation passed would be fixed by the repeal of the 17th anyway as they would now have the Senators as Delegates as originally intended. It would also fix item 2 on Supreme Court Judges as the Senate would have to Ratify the new Justice.

Good points.

However, prior to the Civil War states routinely threatened secession or nullification if Congress imposed laws they didn't like. This made it possible even for a minority of states to overrule some laws.

Oh, and we definitely need to repeal the 16th Amendment. I think that would get approved the fastest. Everyone hates the IRS and the income tax.

 

[bripat9643]

Without even reading the opening article, I can guess that this "movement" was started by some right-wing slave state organization still carrying on about Confederate "state's rights" to openly hate women, blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, etc. etc. etc.

The South lost. Get used to it.

Wrong, shit for brains. It was started by Mark Levin and a book he wrote on the subject.

Liberal turds can't look at any issue free of their race baiting prejudices.

You will soon be getting used to the fact that commies like you will never get another chance to impose your agenda on the country.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Without even reading the opening article, I can guess that this "movement" was started by some right-wing slave state organization still carrying on about Confederate "state's rights" to openly hate women, blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, etc. etc. etc.

The South lost. Get used to it.

Wrong, shit for brains. It was started by Mark Levin and a book he wrote on the subject.

Liberal turds can't look at any issue free of their race baiting prejudices.

You will soon be getting used to the fact that commies like you will never get another chance to impose your agenda on the country.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtgklHQ52WE]Beautiful Dreamer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDcAWNscg8]Toby Keith - American Ride - YouTube[/ame]