Calling for a Constitutional Convention?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,512
Reaction score
3,471
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I posted this to friends with Pacific Public Radio and other progressive advocates for depending on Govt for providing Social Welfare.

I already explained that (1) passing any such laws through Govt must still respect all other Constitutional laws and protections against violating liberty without "due process" to prove which parties created a debt or abuse, or prove the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means for meeting a "compelling govt interest" (for universal health care, research will show nonprofit Cooperatives or medical associations are the Least Restrictive and most cost effective way to ensure best quality practices while protecting equal Constitutional free choice of beliefs, including right to life right to health care etc).


I also warned that (2) handing control of health care and social benefits to govt gives up the leverage and authority to Politicians Parties and Corporate interests running govt, instead of keeping the resources and control over policies with the people who can own and manage their own Cooperatives democratically including federal clinics and grants. Giving up this leverage means enslaving people to depend on politicians to decide policies and benefits instead of people protecting free choice.

(3) Below is my msg explaining to another Poster that involving Govt in Social Policies introduces the whole conflict against Govt dictating moral conditions and standards attached. Unless All People and States agree on terms and conditions for social services through federal govt, that is why I recommend tax breaks and collective cooperative networks run by party where members agree to fund the same policies or benefits without conflicting with other parties and their beliefs.

====== Reply to the post stating you want Govt to tend to social needs but without dictating morals. Billy DadPa Smith

1. First this requires a Constitutional Amendment to expand the duties of federal govt to include the SPECIFIC social services that people and states AGREE to authorize to central govt. Otherwise without consent of the people, you yourself would be dictating this as a moral belief through govt while claiming to oppose moral mandates through govt and thus contradict your own beliefs.
2. Involving govt in social interactions already invokes people's beliefs and moral standards and conditions they would consent to codify through govt or pay taxes to support. That is why most Constitutionlists and Libertarians I know object and do not believe in or consent to "social legislation" through govt. The most they might accept is catastrophic level emergency or disaster level federal help, epidemic outbreaks that affect national security and economy, or grants for medical programs or ensuring enough hospital and clinic facilities, criminal treatment centers, schools or VA sites are democratically distributed to meet population needs. But NOT involving Govt in mandating the policies and programs managed Through those public sites, in order to Prevent moral dictating by Govt. We already have people and parties opposed to Govt dictating policy or taxes involving: prochoice or prolife, pro or anti masks vaccines or shutdowns, terms and conditions on marriage or social benefits, right to health care or free market choice etc.

It is a very narrow window where people COULD agree on both social programs through Govt AND the moral beliefs and conditions attached. Most people do NOT agree on enough to make it mandatory through Govt.

That is why I recommend separating social benefits and tax breaks by Party where big enough groups agree on common terms they can pool their taxes together to manage what they want, statewide and nationally, without conflicting moral dictates between other people and groups with different standards and beliefs about "social interactions" that belong to people or states to decide democratically.
===========
(4) Please review these arguments and clarify if these points are clear enough to call State Governors, Senators and Party Chairs for a Constitutional Convention to address Social policies through Govt or separate tax breaks and administrations that are optional where people disagree and mandatory where we all agree.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
I used to be an advocate for states to rise up and amend the Constitution. There has been a movement to do just that as 2/3 of the states need to agree.

There are already about 15 states that have signed on.

But the more I assess the political waters of the country, and the societal waters, it is painfully clear to me that any such attempt, if successful, would only result in the political powers that be to take full control of the process and manipulate it in such a way that we would all long regret the attempt, or just be labeled a coup attempt and stopped with the help of the media.

No, there is no stopping the Federal Leviathan. It will have to stop itself as the Republic will at some point implode due to it's fiscal insanity and inner corruption.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,512
Reaction score
3,471
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I used to be an advocate for states to rise up and amend the Constitution. There has been a movement to do just that as 2/3 of the states need to agree.

There are already about 15 states that have signed on.

But the more I assess the political waters of the country, and the societal waters, it is painfully clear to me that any such attempt, if successful, would only result in the political powers that be to take full control of the process and manipulate it in such a way that we would all long regret the attempt, or just be labeled a coup attempt and stopped with the help of the media.

No, there is no stopping the Federal Leviathan. It will have to stop itself as the Republic will at some point implode due to it's fiscal insanity and inner corruption.
Dear Votto if we limit the planning process to Christian and Constitutional leaders who agree to unite on only the policies and agenda we agree to reform, then we can keep the objectives focused
on just those points of agreement .

I would trust the leadership and agreed focus of Lt. Gov Dan Patrick and GOP chair Lt Col. Allen West to keep the policies addressed on track and unified by Christian
and Constitutional consensus. Unless we have that agreed focus, you are right we could not have a Convention because it would get derailed. That's another reason we should call the right people to lead it.
With Trump needing to form an independent media network. And Cruz calling for an election commission. We could have party chairs in TX unite on agreed points and plans. Before inviting
Other states to join by agreement on just
Those fixed points to build on consensus.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,512
Reaction score
3,471
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Can we form an editorial committee yet to write up a petition to State officials and Party chairs about forming a Constitutional Council to separate parties from govt, delegate duties and platforms to separate administrations optional to fund or defund, and authorize to govt where parties agree on public policy while privatizing options where we differ by beliefs and creeds. I also want to borrow the brains of Bret Schulte Donald McCormick (founding team behind PPC nonprofit health care cooperative network www.ppcwebsite.org) on incorporating medical service associations through worker-managed business cooperative networks to democratize districts to become self governing as much as possible. And use radio media to empower people and patrons of all parties to participate and invest directly, so we can push for tax breaks rewarding more cost effective efforts in sustainable self govt (through KSEV for Conservatives, KTRH for Libertarians and independents, KPFT and Pacifica for progressive liberals, and lobby, petition or sue the Democrats/Biden Administration to separate their Statist political party and beliefs from federal govt to stop Discrimination by Creed against people of other beliefs violated by Democrat Statist mandates abusing federal govt to regulate rights belonging to people) www.ethics-commission.net
 
Last edited:
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,512
Reaction score
3,471
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Super Cool. Stealing and sharing this. (1) Response by Kevin Craig Forbes - Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government - Harry Binswanger to (2) 2014 Forbes article Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government And (3) my reply to the critic asking to borrow his brain to write a petition on reforming govt to separate diverse political parties into different administrations. ==== (3) Very well written critical breakdown and response. Can I steal this? Or just steal you and run you through the copier and make enough clones to replace the ones ruining, I mean, running the country? My answer is similar: Yes and No. The issue is people consenting to laws as social contracts we make ourselves and authorize to govt. Not people forming groups that compete politically to dominate others for collective control. (As for how Statist and Libertarian groups fit together, it seems this is a trial and error process of Liberal Statists "forcing" collective policies like health care and education INTO centralized federal hands while Libertarian/Constitutionalist types "compete" to educate and liberate more people to REDUCE or REPLACE dependence on federal govt with local self govt and free market alternatives and approaches. So in the end, by the time we negotiate between people and parties, we will eventually form a consensus on WHICH options to keep in govt, which to democratize locally, and which to reform or delegate in other ways. I really cannot stand to watch the process of Liberals "pushing as much crap as they can get away with into govt" while "forcing opposing Conservatives to try to correct without overcorrecting" because it still wastes energy time attention and resources to abuse govt for "trial and error" policies and rulings that get contorted for politics, it forces Constitutionalists, Conservatives and Libertarians into having "to fix things through govt that don't belong there in the first place without consent of people and states," and such overreaching or flawed legislation spreads misperception about true Constitutional limits and process of govt by violating these either by willful ignorance or negligence, thus discriminating by creed against Libertarian beliefs against Statism and Christian and Anarchist beliefs against Voluntaryism and Consensus by noncoercive conflict resolution and mediation in Christ Authority to establish agreement on truth by free will. Kevin Craig I like your response much better. When I try to respond, I either overexplain, or cram way too much in sentences or paragraphs than can fit. The only benefit is my contorted way of responding gets past the censors on FB that cannot tell what I'm saying or which side I'm on. Can I just borrow your brain, and use it to write a statement to the chairs and state officials around TX about setting up a Constitutional Convention for party leaders to address how to separate the social Statist administrative use of govt for rights of people from the minimalized limits on federal govt that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in, while finally including representation of people of other beliefs and parties, including Christian/ Anarchist, and Green party beliefs in decentralizing govt using proportional representation by party, preferential voting, noncoercive consensus decision making by neutral facilitation to resolve conflicts and address objections and grievances, and democratizing local districts by cooperative development that respects individual consent and free choice, which would facilitate the process of mediation or separation of jurisdictions to protect the beliefs of diverse parties in Texas.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
16,698
Reaction score
11,098
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
Yeah, a Constitutional Convention today would be a disaster for freedom.

The Establishment would no doubt infiltrate it and hijack it so that the Constitution is null and void.

The time for such things to work FOR The People is LONG past.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
I used to be an advocate for states to rise up and amend the Constitution. There has been a movement to do just that as 2/3 of the states need to agree.

There are already about 15 states that have signed on.

But the more I assess the political waters of the country, and the societal waters, it is painfully clear to me that any such attempt, if successful, would only result in the political powers that be to take full control of the process and manipulate it in such a way that we would all long regret the attempt, or just be labeled a coup attempt and stopped with the help of the media.

No, there is no stopping the Federal Leviathan. It will have to stop itself as the Republic will at some point implode due to it's fiscal insanity and inner corruption.
Dear Votto if we limit the planning process to Christian and Constitutional leaders who agree to unite on only the policies and agenda we agree to reform, then we can keep the objectives focused
on just those points of agreement .

I would trust the leadership and agreed focus of Lt. Gov Dan Patrick and GOP chair Lt Col. Allen West to keep the policies addressed on track and unified by Christian
and Constitutional consensus. Unless we have that agreed focus, you are right we could not have a Convention because it would get derailed. That's another reason we should call the right people to lead it.
With Trump needing to form an independent media network. And Cruz calling for an election commission. We could have party chairs in TX unite on agreed points and plans. Before inviting
Other states to join by agreement on just
Those fixed points to build on consensus.
Christian?

So called "Christians" dominate the Supreme Court and a so called Christian was elected President and I bet most in Congress say they are "Christians" as well..

These so called Christians are leading the way of an all abortion, anti-God, racist force fed society that is about to implode because of fiscal insanity and underlying moral corruption.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
Yeah, a Constitutional Convention today would be a disaster for freedom.

The Establishment would no doubt infiltrate it and hijack it so that the Constitution is null and void.

The time for such things to work FOR The People is LONG past.
If it did accomplish any of the goals we would like, it would be stopped altogether.

The Deep State has full control.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
16,698
Reaction score
11,098
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
Either people are outright burying their heads in the sand........

Or, they have absolutely no clue the danger they are inviting to themselves and their families with their silence and lack of resistance.

The NWO Globalists are at full war with freedom and the US Constitution and Americans are just standing on the sidelines ohhhing and awing as it occurs right in front of them.

I gotta get the fark outta here. Americans are zombies. Problem is nowhere really left to run.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
843
Points
928
Location
Transient
Yeah, a Constitutional Convention today would be a disaster for freedom.

The Establishment would no doubt infiltrate it and hijack it so that the Constitution is null and void.

The time for such things to work FOR The People is LONG past.
If it did accomplish any of the goals we would like, it would be stopped altogether.

The Deep State has full control.
No. Although you have gone a step further than almost everyone else, you recognize the need for reordering the Almighty United States Constitution, you remain in the proverbial box, because you expect someone else to do the "heavy lifting," and immediately conclude that only those with experience (Deep State) have the skills to compose the directive systems that a government charter is.

I, on the other hand, recognized that to compel the honest legal practitioners and scholars of various other fields to participate in a graduated three-level charter convention series; it will be necessary to present a better system for them to work on.

The three-part separation theory for government is incorrectly deployed, and subsequently, the balance of power is not balanced, and the checks on power can not work correctly. The “checks and balances” theory is a valid theory, but it is directly dependent on the integrity of the deployment of the separation of government.

The deliberation of social issues is then skewed, and that causes the partisan chaos that then trickles down causing the social disorder that we endure, . . . and then that cycles back in the agendas of the election campaigns. And thus, the creation of the proverbial “box.” The politicians are not corrupt, or misguided, because they are not following the constitutions; they are corrupt, or misguided, because the checks and balances do not work, and as they are keen enough to recognize the inadequacies in society and government, they then exploit those inadequacies for their self-interests, which are usually in concert with the interests of their partisan allegiance.

If the balance and checks on government power worked, then we would not endure corruption, partisan cover-up, and the subsequent contentious economic debate that is very similar to the debate about religion that the American colonists argued. Contrary to the atheists’ immature claims that religious debates are about which god is better; as anybody who correctly understands what organized religion is, the substantive aspects of the debates concern the deployment of the principles for organizing cooperative community that organized religions guard with metaphor and anecdotal descriptions of the honored characters. The disordered secularization of American communities and the fore-mentioned, political chaos, has subsequently, extracted the economic principles from the religions, and what is left, are the principles for maintaining personal dignity - morality.

The American charter system was established within a relatively simpler society, and the subsystems are not detailed and coordinated for the advanced sophisticated society that has evolved. The self-righteous proclamation that “the Constitution is not perfect,” does not excuse the lack of pursuit for a perfect charter, nor does it excuse the deviation from the explicit mission to deliver justice. Amendments will not correctly adjust the problems of an incorrect division of the entities and powers, because the separation of the entities is hardwired to the order of the articles, and the coordination of the checks on power is hardwired to the numerical cross-referencing scheme after that arrangement order - format.
 
Last edited:

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
843
Points
928
Location
Transient
I gotta get the fark outta here. Americans are zombies. Problem is nowhere really left to run.
I can guarantee you that it will be the Americans, mostly white men, who will deliver a reliable government chartering system that President Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
843
Points
928
Location
Transient
Can we form an editorial committee yet to write up a petition to State officials and Party chairs about forming a Constitutional Council to
Yes. The petition is a convention charter that describes how the convention is organized. How delegates are chosen. How the delegates make directive systems. How they test the systems. How they validate a charter for serviceability.

Very difficult stuff - I am years ahead of every lawyer in the world. Licensing fee for my charter convention petition template is very reasonable.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
Yeah, a Constitutional Convention today would be a disaster for freedom.

The Establishment would no doubt infiltrate it and hijack it so that the Constitution is null and void.

The time for such things to work FOR The People is LONG past.
If it did accomplish any of the goals we would like, it would be stopped altogether.

The Deep State has full control.
No. Although you have gone a step further than almost everyone else, you recognize the need for reordering the Almighty United States Constitution, you remain in the proverbial box, because you expect someone else to do the "heavy lifting," and immediately conclude that only those with experience (Deep State) have the skills to compose the directive systems that a government charter is.

I, on the other hand, recognized that to compel the honest legal practitioners and scholars of various other fields to participate in a graduated three-level charter convention series; it will be necessary to present a better system for them to work on.

The three-part separation theory for government is incorrectly deployed, and subsequently, the balance of power is not balanced, and the checks on power can not work correctly. The “checks and balances” theory is a valid theory, but it is directly dependent on the integrity of the deployment of the separation of government.

The deliberation of social issues is then skewed, and that causes the partisan chaos that then trickles down causing the social disorder that we endure, . . . and then that cycles back in the agendas of the election campaigns. And thus, the creation of the proverbial “box.” The politicians are not corrupt, or misguided, because they are not following the constitutions; they are corrupt, or misguided, because the checks and balances do not work, and as they are keen enough to recognize the inadequacies in society and government, they then exploit those inadequacies for their self-interests, which are usually in concert with the interests of their partisan allegiance.

If the balance and checks on government power worked, then we would not endure corruption, partisan cover-up, and the subsequent contentious economic debate that is very similar to the debate about religion that the American colonists argued. Contrary to the atheists’ immature claims that religious debates are about which god is better; as anybody who correctly understands what organized religion is, the substantive aspects of the debates concern the deployment of the principles for organizing cooperative community that organized religions guard with metaphor and anecdotal descriptions of the honored characters. The disordered secularization of American communities and the fore-mentioned, political chaos, has subsequently, extracted the economic principles from the religions, and what is left, are the principles for maintaining personal dignity - morality.

The American charter system was established within a relatively simpler society, and the subsystems are not detailed and coordinated for the advanced sophisticated society that has evolved. The self-righteous proclamation that “the Constitution is not perfect,” does not excuse the lack of pursuit for a perfect charter, nor does it excuse the deviation from the explicit mission to deliver justice. Amendments will not correctly adjust the problems of an incorrect division of the entities and powers, because the separation of the entities is hardwired to the order of the articles, and the coordination of the checks on power is hardwired to the numerical cross-referencing scheme after that arrangement order - format.
No form of government lasts. Why? Because power corrupts. No one knew this better than our Founders. Men seek more and more power, then secure that power, and look for even more power. It is simply human nature.

As Ben Franklin said,
“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Franklin understood the human condition better than you ever will.

The Founders rejected the notion of a king because the thought of centralized power was abhorrent to them due to the abuses they suffered under it. So they attempted a Republic with a separation of powers. The first failed via the Article of Confederation because they felt it was not centralized enough, and then came the Constitution which lasted just fine until the Progressive movement came along at the turn of the 20th century and decided that it was not centralized enough for their liking. So they increased the scope and power of the Federal government, to the point that the Federal government now throws money at every man, woman, and child on the planet to try and obtain power and influence over them. Now states do the bidding of the Federal government or loose that Federal aid which they have become so dependent upon. In addition, regulations have taken the place of laws that are written by an army of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. And the President now rules by edict and determines everything from what doctors we see to what teacher will teach our children in schools and decide what they will teach.

This has all been justified via the General Welfare Clause. Progressives have tried to convince us and themselves that the expansion of the General Welfare clause is the justification for subverting the notion of a limited government with checks and balances.

There is a problem here though, the person who is called the Father of the Constitution made it clear that this was not the intended role of the General Welfare clause


James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

So as we see, the Republic has been subverted. But would Franklin be surprised? I think that with his knowledge of human nature, his only surprise would have been that the Republic has lasted this long. But it will soon be over as globalists fight for one world government and as politicians exponentially increase more debt than has ever been recorded in human history with no end in sight, all the while subverting the very morals needed to maintain a civil society with a war against religion and those of faith.

You can rationalize that this all needed to take place to take care of a more "sophisticated" society, but you delude yourself. And once power is relinquished, once the Federal government gains control over something, they will never let it go. That is why the Convention of states will never succeed, along with the moral decline of society in general.

There is but one fate for the Republic, and that is self annihilation, just as Franklin had predicted, just as all who came before it had succumb to at some point.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
843
Points
928
Location
Transient
Wow! You did not parse any of my ideas.I do not think you were able to comprehend my little treatise. You cannot believe the possibility that the checks and balances do not work, because the separation of government is incorrect, because you cannot figure out how to correctly divide the government. You are probably jealous, because you do not understand how difficult it is to organize people to do things.

The Convention of States is failing, because they want the state legislatures to do the work. The Convention of states needs to find the delegates, venue the convention, compose the amendments, and then present it to the state legislatures to (re)appoint the delegates to a simple inexpensive validation convention, and then send it back to the legislatures for ratification.

Convention of States is more inclined to find the people who are inclined, talented, and skilled to do the work then the state legislatures are apt.

The composers of the Article V. were well aware that anyone who could fulfill the ambition of an Article V. convention would essentially have organized the succeeding federal legislature to the subsisting federal legislature.
 
Last edited:

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
Wow! You did not parse any of my ideas.I do not think you were able to comprehend my little treatise. You cannot believe the possibility that the checks and balances do not work, because the separation of government is incorrect, because you cannot figure out how to correctly divide the government. You are probably jealous, because you do not understand how difficult it is to organize people to do things.

The Convention of States is failing, because they want the state legislatures to do the work. The Convention of states needs to find the delegates, venue the convention, compose the amendments, and then present it to the state legislatures to (re)appoint the delegates to a simple inexpensive validation convention, and then send it back to the legislatures for ratification.

Convention of States is more inclined to find the people who are inclined, talented, and skilled to do the work then the state legislatures are apt.

The composers of the Article V. were well aware that anyone who could fulfill the ambition of an Article V. convention would essentially have organized the succeeding federal legislature to the subsisting federal legislature.
The Article V provision for the states was put in the Constitution due to fears that the US Federal government would become too large and oppressive, which it is today.

Unfortunately, it has never been done before, probably because the provisions were inadequate for it to succeed.

It was simply one of their failures.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,512
Reaction score
3,471
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Can we form an editorial committee yet to write up a petition to State officials and Party chairs about forming a Constitutional Council to
Yes. The petition is a convention charter that describes how the convention is organized. How delegates are chosen. How the delegates make directive systems. How they test the systems. How they validate a charter for serviceability.

Very difficult stuff - I am years ahead of every lawyer in the world. Licensing fee for my charter convention petition template is very reasonable.
Dear Prof.Lunaphiles
1. Before even going into formal convention procedures, I urge free and independent mediation to facilitate a general consensus on the policy goals, and what will be the changes and what will not be changed.
2. After we reach an agreement on that, this goal and agreed policy objective will determine which people are needed from each party or institution to facilitate the writing, the process and the implementation by consensus.
3. Otherwise, as you and Votto both point out, and I agree, the process gets derailed, hijacked or blocked due to distrust or inability of people to defend and express their interests and representation equally and effectively.

You are well ahead of the game plan, and I appreciate your support and expertise. Jon Roland, who also wrote extensively on the Grand Jury and Constitutional Reform process, unfortunately passed away last year, and left his outlines and writings to a board of trustees of the Constitution Society and website archives.

I am happy to promote fundraising for anyone who wants to include your services.

But to ensure equal free speech and representation for everyone, there cannot be monetary conditions attached not everyone can meet. So separate fundraising would be needed to cover that as needed for more people to participate if that allows them to do so.

If we can manage through online forums like USMB, FB and public and political radio, if this allows free and equal access, we can use a combination. In the process, to organize everyone in a manageable way for longterm representation, I still foresee using party precincts and electoral districts. Along with city and county districts where the reforms need to be implemented anyway.

We can try using prototypes of online or electronic means of facilitating input, objections, voting on options, etc. And maybe in the process, perfect which systems will enable representation of taxpayers on different policy options for better democratic protections.

I am happy to connect you to another person with ideas on how to facilitate voter options. If you and others head up the team on facilitating communications, that is a key factor in both the Convention process and in the enforcement and use of such protocol in longterm govt representation and democratic process.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
28,567
Reaction score
12,556
Points
1,090
Can we form an editorial committee yet to write up a petition to State officials and Party chairs about forming a Constitutional Council to
Yes. The petition is a convention charter that describes how the convention is organized. How delegates are chosen. How the delegates make directive systems. How they test the systems. How they validate a charter for serviceability.

Very difficult stuff - I am years ahead of every lawyer in the world. Licensing fee for my charter convention petition template is very reasonable.
Dear Prof.Lunaphiles
1. Before even going into formal convention procedures, I urge free and independent mediation to facilitate a general consensus on the policy goals, and what will be the changes and what will not be changed.
2. After we reach an agreement on that, this goal and agreed policy objective will determine which people are needed from each party or institution to facilitate the writing, the process and the implementation by consensus.
3. Otherwise, as you and Votto both point out, and I agree, the process gets derailed, hijacked or blocked due to distrust or inability of people to defend and express their interests and representation equally and effectively.

You are well ahead of the game plan, and I appreciate your support and expertise. Jon Roland, who also wrote extensively on the Grand Jury and Constitutional Reform process, unfortunately passed away last year, and left his outlines and writings to a board of trustees of the Constitution Society and website archives.

I am happy to promote fundraising for anyone who wants to include your services.

But to ensure equal free speech and representation for everyone, there cannot be monetary conditions attached not everyone can meet. So separate fundraising would be needed to cover that as needed for more people to participate if that allows them to do so.

If we can manage through online forums like USMB, FB and public and political radio, if this allows free and equal access, we can use a combination. In the process, to organize everyone in a manageable way for longterm representation, I still foresee using party precincts and electoral districts. Along with city and county districts where the reforms need to be implemented anyway.

We can try using prototypes of online or electronic means of facilitating input, objections, voting on options, etc. And maybe in the process, perfect which systems will enable representation of taxpayers on different policy options for better democratic protections.

I am happy to connect you to another person with ideas on how to facilitate voter options. If you and others head up the team on facilitating communications, that is a key factor in both the Convention process and in the enforcement and use of such protocol in longterm govt representation and democratic process.
Conservatives have no real voice in politics.

That is part of the problem. There is no one in leadership that gives a damn.

Therefore, a Constitutional convention would probably only result in the 2nd amendment biting the dust as well as the first. It is frightening, but now about half of Americans favor repealing the first amendment due to snowflakes on the left being offended.


As for Trump, he just likes to piss people off on the Left and grab headlines. I don't see him championing the Article V movement.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top