Convention of the States

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 22, 2004
82,283
10,138
2,070
Minnesota
Home | Convention of States

There is a website for a grass roots effort to call a Constitutional convention through the States. I've been researching this and I've waivered back on forth on whether it's right. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, but I am leaning towards this being necessary.

But I thought there are many of us who will want to know about this.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2
BTW I think the websites getting high volume that it can't handle so if it's not working this second, try back later.
 
Home | Convention of States

There is a website for a grass roots effort to call a Constitutional convention through the States. I've been researching this and I've waivered back on forth on whether it's right. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, but I am leaning towards this being necessary.

But I thought there are many of us who will want to know about this.

:thup: Yes I am glad you posted this

From the link
Learn | The Problem | Convention of States



Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed another challenge to the federal spending power by acknowledging their approval of programs that violate the will of the Founders:

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role.


What Does this Mean?


This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.
 
Home | Convention of States

There is a website for a grass roots effort to call a Constitutional convention through the States. I've been researching this and I've waivered back on forth on whether it's right. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, but I am leaning towards this being necessary.

But I thought there are many of us who will want to know about this.

It may be the only way to save the country from radical socialism and financial ruin.

We are on the knife edge at the moment, only the people can make sure that the country goes the right way and does not become a carbon copy of failed european socialism.
 
Progressives have so successfully destroyed our education system, especially civics, that it may already be too late. The tide of ignorance has swept in like a Retard Tsunami.
 
Keep in mind that a Constitutional Convention can't change the Constitution.

All it can do, is propose amendments (just as Congress can by a 2/3 vote of both houses).

Anything a Constitutional Convention does, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can.
 
Keep in mind that a Constitutional Convention can't change the Constitution.

All it can do, is propose amendments (just as Congress can by a 2/3 vote of both houses).

Anything a Constitutional Convention does, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can.

And you have to be careful what you wish for. A constituitonal convention that strengthens the 2nd amendment can also try to abolish it, one that removes the income tax can also make it oppressive, and one that tries to limit federal power as the framers intended can also make it the only real power out there.
 
A constituitonal convention that strengthens the 2nd amendment can also try to abolish it, one that removes the income tax can also make it oppressive, and one that tries to limit federal power as the framers intended can also make it the only real power out there.

That is WHY a Constitutional Convention cannot change the Constitution.

If 3/4 of the states are OK with abolishing the 2nd amendment or whatever, then it SHOULD be done.

The Framers believed that if the people were given the power to determine their own fates, we would get good government as a result. And they built a nation on that assumption. This was called "The American Ideal".

This may be the test to determine if the American Ideal can work or not.
 
A constituitonal convention that strengthens the 2nd amendment can also try to abolish it, one that removes the income tax can also make it oppressive, and one that tries to limit federal power as the framers intended can also make it the only real power out there.

That is WHY a Constitutional Convention cannot change the Constitution.

If 3/4 of the states are OK with abolishing the 2nd amendment or whatever, then it SHOULD be done.

The Framers believed that if the people were given the power to determine their own fates, we would get good government as a result. And they built a nation on that assumption. This was called "The American Ideal".

This may be the test to determine if the American Ideal can work or not.

The concern is how the states approve of the changes. If it is via referendums, then OK, if it is through the existing state legislatures, then I have concerns about the ruling pols in the states aligning with the ruling pols in washington.
 
It would be fun to see what gets proposed...I'll grant you all that. I would think that a great many would be surprised about what "real" Americans think.
 
A constituitonal convention that strengthens the 2nd amendment can also try to abolish it, one that removes the income tax can also make it oppressive, and one that tries to limit federal power as the framers intended can also make it the only real power out there.

That is WHY a Constitutional Convention cannot change the Constitution.

If 3/4 of the states are OK with abolishing the 2nd amendment or whatever, then it SHOULD be done.

The Framers believed that if the people were given the power to determine their own fates, we would get good government as a result. And they built a nation on that assumption. This was called "The American Ideal".

This may be the test to determine if the American Ideal can work or not.

The concern is how the states approve of the changes. If it is via referendums, then OK, if it is through the existing state legislatures, then I have concerns about the ruling pols in the states aligning with the ruling pols in washington.

I think any proposed changes should perhaps be limited to what it is obvious a corrupt congress wouldnt do on their own. Term limits for example, something that was a part of the original Articles of Confederation.

perhaps eliminating the Senate, something that Ireland came close to doing just recently.

Increasing the number of representatives. The original Constitution envisioned about one per 30,000 citizens (male only at that time tho) .

Restricting advertising spent on campaigns. eliminating effects of Citizens United case and other idiotic Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance.

Taking the appointment power of choosing Supreme Court justices out of the hands of the president and doing it more along the lines of the Articles of Confederation.
 
another idea is a national initiative option such as Switzerland has. This is currently an option in many states.
 
:thup: Yes I am glad you posted this

From the link
Learn | The Problem | Convention of States



Washington, D.C., does not believe this principle, as evidenced by an unbroken practice of expanding the boundaries of federal power. In a remarkably frank admission, the Supreme Court rebuffed another challenge to the federal spending power by acknowledging their approval of programs that violate the will of the Founders:

This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role.

What Does this Mean?


This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful powerno matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states, and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington, D.C., is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.
“Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and been admitted to behold the divine Shekinah [the manifestation of this god dwelling among man], and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.” (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top