Nebraska becomes 17th state to pass the convention of states resolution

[Texian1836]

I am a huge supporter of the Convention of States movement and initiative.
Here are the new amendments that I would like to see approved:

• Election Reform, only US citizens 18 and older may vote, ID required, mail-in signature matching, mail-in by excuse only. CHECK
• Ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only US citizens in the census APPORTIONMENT NEEDS DISCUSSION. SEE BELOW.
• Allow the President a "line item veto" for the US Budget DON'T DISAGREE BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSARY
• Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen, otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. SHOULD THIS BE ADDRESSED BY AMENDMENT OR BY LEGISLATION?
• The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices. WOULD BE OPEN TO THIS, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE TERM LIMITS PLACED, NOT ONLY ON THE SC, BUT LOWER JUSTICES AS WELL
• Immigration reform, no longer admit for fleeing oppression, only merit based immigration as approved. DIFFICULT TO DISCUSS. IMMIGRATION IS A PROBLEM ONLY WITH A WELFARE STATE. IN A SMALL GOV FREE SOCIETY, IMMIGRATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM WE FACE TODAY. PERHAPS THIS IS BEST ADDRESSED BY LEGISLATION AND REQUIREMENTS OF A SUPER MAJORITY TO OVERTURN.

A few for consideration, but may not be as important:

• Set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices (70?) (or term limits) TERM LIMITS, NOT MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE
• Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war I'M LEANING TOWARD TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, ONE LIMITING SPENDING AND ONE LIMITING TAXATION, RATHER THAN ONE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.
• Set term limits in the House and Senate (6 in the House and 2 in the Senate) CHECK
• Make the Senate (60 vote) filibuster part of the Constitution (prevents radical change) OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, congressional districts were limited in population size to 40,000 per district. With the growth in states, Congress also expanded in membership until 1929 when Congress was capped at 435 members by law. Today, each congressional district now represents more than 750,000.

We need a constitutional amendment giving more representation back to the People. We need limits on congressional districts, returning to the original 40,000 number. This would result in Congress expanding in size to roughly 6,000 congressmen, transforming how Congress operates.

Imagine this change combined with term limits.

AND.....We need to repeal the 17th Amendment, returning control of the senate back to the states.

 

[kyzr]

When the Constitution was ratified in 1788, congressional districts were limited in population size to 40,000 per district. With the growth in states, Congress also expanded in membership until 1929 when Congress was capped at 435 members by law. Today, each congressional district now represents more than 750,000.

We need a constitutional amendment giving more representation back to the People. We need limits on congressional districts, returning to the original 40,000 number. This would result in Congress expanding in size to roughly 6,000 congressmen, transforming how Congress operates.

Imagine this change combined with term limits.

AND.....We need to repeal the 17th Amendment, returning control of the senate back to the states.

1. I disagree that we need MORE fucking congressmen in DC.
2. I do agree with term limits, 12-years seems right to me, 6-terms for congress & 2-terms for a senator.
3. The 17th Amendment seems fine to me, the Senate seems okay if they keep the 60-vote filibuster for legislation to stop radical change.

The Convention of States won't make everyone happy, but even a few improvements would be worthwhile.

 

[Texian1836]

1. I disagree that we need MORE fucking congressmen in DC.

Limiting the size of congressional districts, and increasing the number of congressmen, returns power to the People. The current system favors the moneyed and those with influence. It tends toward oligarchism. Ordinary citizens, with limited means, are better able to reach out to, that is campaign to, 40,000 people than he or she is to 750,000. And the 40,000 are much more able to hold their elected representative accountable. This is democracy.

 

[Texian1836]

3. The 17th Amendment seems fine to me, the Senate seems okay if they keep the 60-vote filibuster for legislation to stop radical change.

The 17th Amendment was introduced by the progressives. Ask yourself, why? Because it transferred power from the states to the federal government. It was one of the early steps whereby our Republic was being lost and the ascension of an all powerful centralized federal government.

The crisis we face today is because this all powerful centralized federal government is taking away our individualism, our liberty and our freedom. We need to restore our government to a Republic as intended by our Founding Fathers. Franklin said, in response to a question, "A republic if you can keep it". Well, we haven't kept it; and now we have the opportunity to rectify our past indiscretion.

 

[kyzr]

The 17th Amendment was introduced by the progressives. Ask yourself, why? Because it transferred power from the states to the federal government. It was one of the early steps whereby our Republic was being lost and the ascension of an all powerful centralized federal government.

The crisis we face today is because this all powerful centralized federal government is taking away our individualism, our liberty and our freedom. We need to restore our government to a Republic as intended by our Founding Fathers. Franklin said, in response to a question, "A republic if you can keep it". Well, we haven't kept it; and now we have the opportunity to rectify our past indiscretion.

IMHO you are misinterpreting the 17th Amendment.
The "Great Compromise" in the US Constitution established the two senators from each state, but they were to be elected by the state legislatures. That proved unworkable since state legislatures often became deadlocked. So the 17th Amendment said that senators shall be elected by the people instead of the legislatures.

17th Amendment Simplified

The 17th Amendment deals with the election of senators and how they are chosen directly by votes.

constitutionus.com

What Was The Great Compromise of 1787?

How many representatives to the new Congress should each state get? The answer required the Founding Fathers to make a truly great compromise.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Texian1836]

IMHO you are misinterpreting the 17th Amendment.
The "Great Compromise" in the US Constitution established the two senators from each state, but they were to be elected by the state legislatures. That proved unworkable since state legislatures often became deadlocked. So the 17th Amendment said that senators shall be elected by the people instead of the legislatures.

17th Amendment Simplified

The 17th Amendment deals with the election of senators and how they are chosen directly by votes.

constitutionus.com

What Was The Great Compromise of 1787?

How many representatives to the new Congress should each state get? The answer required the Founding Fathers to make a truly great compromise.

www.thoughtco.com

Don't know why you think I'm "misinterpreting" the 17th Amendment. It's meaning is pretty straight forward with no room for misinterpretation.

I was partially in error, though, on my statement that the Democrat progressives introduced the amendment. The 62nd Congress was split with the House having a large Democrat majority but with the Senate having a Republican majority. It wasn't until the 63rd Congress that the Democrats gained control of the Senate.

But your comments had me looking at the history behind the movement to popularly elect senators, which actually dates back to 1826. Still, I am firmly in the camp of those who opposed this reform. The harm to our Republic with the transfer of power from the states to the federal government far exceeds the minor inconvenience, and/or trouble, the state legislatures had in selecting their state's Senators.

 

[kyzr]

Don't know why you think I'm "misinterpreting" the 17th Amendment. It's meaning is pretty straight forward with no room for misinterpretation.

I was partially in error, though, on my statement that the Democrat progressives introduced the amendment. The 62nd Congress was split with the House having a large Democrat majority but with the Senate having a Republican majority. It wasn't until the 63rd Congress that the Democrats gained control of the Senate.

But your comments had me looking at the history behind the movement to popularly elect senators, which actually dates back to 1826. Still, I am firmly in the camp of those who opposed this reform. The harm to our Republic with the transfer of power from the states to the federal government far exceeds the minor inconvenience, and/or trouble, the state legislatures had in selecting their state's Senators.

If the 17th Amendment is repealed the two state senators would be elected by the respective state legislatures.
You did not refute my link that explained the "Great Compromise" set the Senate and House representation.
What Was The Great Compromise?

read the actual text

U.S. Constitution - Article I | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[Harpy Eagle]

An Ammendment that forbids dual citizenship.

An Ammendment that does away with the current method of bestowed "Birthright citizenship".

An Amendment reaffirming the rights of free citizens. In other words; once a persons term of incarceration has been fulfilled; ALL their rights are restored.
Those are just a few off the top of my head...

I like the last two, not real big on the first one.

 

[Texian1836]

If the 17th Amendment is repealed the two state senators would be elected by the respective state legislatures.
You did not refute my link that explained the "Great Compromise" set the Senate and House representation.
What Was The Great Compromise?

read the actual text

U.S. Constitution - Article I | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Yes, I know, if the 17th is repealed the senators will be elected by state legislatures. That's precisely my point and my aim. This reform takes Power back from the federal government and gives it back to the states.

There's nothing to refute in your link. I'm pretty much aware of this history and, although awkwardly phrased, would say I'm "in agreement".

As I see it, the problem we have is that we have an overbearing federal government that is taking away our freedom and our liberty. Moreover, this government is moving toward a one world government with the US being a major or dominant player. It appears this one world government will be oligarchical in nature, with China's form of Marxism replacing our constitutional democracy.

We have in place an infrastructure of bureaucracy, laws and regulations which comprise the Washington Swamp, which allows the soft revolution to reset America and the world. We need to totally tear this down this infrastructure and take away its power and return power back to the states. We need to become a Republic again as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Giving the states back the power to elect their senators is just one small piece of the reform we need to undergo.

 

[armadei]

So for each and every recorded pregnancy that does not end in a live birth there should be a police investigation into the cause of death?

Yes. Next question?

 

[Resnic]

Nebraska Becomes 17th State To Call For Article V Convention Of States

The Nebraska legislature passed a resolution on Friday calling for an Article V convention of states, making it the 17th state to do so.

thefederalist.com

We are half way there! For the first time in US history, states may soon amend the Constitution!!

What amendments do you favor?

As for myself, both these amendments would have close to 80% approval rating among Americans.

1. Term limits for those in Congress

2. A balanced budget of some sort.

I think that is where you start.

I wouldnt want to open that can of worms myself.

It would start a shit storm. Everyone wants to change everything to suit their own needs, people are saying to change this and change that while some want it removed all together, some won't want it changed. All the blacks, fags, trannies and freakazoids will demand something, this new current breed of democrat shouldn't be allowed to even fantasize about altering it in anyway because if they do then they will do so in ways them and there new supreme court judge can interpret how they wish.

The constitution is perfectly fine. Our government and society is what needs to be amended and changed.

 

[kyzr]

I wouldnt want to open that can of worms myself.
It would start a shit storm. Everyone wants to change everything to suit their own needs, people are saying to change this and change that while some want it removed all together, some won't want it changed. All the blacks, fags, trannies and freakazoids will demand something, this new current breed of democrat shouldn't be allowed to even fantasize about altering it in anyway because if they do then they will do so in ways them and there new supreme court judge can interpret how they wish.
The constitution is perfectly fine. Our government and society is what needs to be amended and changed.

There would be no shitstorm, no can of worms. The states would vote on various proposed amendments, and if they pass they are part of the US Constitution. There is no further appeal, nothing anyone can do without another Convention of States. The president, congress, nor the USSC could do anything about the new amendments. The agenda of proposed amendments would be agreed to before the convention. I'm sure security would be tight. My proposed amendments would be:

• Election Reform: only US citizens on verified voter rolls can vote in any election, ID required, signature matching required, mail-in by excuse only, only votes received by the official poll closing times can be counted.
• Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war
• To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only US citizens
• To make the (60 vote) filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
• To allow the President a "line item veto"
• Social Security and Medicare must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits
• Set term limits in the House and Senate, 8-years for House members, and 12-years for the Senate.
• Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen. (otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico.)
• The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices.
• Immigration reform, no longer admit for fleeing oppression, only merit based immigration as approved.

 

[Concerned American]

There would be no shitstorm, no can of worms. The states would vote on various proposed amendments, and if they pass they are part of the US Constitution. There is no further appeal, nothing anyone can do without another Convention of States. The president, congress, nor the USSC could do anything about the new amendments. The agenda of proposed amendments would be agreed to before the convention. I'm sure security would be tight. My proposed amendments would be:

• Election Reform: only US citizens on verified voter rolls can vote in any election, ID required, signature matching required, mail-in by excuse only, only votes received by the official poll closing times can be counted.
• Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war
• To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only US citizens
• To make the (60 vote) filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
• To allow the President a "line item veto"
• Social Security and Medicare must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits
• Set term limits in the House and Senate, 8-years for House members, and 12-years for the Senate.
• Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen. (otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico.)
• The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices.
• Immigration reform, no longer admit for fleeing oppression, only merit based immigration as approved.

Sorry, I would rather deal with the devil I know than what these whack jobs would pull out of their ass. Our constitution has served us well for 250 years or so. Amendments are one thing--changing the founding document is a non-starter for me.

 

[kyzr]

Sorry, I would rather deal with the devil I know than what these whack jobs would pull out of their ass. Our constitution has served us well for 250 years or so. Amendments are one thing--changing the founding document is a non-starter for me.

If we get to 34 states, The Convention of States will happen.
Do you have a problem with the Amendments I proposed above?
The convention won't do that many.

 

[Concerned American]

If we get to 34 states, The Convention of States will happen.
Do you have a problem with the Amendments I proposed above?
The convention won't do that many.

I am not disagreeing with the things that you are proposing, however, the country is so divided right now that the proposals that you suggest would probably not even be considered and the fringe leftist whack jobs will insist that their counter proposals are more important. It is anyone's guess who would be the victor. Would you really be happy if amendments in direct opposition to your suggestions succeeded? Once Pandora's Box has been opened it is impossible to get the demons back in.

 

[kyzr]

I am not disagreeing with the things that you are proposing, however, the country is so divided right now that the proposals that you suggest would probably not even be considered and the fringe leftist whack jobs will insist that their counter proposals are more important. It is anyone's guess who would be the victor. Would you really be happy if amendments in direct opposition to your suggestions succeeded? Once Pandora's Box has been opened it is impossible to get the demons back in.

LOL!! You are not understanding what a "Convention of States is. If your state does not approve the COS resolution, you don't get in. It is NOT "anyone's guess" 38 states call the ball, and their Amendments are officially part of the US Constitution. There will be negotiations as to which Amendments are formally voted on, but if 38 States approve the Amendment, its done.
Getting 38 states to agree won't be easy. We'd need, ME, NM, MN, VA, IL, CO, NV to turn GOP, not an easy task.

 

[Concerned American]

We'd need, ME, NM, MN, VA, IL, CO, NV to turn GOP, not an easy task.

That is my point. It is not a slam dunk and it could just as easily go against your desires as to go with them. Have you forgotten the "election" of 2020 already?

 

[kyzr]

That is my point. It is not a slam dunk and it could just as easily go against your desires as to go with them. Have you forgotten the "election" of 2020 already?

You are not going to get 38 blue states. Never happen.
Look at the 2016 EC map above, which will be closer to the 2024 map.
Getting 38 states to agree on anything is a very heavy lift.
Hopefully a few blue states would agree on a few amendments, like term limits or a balanced budget.