Newsmax’s Chris Salcedo has Mark Meckler on to promote a Constitutional Convention.

[johnwk]

stats dont pay taxs,, people pay taxs,,

Did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you have help?

 

[g5000]

my comment stands and youre still laughing stock,,

why do you people so easily believe what youre told too??
they lied and now youre supporting their lie,,

hes been clear about it being a convention of states not a constitutional convention,,

A convention of states IS a constitutional convention. It is the only way the FEDERAL Constitution can be amended.

A state constitutional convention is for a single state to amend their state's constitution.

Idiot.

 

[progressive hunter]

A convention of states IS a constitutional convention. It is the only way the FEDERAL Constitution can be amended.

A state constitutional convention is for a single state to amend their state's constitution.

Idiot.

no its not,,

if it was they would have the same name and conditions and they dont,,

normally we feel sorry for ignorant people, but in your case its source for laughter,,

 

[g5000]

no its not,,

if it was they would have the same name and conditions and they dont,,

normally we feel sorry for ignorant people, but in your case its source for laughter,,

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

again you believe any lie they tell you to believe,,

he hs been clear he wants a convention of states

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

You need to read the OP again, idiot.

The man is calling for a national Constitutional Convention.

It requires 34 states to apply for one to occur.

You are seriously confused.

 

[johnwk]

Mark Meckler is doing the rounds and finding many open doors in our media to promote his desire for convening a convention. What I would like to see from our media personalities is, some critical questioning concerning the consequences and dangers of calling a second convention to alter our Constitution.

There are a number of particulars which ought to be addressed before jumping on the convention bandwagon.



1) there is no way to control an Article V convention once convened;

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE SWAMP ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) every swamp snake on earth with self-interests such as George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party would be attracted to finding a way to get their man into the convention as a delegate;

4) an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

6) adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to enforce the text of our existing constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

. . .etc


As you can see, Mark uses identity politics to defend his call for a convention instead of addressing legitimate concerns . . . consequences and dangers of calling a convention.

 

[g5000]

again you believe any lie they tell you to believe,,

he hs been clear he wants a convention of states

Again, what part of "to promote a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) for proposing amendments to our federal Constitution" do you not understand, willfully blind monkey?

 

[g5000]

We'll never get 3/4 of our states to agree on anything. This is one, big circle jerk.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There will be no convention for at least two political generations.

 

[progressive hunter]

Mark Meckler is doing the rounds and finding many open doors in our media to promote his desire for convening a convention. What I would like to see from our media personalities is, some critical questioning concerning the consequences and dangers of calling a second convention to alter our Constitution.

There are a number of particulars which ought to be addressed before jumping on the convention bandwagon.



1) there is no way to control an Article V convention once convened;

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE SWAMP ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) every swamp snake on earth with self-interests such as George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party would be attracted to finding a way to get their man into the convention as a delegate;

4) an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

5) the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission;

6) adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to enforce the text of our existing constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

. . .etc


As you can see, Mark uses identity politics to defend his call for a convention instead of addressing legitimate concerns . . . consequences and dangers of calling a convention.

what happened to you people that makes you so brain dead??

hes not calling for a constitutional convention,,
hes calling for a convention of the states and thats a different thing with different rules,,

 

[progressive hunter]

We'll never get 3/4 of our states to agree on anything. This is one, big circle jerk.

its still fun watching your head explode,,

 

[johnwk]

Here is a revised presentation of my last post which gives a clearer picture of what Mark Meckler is doing:

Mark Meckler in 2021 doing media talk shows to promote convening a Constitutional Convention

.




As you can see, Mark uses identity politics to defend his call for a convention instead of addressing legitimate concerns . . . consequences and dangers of calling a convention, e.g.:

1) there is no way to control an Article V convention once convened;

2) Congress and our Supreme Court [THE SWAMP ESTABLISHMENT] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the rules of a convention;

3) every swamp snake on earth with self-interests such as George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party would be attracted to finding a way to get their man into the convention as a delegate [NOTE: this is exactly what James Madison warned against]:

” If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. See: From James Madison to George Lee Turberville, 2 November 1788

4) an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention; [NOTE: the Delegates to the Convention of 1787 ignored the limit placed on the Convention [revising the Articles of Confederation] and created and entirely new Constitution:

“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.” ___ LINK

5) the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded pension liabilities, and use it to bribe a number of states into submission; [NOTE; the convention of 1787 provided for the new government they were creating to assume the various state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.

6) adding amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to enforce the text of our existing constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

. . .etc

 

[johnwk]

A shiny object (a constitutional convention) to distract from a real remedy
One of the biggest problems today is not a defect in our existing constitution, but rather, a failure and refusal to enforce its text, and documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

Tyrannical judges and Justices, who now exercise judicial power while wearing their black robe, ought to also be wearing an identifying black hood.

But keep in mind our founders did in fact provide a tool and remedy, which our swamp creatures in Congress refuse to use . . . IMPEACHMENT

What good is a constitution, old or a new one created, if those entrusted to enforce it, are allowed to use their office of public trust to defeat and subjugate it?

 

[johnwk]

Do you have a youtube link to his 1/29/2025 full show?

 

[johnwk]

Swamp snakes would dominate constitutional convention​

.

 

[johnwk]

Mark Meckler’s call for an Article V Convention is premature by lacking particulars​

.

See Is There a Constitutional Convention in our Future?


The above linked article confirms, if Mark Meckler got his way and a constitutional convention is called under Article V, a Pandora’s Box would be opened igniting a contentious and vicious political partisan war to decide the setting of rules e.g., “. . . how would each state be represented in the Convention, who would control the process of setting the agenda, what would be the procedure for counting the votes, and what would happen if the voters in each state reject the changes as is required by Article Five?” And the above are only a few of the unanswered questions, which Mark Meckler suspiciously avoids to provide answers to.

Instead of stepping up and providing answers to legitimate questions which certainly ought to be answered before opening the door to a convention, Mr. Meckler smugly and arrogantly dismissed such inquires as follows, when he addressed the NORTH DAKOTA SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:


“I know that you frequently receive advice from self-described “scholars” who predict all sorts of horrible outcomes from an Article V Convention. They have no actual scholarly qualifications, and their reasons for opposing Article V are totally based on irrational fears. Their ramblings are completely at odds with the collective wisdom of the nation’s top, peer reviewed, professors and scholars.”


Mr. Meckler’s demeanor and narcissistic pretentions, while sitting in judgement of others, is more than enough to conclude he is not the fountain of all knowledge which he pretends to be by innuendo.

Finally, what good is a constitution, old or a new one created, if those entrusted to enforce it are allowed to use their office of public trust to defeat and subjugate it?
.