Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Convention of States (Poll)

Of the 6 proposed Amendments for the Convention of States, which would you approve?

  • 1) Approve

    Votes: 23 67.6%
  • 2) Approve

    Votes: 22 64.7%
  • 3) Approve

    Votes: 18 52.9%
  • 4) Approve

    Votes: 16 47.1%
  • 5) Approve

    Votes: 13 38.2%
  • 6) Approve

    Votes: 17 50.0%
  • Vote NO on all (6) proposed Amendments

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • Total voters
    34

kyzr

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2009
36,376
27,559
2,905
The AL part of PA
Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)
 
Last edited:
Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
[emphasis mine]

Congress will not call together a Convention of the States in order to gut Congress' power ... elect better congressmen and the problem is over ...

Your math is wrong ... 3/4's the States is 38 ... We need only 34 States to APPLY to Congress to seat a Convention ... we still need the 3/4's to approve any Amendment ...
 
Proponents of a article 5 convention of states can shove it right up their ass along with a cactus....Careful what you wish for.

Our Founding Fathers did not create Article V to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The Constitution they had just written already did that. That was the reason for drafting the Constitution in the first place.

When the people meet in convention they are under no obligation to abide by the terms of the state resolutions. That is why Article V establishes no procedures, other than to apply.

Once two-thirds apply, Congress shall call a convention, and once the convention convenes, it is under the highest sovereign authority of a free country: the people.
(yeah right)

At that point the rules, procedures, and agenda are set by the convention.

Neither Congress nor the state legislatures have any authority or control over a convention once it is called to order.


Sorry but I don't want a rouge's gallery of leftists and RINOs determining our direction....They are fucking up things royally the way it is.
 
Last edited:
Republicans have control of the House ... have they sent any appropriations bills to the Senate? ... budgets are useless until spending is under control ... c'mon, conservatives, just ONE appropriations bill, prove you're better than liberals ...

" ... balanced budget ..." ... pfffft ... not since the Clinton Administration ...
 
I said yes 1,2,3,4 & 6. Yes for 6, except for things like the military. 4 shouldnt even be an issue but it is because the federal government is power hungry. 4 was meant to keep states in check, only. Make sure they arent doing messed up things. They shouldnt be controlling commerce.
 
Republicans have control of the House ... have they sent any appropriations bills to the Senate? ... budgets are useless until spending is under control ... c'mon, conservatives, just ONE appropriations bill, prove you're better than liberals ...
" ... balanced budget ..." ... pfffft ... not since the Clinton Administration ...
They passed most of them. If we don't balance the budget the dollar collapses. The Fitch downgrade was a final warning
 
I said yes 1,2,3,4 & 6. Yes for 6, except for things like the military. 4 shouldnt even be an issue but it is because the federal government is power hungry. 4 was meant to keep states in check, only. Make sure they arent doing messed up things. They shouldnt be controlling commerce.

Same vote as mine. I might have side issues here or there but simply voting as a general thing.
 
What's the point of this fantasy? Republicans don't control anything close to 38 state legislatures. They got close once, but due to their consistent disgusting behavior, they're not close now, and they'll never be close again.
 
What's the point of this fantasy? Republicans don't control anything close to 38 state legislatures. They got close once, but due to their consistent disgusting behavior, they're not close now, and they'll never be close again.
I wouldn't be so sure. Several of the proposed amendments are bi-partisan, that's the point. Don't you like ANY?
 
What's the point of this fantasy? Republicans don't control anything close to 38 state legislatures. They got close once, but due to their consistent disgusting behavior, they're not close now, and they'll never be close again.
#2 is a good idea. I think if this was proposed it would get ratified by Christmas and we can finally get past the liberal bellyaching about whether Joe or Kamala or President Cortez will pack the court.

Yeah...I said that to just get a chuckle. That is how crazy the idea is of putting enough judges on the court to get "your way". Nine is enough. That is enough intellectual horsepower. We should also make it where you age out at 70 or 75.
 
1. Bad idea. Florida has term limits. It's the most screwed up state of all.
2. Bad idea. The court needs to be bigger.
3. Awful idea. Cripples the ability of the government to fix a recession, as Biden did with the Trump recession.
4. Bad idea. Allows fascist states to play dictator.
5. Same
6. Worst idea. Turns over the peoples' land to whatever political hack bribes the state government.
 
Superficially, they all sound good to me. My mind could change, turning against many of them, based on finer details of each proposal, and what argument are made against them.

I used to be solidly against term limits, as I saw them as an unjustifiable violation of the right of the people to elect whichever candidates they chose. I have since come to perceive the that the inherent corruption of those who hold certain offices for too long is a greater hazard than that posed by denying the people the right to elect a candidate for an office that he has already held for too long.
 
Cripples the ability of the government to fix a recession, as Biden did with the Trump recession.

EveryoneLaughingAtYou-topaz-enhance-2048w.png
 
1. Bad idea. Florida has term limits. It's the most screwed up state of all.
2. Bad idea. The court needs to be bigger.
3. Awful idea. Cripples the ability of the government to fix a recession, as Biden did with the Trump recession.
4. Bad idea. Allows fascist states to play dictator.
5. Same
6. Worst idea. Turns over the peoples' land to whatever political hack bribes the state government.
1. OK, we disagree. CA and NY are the most screwed up states.
2. We disagree, more than 9 justices is simply unworkable. Adding justices never ends.
3. At a $32T Debt the government can't borrow any more. With a balanced budget there shouldn't be a recession.
4. But its okay for a fascist federal government to play dictator?
5. same
6. same
 
What's the point of this fantasy? Republicans don't control anything close to 38 state legislatures. They got close once, but due to their consistent disgusting behavior, they're not close now, and they'll never be close again.
When brainless hacks like manboob grunt out such hogwash to voice opposition, you have a “tell.” It might be a good idea, after all.

I support a Convention of the States. And I happen to believe that the States can condition their agreement to a Convention of the States on the command that the amendments which can be considered be limited to just those authorized by them.
 
1. Bad idea. Florida has term limits. It's the most screwed up state of all.
ROFL! California is the most screwed up state of all.

2. Bad idea. The court needs to be bigger.
Why?

3. Awful idea. Cripples the ability of the government to fix a recession, as Biden did with the Trump recession.
Government never fixes recessions. It only makes the next one worse

4. Bad idea. Allows fascist states to play dictator.
states shouldn't be allowed to create tariffs on goods from other states.

That's a great idea.

6. Worst idea. Turns over the peoples' land to whatever political hack bribes the state government.
The governent shouldn't be owning any land except what it needs for the military, courts, etc.
 
My opinion...

Watch what you ask for you just might get it.

There is no restriction on the outcomes of a Convention. Some people think a convention can be limited to specific questions. Not true, once convened the Convention sets it's own agenda.
.
.
.
.
[BTW - we don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. JMHO of course.]

WW
 
My opinion...
Watch what you ask for you just might get it.
There is no restriction on the outcomes of a Convention. Some people think a convention can be limited to specific questions. Not true, once convened the Convention sets it's own agenda.
.[BTW - we don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. JMHO of course.]

WW
Actually this COS has a very strict agenda.
Several states insisted on it to be sure that the 2nd Amendment couldn't be affected.
 
My opinion...

Watch what you ask for you just might get it.

There is no restriction on the outcomes of a Convention. Some people think a convention can be limited to specific questions. Not true, once convened the Convention sets it's own agenda.
.
.
.
.
[BTW - we don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. JMHO of course.]

WW
All amendments have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. There's no danger of a "runaway convention."
 

Forum List

Back
Top