Secession. States Rights. A Post Constitutional Period? Answers Here!

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Secession. States Rights. A Post Constitutional Period? Answers Here!

This is what you've been looking for but didn't know it!

In less than seven minutes you will be hooked.


This is the answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,452
Points
2,165
Nope. Elections have consequences. The only answer is to win elections.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,427
Reaction score
4,048
Points
1,130
I would support Amendments for:

Balanced budget.

Set Term limits on Congress Critters.

Limit electioneering to within a month of any given election.

Congress to live by the same laws as the rest of us.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,607
Reaction score
38,529
Points
2,190
Mark Levin?


I don't think so
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I would support Amendments for:

Balanced budget.

Set Term limits on Congress Critters.

Limit electioneering to within a month of any given election.

Congress to live by the same laws as the rest of us.
I actually oppose almost all those things.
Deficit spending can be an important tool. Of corse now it is out of hand. But that's another problem.
Term limits denies the people the services of the most talented representatives. Yeah, some assholes have overstayed their welcome but I would rather let the people decide.
Limiting electioneering is first off an abridgement of 1A rights. Second, it gives the incumbent an edge since he gets free airtime with news stories.
I support prohibiting Congress from self-dealing.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Secession. States Rights. A Post Constitutional Period? Answers Here!

This is what you've been looking for but didn't know it!

In less than seven minutes you will be hooked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gv...is so crazy it leaves when breathless:cuckoo:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,119
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
We dont need secession. We need a convention of states
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Secession. States Rights. A Post Constitutional Period? Answers Here!

This is what you've been looking for but didn't know it!

In less than seven minutes you will be hooked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gv...til you consult your puppet masters. :lol:
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Mark Levin?


I don't think so
No???

Well how do you FEEL (a little joke there...at your expense) about George Mason?

He's the one who INSISTED the Constitution include this remedy.
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Nope. Elections have consequences. The only answer is to win elections.
So, you are smarter than our founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution, eh?

:lol:

You fail.

As usual.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
To me the most pressing need is reining in Congressional power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. That poor thing has been so abused it can mean anything anymore.
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
History

To guard against oppressive government of any kind, the authors of the United States Constitution sought to establish institutional checks and balances.

In framing the Constitution as the fundamental embodiment of such safeguards, the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia in 1787,[6] at the invitation of the Continental Congress.[7]

That is the last time a federal constitutional convention has convened in the United States.


Creation of the amendment process


One of the main reasons for the 1787 Convention was that the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for the national government to take action. This system had proved unworkable, and the newly-written Constitution sought to address this problem.

The first proposal for a method of amending the Constitution offered in the Constitutional Convention, contained in the Virginia Plan, sought to circumvent the national legislature, stating that "the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required."[8] In response, Alexander Hamilton privately circulated a proposal that gave the power to propose amendments to the national legislature, and the power to ratify the amendments to the states.[9]

After some debate, James Madison removed reference to the convention amendment process, giving the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments whenever it thought necessary or when two-thirds of the states applied to the national legislature.[10] Several delegates voiced opposition to the idea of the national legislature retaining sole power to propose constitutional amendments.[11] George Mason argued from the floor of the Convention that it "would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account." Mason added that, "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive."[12] In response to these concerns, the Convention unanimously voted to add the language allowing states to apply to Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.[11]

James Madison did not oppose reintroducing language permitting the convention amendment process, but expressed prescient concerns about the lack of detail in Article V regarding how the convention amendment process would work. Madison stated that "difficulties might arise as to the form" a convention would take.[13] The text of Article V referring to the convention amendment process reads: "The Congress, . . . on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments. . . ."
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,427
Reaction score
4,048
Points
1,130
I would support Amendments for:

Balanced budget.

Set Term limits on Congress Critters.

Limit electioneering to within a month of any given election.

Congress to live by the same laws as the rest of us.
I actually oppose almost all those things.
Deficit spending can be an important tool. Of corse now it is out of hand. But that's another problem.
Term limits denies the people the services of the most talented representatives. Yeah, some assholes have overstayed their welcome but I would rather let the people decide.
Limiting electioneering is first off an abridgement of 1A rights. Second, it gives the incumbent an edge since he gets free airtime with news stories.
I support prohibiting Congress from self-dealing.
Deficit spend only in case of a war or other national emergency (recession, natural disasters).

Incumbency rates over 90% with approval rating under 15%. Incumbent already have a huge edge.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I would support Amendments for:

Balanced budget.

Set Term limits on Congress Critters.

Limit electioneering to within a month of any given election.

Congress to live by the same laws as the rest of us.
I actually oppose almost all those things.
Deficit spending can be an important tool. Of corse now it is out of hand. But that's another problem.
Term limits denies the people the services of the most talented representatives. Yeah, some assholes have overstayed their welcome but I would rather let the people decide.
Limiting electioneering is first off an abridgement of 1A rights. Second, it gives the incumbent an edge since he gets free airtime with news stories.
I support prohibiting Congress from self-dealing.
Deficit spend only in case of a war or other national emergency (recession, natural disasters).

Incumbency rates over 90% with approval rating under 15%. Incumbent already have a huge edge.
We agree ojn the first point.
On the second point your solution is to make the problem worse?
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
Mark Levin?


I don't think so
No???

Well how do you FEEL (a little joke there...at your expense) about George Mason?

He's the one who INSISTED the Constitution include this remedy.
He refused to ratify the Constitution, so on this subject, I feel rather meh :eusa_whistle:
Didn't he refuse to ratify it WITHOUT the inclusion of Article 5?

Article 5 is precisely the mechanism we are discussing here. The subject of this thread.

He wanted to make sure that when this current situation arose that we would have a recourse to an oppressive federal government.
 
OP
Mojo2

Mojo2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2013
Messages
6,210
Reaction score
1,017
Points
190
this is so crazy it leaves when breathless:cuckoo:
I wish YOU'D be rendered breathless and then leave.

But, seriously, you are too breathless to get enough oxygen to your feminized mind to figure out a fitting rebuttal.

We'll just have to wait until you consult your puppet masters.

:lol:
Puppet masters? see? :cuckoo:


do you know how crazy you act?
That's the way.

Accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of.

Textbook liberal bullshit tactics.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
33,427
Reaction score
4,048
Points
1,130
I actually oppose almost all those things.
Deficit spending can be an important tool. Of corse now it is out of hand. But that's another problem.
Term limits denies the people the services of the most talented representatives. Yeah, some assholes have overstayed their welcome but I would rather let the people decide.
Limiting electioneering is first off an abridgement of 1A rights. Second, it gives the incumbent an edge since he gets free airtime with news stories.
I support prohibiting Congress from self-dealing.
Deficit spend only in case of a war or other national emergency (recession, natural disasters).

Incumbency rates over 90% with approval rating under 15%. Incumbent already have a huge edge.
We agree ojn the first point.
On the second point your solution is to make the problem worse?
Combined with term limits I don't think it would make it worse than it is now, imo.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top