We need a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution. What amendments do you support?

What constitutional amendments would you like to put up for the Convention of States to consider?

  • Election Reform, only US citizens, ID required, signature matching, mail-in by excuse only, etc.

    Votes: 15 57.7%
  • Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war,

    Votes: 15 57.7%
  • To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution

    Votes: 9 34.6%
  • To allow the President a "line item veto"

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • To set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices.

    Votes: 14 53.8%
  • Social Security must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits

    Votes: 10 38.5%
  • New one, see my post

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • Total voters
    26
One question was not yet resolved.
Can a legally approved Amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the USSC?
I don't see where the USSC can reject the Convention of States amendments, neither does the House, Senate, nor President.
Any new COS Amendment is by definition "constitutional", correct?
 
0845DD2B-D4A2-4FD7-8905-B5114EA1178E.jpeg
 
The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass. So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution. Not an impossible task.
The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

So what new amendments would you support? I'll start the ball rolling with a few in a poll.

The Pledge of Allegiance is part of the Flag Code which is advisory only. You can say it any way you want.
 
Just thought of another one. TERM LIMITS. We need more turnover in the House and Senate.
I think the constitution should allow for recall of members of Congress by a simple majority vote of his constituents. We can get rid of Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
 
I think the constitution should allow for recall of members of Congress by a simple majority vote of his constituents. We can get rid of Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
Like Nancy said, "this democrat glass of water could beat ANY Republican in her (AOC's) district. Those morons sent Amazon's HQ2 from NYC to VA, that's how stupid they are, same with Bernie, Ilhan, Nancy, and Chuckie.
 
Get rid of the privately owned Federal Reserve who prints the Fiat Currency. If keeping a Fiat Currency, then give it back to the people. Let the government control the whole process. Change the name of the Federal Reserve Note into a United States Note or so. But that would mean we are a sovereign and free nation. We reduce the middle man. Jesus spoke about money changers. Those who forgot the teachings at that time. We can forgive a percentage of debt with that and make the interest more palatable for loans in a responsible way. Of course the new people involved will have to be honorable. And laws passed to keep them that way. We won't of course. For there are many corrupted and involved with the globalist movement.
 
What we have work, we have seen it work.

The real problem is not enough politicians pay attention to the constitution and when they do they are fucking with it or ignoring it, or give it unintended meaning.

The country works, we just need to leave it alone and let it work like it's supposed to.
 
The constitution that is currently in effect is held in abeyance daily. Why would anyone be deluded enough to think new changes will be treated differently?
Give a few examples of what is held in abeyance.
The courts generally decide what must be followed or not.
For example, sanctuary states and sanctuary cities apparently can violate immigration laws.
 
As a new member, I haven't yet read all the posts in this thread. But this topic is covered in detail in Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments. It's a good read with 11 essential amendments we need to restore our republic :
1, Term Limits
2, Repeal of the 17th Amendment
3, Term Limits for the Supreme Court
4, Limits on Federal spending
5, Limits on Taxation
6, Limits on the Federal Bureaucracy
7, Limits on Congress's power to regulate Commerce
8, Protection of Private Property
9, Give States the power to check Congress
10, Give States the power to directly Amend the Constitution
11, Protecting the Vote

To these 11 Amendments, I would add one more :
12, An Amendment to provide adequate representation for citizens by limiting the population size of Congressional Districts to 30,000 per District.
 
Those same type of libtards run the state legislatures, so you will never accomplish any of your goals.
So we shouldn't try to save our Freedom? Congress will never do what is necessary.

With the progress already made toward calling a COS, it is in the realm of possibility that a COS may actually be convened. And I agree it may be difficult to achieve much. But a few amendments, such as term limits for one, could be passed and then actually ratified by the states.

So I disagree that no goals will be accomplished.

Consider America's continued political decline since the Reagan Revolution; and what is your thoughts on where the U.S. will be, politically, in another 30 years?
 
...The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either...
An interesting idea and one I've considered, and haven't completely dismissed. But if government could be restrained, then broadening the franchise wouldn't be so damaging.
 
Last edited:
... So there are three on your laundry list that make sense. That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want.
Not true. Perhaps you need to review Civics 101. Any amendments coming out of a COS would have to be ratified by 38 states. And if 38 states ratify, then the changes are wanted.
 
1. The democrats are pushing their "voter fraud special" Bill, HR-1. I want to vaccinate elections from HR-1 with an Amendment. My argument is that the State Legislatures will be the ones approving the Election Law Amendment, so that sounds Constitutional to me. The Constitution doesn't say that the House and Senate shall make election laws, but that State Legislatures may.

2. A Balanced Budget Amendment means that Federal income and expenditures need to be about equal. One possible solution, it's a little old, but goes something like:
Here are recommendations to cut spending and raise revenue to start paying down the $30T Debt
  • Hire another "Grace Commission" to audit and fix the Federal budget deficit

  • B. Cut Spending: [CUT $625b a year]
    1. Cut defense to 2017 levels of $600b until the Debt is reduced, saving $150b
    2. Cut foreign aid $55b (until Debt is paid we can't borrow to give money away)
    3. Cut Welfare $200b & Medicaid $200b (about half)
    4. Cut education $20b (state responsibility)


    US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing
    Current US Defense Spending:
    Year Military Veterans Foreign Aid Total Defense
    2017 $598.70 billion $178.00 billion
    $46.30 billion $823.00 billion
    2018 $631.20 billion $180.40 billion $49.00 billion $860.50 billion
    2019 $684.60 billion $202.10 billion $54.30 billion $941.00 billion
    2020 $737.90 billion $219.20 billion $53.10 billion $1.00 trillion

  • To cover the $1Tb budget deficit the following taxes need to be raised:
    1. Raise the top tax rate about 7% above 2016 levels +$400b
    2. Implement a new 3% Fed sales tax +$400b
    3. Implement a new transaction tax on all stocks & bonds
    Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions | Congressional Budget Office +$100b
    4. Implement a new remittances tax/fee on all money sent out of the US
    Taxing Remittances Can Build the Wall 2% of $140b is +$3b a year

  • Reform entitlements, Medicare & Social Security, currently projected to be insolvent:

3. Just for argument's sake say USSC Justices (80), Senators (75), and House members (70). That could be phased in over several years so that only a 5% turnover happens. I agree that Term Limits is currently unconstitutional, the courts already said that. But wouldn't a new Constitutional Amendment "Trump" the courts' opinion???
Giving you a thumbs up for the thoughtfulness of the post, although I don't agree with everything; and won't take time now to address individual points.
 

Forum List

Back
Top