We Seriously Need an Article Five Constitutional Amendment Convention

[busybee01]

LEFTIST ACTIVIST Chief Justice Robbers just cast the swing vote that not only makes DACA - an edict issued by Obama, never authored or passed by Congress - the law of the land but also set the precedence to allow the Executive Branch to by-pass Congress to create / impose laws.

WTF?!

Barry declared if Congress did not act to pass this law he would do so himself. Roberts just helped Barry officially get awAy with it.


.

You are a bad joke. Roberts supports Trump nearly every time yet that is not good enough. You demand 100% fealty. The government made a contract with DACA recipients. The government did not account for that. That is what the court said. If Trump had grandfathered them in then he might have won.

 

[busybee01]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Yes,
But you are a far left wing lunatic.
Makes sense.

Oppoxsing Trump does not make you a far left lunatic. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Repunlican Party. It also means that 55% of voters are left wing lunatics. You are the lunatic.

 

[Billiejeens]

I'd swear to God someone has a picture of Chief Judge Roberts at Epstein island.

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

No, you are wrong in that, Roberts was as advertised, one reason his handler, Obama, cannot rely on him(at least at this moment in time)to specifically undo Heller, is because Roberts came in on the right side of heller, and voted in favor of the original intent of the 2nd amendment! Thus, Roberts treachery would be instantly revealed to the entire nartion if he were to suddenly just reverse his course, which BTW he just did do in large part, this last week by siding with the radical leftist activist side of the court in allowing naked lower court infringements to stand by refusing to hear the cases, and thus thrusting open wide the doors for the repeal of Heller! See how treason works? No, Roberts was successfully blackmailed prior to the release of the original Obamacare smackdown in which he had authored the smackdown of Obamacare himself!

We know he was turned because Antonin Scalia issued a scathing dissenting opinion calling him out, wherein he savaged the middle school quality of the rewrite of it into a tax just 30-days out from release of the decision, a decision which had actually long since been decided months previously! The rest is history, Roberts takes his marching orders from Obama, who succeeded in blackmailing him! This is irrefutable, we now know that Obama was spying on everyone via totally corrupted NSA & CIA mechanisms, and that Obama had greatly expanded the National Security Council, filling it with subversive leftist radicals like the infamous Col Vinndeman. Obama and the democratic fascist party control the United States to this very moment, we are their serfs!

I got a little stuck at Obama being Roberts Handler- in the first line.
What?

 

[Billiejeens]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Yes,
But you are a far left wing lunatic.
Makes sense.

Oppoxsing Trump does not make you a far left lunatic. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Repunlican Party.

You are not Reagan - FOCUS
you are a left wing lunatic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And I will say this...a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited or controlled. It can do as it pleases and you know very well the left will seize control of it.

They will try of course, but if the coming election this year is as lop[sided as I think it is, we wont have a problem packing the convention with American Patriots that will prevent the Marxists taking over.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Recent rulings by the Supreme Court basically exemplifies why an Article 5 convention is required to put things back into good order.

I dare say, the outcome of convention under Article V, may, and probably would, make all those things legal, which we know are not legal under our existing Constitution.

I agree with James Madison’s warning and reasons against calling a convention under Article V:

”… 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

JWK


Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote in 1988, “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “

Dont forget that any amendment that came out of such a convention would still ahve to be approved by two thirds of the states.

There could be a runaway convention, but state ratification would negate any harm done.

 

[Rye Catcher]

A balanced budget bill is a fools errand. A better solution is to provide The President of the United States with the Line-Item Veto, a veto which can be overruled by The Congress. Many states have it, and it will put both a President and the Leadership in both chambers in a hot seat.

I strongly supported the Line-Item veto until Donald Trump became President. Trump is vindictive and would use the blue pencil to punish Governors who don't agree with him, and in turn punish their citizens. Trump is an empty suit and has zero sense of empathy.

 

[excalibur]

Sadly, in the end, it would fail. Because three-fourths of the states would have to ratify any amendments proposed and I can't see that happening. I guess it is worth the shot but I don't hold out much hope that anything solid would come out of it.

 

[excalibur]

Dont forget that any amendment that came out of such a convention would still ahve to be approved by two thirds of the states.

There could be a runaway convention, but state ratification would negate any harm done.

You need three-quarters of the states, 38 states, to ratify any proposed amendment. And that means anything of value will never get ratified.

 

[Billiejeens]

A balanced budget bill is a fools errand. A better solution is to provide The President of the United States with the Line-Item Veto, a veto which can be overruled by The Congress. Many states have it, and it will put both a President and the Leadership in both chambers in a hot seat.

I strongly supported the Line-Item veto until Donald Trump became President. Trump is vindictive and would use the blue pencil to punish Governors who don't agree with him, and in turn punish their citizens. Trump is an empty suit and has zero sense of empathy.

It's these type of posts that assure others that you are simply a retard with no sense of right and wrong or consistency.

 

[Billiejeens]

Dont forget that any amendment that came out of such a convention would still ahve to be approved by two thirds of the states.

There could be a runaway convention, but state ratification would negate any harm done.

You need three-quarters of the states, 38 states, to ratify any proposed amendment. And that means anything of value will never get ratified.

One just needs a person who will be shielded from being stopped due to the color of their skin who has a phone and a pen to pass E.O's, its been done and it has been shown to have repeatable results.

 

[Billiejeens]

"I strongly supported the Line-Item veto until Donald Trump became President. Trump is vindictive and would use the blue pencil to punish Governors who don't agree with him, and in turn punish their citizens "

Stated with no proof of that, while ignoring eight years of exactly that type of retribution previously.
One can not make up how stupid some of you people are.

 

[johnwk]

Dont forget that any amendment that came out of such a convention would still ahve to be approved by two thirds of the states.

There could be a runaway convention, but state ratification would negate any harm done.

Yes, indeed, their could be, and more likely than not, would be a "runaway convention". As Madison warned us ”… 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

Aside from that, you seem quite confident that "state ratification would negate any harm done".

What happens, for example, after a sufficient number of states call for a convention and a dispute over how many delegates each state may send erupts? Some may demand an equal number while some states may demand delegates be allotted by the rule of apportionment. Would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court who answers the question?

Or, if the convention decides to ignore the three fourths ratification protection and changes it to a simple majority needed to ratify what the convention dreams up, who, may I ask, decides if that is "constitutional"? Keep in mind the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States, and they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it!

The simple truth is, there are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention. But in the final analysis, it appears that Congress and our tyrannical Supreme Court ___ the very evil actors who ignore our existing Constitution and cause our miseries ___ would have extraordinary manipulative powers over the whole Article V Convention process.

JWK

 

[JimBowie1958]

What happens, for example, after a sufficient number of states call for a convention and a dispute over how many delegates each state may send erupts? Some may demand an equal number while some states may demand delegates be allotted by the rule of apportionment. Would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court who answers the question?

Or, if the convention decides to ignore the three fourths ratification protection and changes it to a simple majority needed to ratify what the convention dreams up, who, may I ask, decides if that is "constitutional"?

Nothing coming out of said convention would take effect unless 3/4 states ratify, which means if a change in adopting an amendment were proposed it would not be implemented until 3/4 of the states ratify it.

 

[busybee01]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Yes,
But you are a far left wing lunatic.
Makes sense.

Oppoxsing Trump does not make you a far left lunatic. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Repunlican Party.

You are not Reagan - FOCUS
you are a left wing lunatic.

You are a motherfucking asshole who has no clue what they are talking about. I was proud to vote for Ronald Reagan and see him in person. I am a conservative who has not sold his soul. Again 55% or so of Americans agree with me. They are not all left wing lunatics.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Roberts was compromised by obama. He spied on the sc.

 

[johnwk]

Nothing coming out of said convention would take effect unless 3/4 states ratify, which means if a change in adopting an amendment were proposed it would not be implemented until 3/4 of the states ratify it.

The only example we have regarding that question is the Convention of 1787.

Keep in mind the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States, and they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it, thereby ignoring the rule under the Articles of Confederation.

JWK

 

[JimBowie1958]

Keep in mind the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that the Articles of Confederation could not be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States, and they decided that the new constitution would become effective if a mere nine States ratified it, thereby ignoring the rule under the Articles of Confederation.

They calculated that nine states would be enough to make a new nation, and the other four could go independent or whatever they chose to do.

But all 13 ratified the new Constitution, so no problemo.

 

[DOTR]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Yes,
But you are a far left wing lunatic.
Makes sense.

Oppoxsing Trump does not make you a far left lunatic. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Repunlican Party.

You are not Reagan - FOCUS
you are a left wing lunatic.

You are a motherfucking asshole who has no clue what they are talking about. I was proud to vote for Ronald Reagan and see him in person. I am a conservative who has not sold his soul. Again 55% or so of Americans agree with me. They are not all left wing lunatics.

Only left wing lunatics don’t support President trump.

 

[Billiejeens]

Or based on Previous Bad Picks by Republican Presidents -

He simply is not as advertised.

For some reason the Democrats literally never have that problem.

Democrats are fixed on their version of America and never waiver. At any rate Roberts was a George Bush pick....
one globalist selecting another.
The media has promoted this rock ribbed conservative version of Roberts in order to make sure his selection was secured, just the way they fictionalized Robert Mueller as this ex Marine, square shooting, fair minded inquisitor when that was anything but true.

The media lied again and the right got the Charlie Brown treatment.

Roberts supports Trump nearly every time. Yet that is not good enough for Trump and his supporters. Roberts still supports Trump too much in my book.

Yes,
But you are a far left wing lunatic.
Makes sense.

Oppoxsing Trump does not make you a far left lunatic. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Repunlican Party.

You are not Reagan - FOCUS
you are a left wing lunatic.

You are a motherfucking asshole who has no clue what they are talking about. I was proud to vote for Ronald Reagan and see him in person. I am a conservative who has not sold his soul. Again 55% or so of Americans agree with me. They are not all left wing lunatics.

You're not
President Trump has Governed Conservatively - on a par with Ronald Reagan.
If you were a Conservative you would be pleased with Trump.
You may be a fake Conservative in the mold of Bill Kristol (and his ilk) who supposedly wanted all the things that President Trump is doing, until President Trump started doing them.