Why We Need a Constitutional Convention NOW

It depends on what you put into it. I think using the opportunity to then set term limits on both houses would be a a great start. We need to make sure our politicians are not elected into office and than stay there for the rest of their lives. Make sure that if they do not keep their oath during their tenure that they are removed at once. We can use it to abolish certain departments the first would be for me anyway the Department of Education.
The sad part about this is that any state ran by the left will never vote for a convention of states. I believe there are already a number of states that will vote for a convention of states, and we only need a handful more.
South Carolina just became the 19th state to call for a COS. Six states have had it pass one house of their legislature. Its up for consideration in 21 states in 2022.

Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments goes into detail on 11 Amendments which should be up for discussion. A good read.

1. Term Limits
2. Repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the States
3. Term limits for the Supreme Court
4. Limit federal spending
5. Limit taxation
6. Limit the federal bureaucracy
7. Limit Congress's power to regulate commerce
8. Protect private property
9. Give states authority to directly amend the Constitution
10. Give states authority to check Congress
11. Protect the vote

To these eleven I would add another :
12. An amendment to provide adequate representation for citizens by limiting the population size of congressional districts to 30,000 citizens per district.
 
The rightists just want to be left alone? SINCE WHEN?

Why don’t you leave others alone?
Why don't you give your mindless generalities a rest and provide relevant argument instead? Let me give you some examples: Virtually all of the Covid mandates have been pushed on the general population by the Left. I don't give a damn if you vaccinate, mask and quarantine yourself forever, but why do you want to force those procedures on me?

Why do you want to curtail my freedom of speech? Why do you want to limit what kind of car I drive? Why do you want to control how much rent I can ask for? Why do you want to monitor my bank account? Why do you want to control what my grandchildren are taught in school?

Get the picture yet? Now let's talk about me. I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't harm children or the disabled. And don't give me any of your "right to choose" abortion BS. The entire question in that issue is the definition of (human) "children," You may debate this question but after that, the right to decide someone else's life becomes irrelevant.

You got any other examples of how I want to control you? I didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Name them.
Same sex marriage is legal (despite your debunked claims of we “just want to be left alone”). Woman aren’t barred from any occupations. They can’t be fired for being pregnant. Jim Crowe is over and there are a whole lot of rights wrapped up in there. Women have a right to privacy in their medical decisions. It is not illegal for married couples to get birth control.
 
South Carolina just became the 19th state to call for a COS. Six states have had it pass one house of their legislature. Its up for consideration in 21 states in 2022.

Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments goes into detail on 11 Amendments which should be up for discussion. A good read.

1. Term Limits
2. Repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the States
3. Term limits for the Supreme Court
4. Limit federal spending
5. Limit taxation
6. Limit the federal bureaucracy
7. Limit Congress's power to regulate commerce
8. Protect private property
9. Give states authority to directly amend the Constitution
10. Give states authority to check Congress
11. Protect the vote

To these eleven I would add another :
12. An amendment to provide adequate representation for citizens by limiting the population size of congressional districts to 30,000 citizens per district.
Give states tbe authority to directly amend the Constitution? What exactly does that mean?
 
You have to eliminate the "means" by which the Constitution is abused. People are free to believe whatever they please and are free to advocate for their beliefs. They just can't be allowed to politicize their beliefs if unconstitutional. We know how to prevent this by amending the Constitution.
Such as how?
 
Same sex marriage is legal (despite your debunked claims of we “just want to be left alone”). Woman aren’t barred from any occupations. They can’t be fired for being pregnant. Jim Crowe is over and there are a whole lot of rights wrapped up in there. Women have a right to privacy in their medical decisions. It is not illegal for married couples to get birth control.
You don't have "more" rights than 60 years ago. People always had these rights, they just weren't being protected. One of the limited responsibilities granted government is to protect our Rights.

Rights are not granted by governments. And, you cannot have a Right if it means taking away someone else's Rights.

An example of this is, employers have an inalienable right to hire and fire anyone for any reason. This is grounded in an individual's fundamental Right to Freedom of Choice.

Now, government can forcibly prevent the exercise of a fundamental Right by enacting laws and backing up the law by the use of force, but any subsequent replacement is not a "fundamental" Right. If a so called "right" can only be enforced by the use of government force, you know it is not a true Right.

What we have had is a fundamental failure of government and a failure in understanding the nature of Rights.
 
Such as how?
I'll go way back in time to the 1960's when conservative Christians had a strangle hold on many local governments, and state governments, and made it illegal to operate a business on Sundays. So called Blue Laws were unconstitutional. Now, they had a 1st Amendment right to advocate against operating a business on the sabbath, but did not have a right to use government to force their beliefs on others.
 
I'll go way back in time to the 1960's when conservative Christians had a strangle hold on many local governments, and state governments, and made it illegal to operate a business on Sundays. So called Blue Laws were unconstitutional. Now, they had a 1st Amendment right to advocate against operating a business on the sabbath, but did not have a right to use government to force their beliefs on others.
I see what you mean now.
 
Give states tbe authority to directly amend the Constitution? What exactly does that mean?
An amendment whereby 2/3's of state legislatures may adopt amendments to the Constitution. Such amendments must be identical in subject and in wording.
 
There are several problems with an Article V convention. Even if 2/3 of the states agree to go, it would mean *everything* in the Constitution would be on the table; considering how contentious it is these days just to get an infrastructure bill passed, I can't imagine that being anything but an enormous mess with unintended consequences for decades, if not centuries.

The other problem is that it cuts out the population-based House of Representatives from essentially restructuring the whole nation. The populations of California, Texas, Florida, and New York combined would have only four votes' worth of input, while the equivalent population from the bottom up totals about 35 states.
 
There are several problems with an Article V convention. Even if 2/3 of the states agree to go, it would mean *everything* in the Constitution would be on the table; considering how contentious it is these days just to get an infrastructure bill passed, I can't imagine that being anything but an enormous mess with unintended consequences for decades, if not centuries.
This is a lie being spread by the George Soros led opposition. The Application calling for a COS must be the same for all the States. The delegates will be able to narrow the scope as defined in the applications, but cannot broaden the topic beyond that identified in the 34 passed applications.
The other problem is that it cuts out the population-based House of Representatives from essentially restructuring the whole nation. The populations of California, Texas, Florida, and New York combined would have only four votes' worth of input, while the equivalent population from the bottom up totals about 35 states.
This is correct, each state, although they may have multiple delegates, has only one vote when voting up or down on the amendments.

The "population" is not "cut out". For the Amendments to be ratified after being proposed by the convention, they must be voted on by the legislatures of all 50 States.

The big lie is that the Convention is altering or amending the Constitution. This is not true, they are only proposing amendments which must be ratified as has all amendments since 1787.
 
I believe that we are rapidly approaching a vanishing point with respect to peaceful resolution of our political differences. It is clear that the Left wants to impose its will over the entire country, whereas the Right wants to be left alone to control its own destiny. That is why the Left opposes any type of political separation or self-determination while the Right generally supports these ideas.

The U.S. Constitution specifies a procedure for Amendment, either through Congress or by the States themselves. Because of rampant gerrymandering of House districts and the nationalization of Senate campaigns, the Congressional approach is no longer feasible. Instead, only a Constitutional Convention called for by 2/3 of State legislatures has any hope of settling our differences without physical conflict.

Since the core issue is political control, it seems that an agreement that allows each side to exercise democratic authority over areas of common interest would seem to be the best alternative to the current situation. This could be accomplished by establishing the authority of individual States to veto federal legislation that directly affects them. Such vetos could then be overridden by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Congress.

Comments/alternatives?
I agree with your concern about gerrymandering but until there is a non-partisan way of setting up House districts, this will only lead to worse division.
 
I agree with your concern about gerrymandering but until there is a non-partisan way of setting up House districts, this will only lead to worse division.
This is easily rectified by an amendment to limit the population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (+/-) citizens per district.
 
This is easily rectified by an amendment to limit the population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (+/-) citizens per district.
Wouldn't that result in 10,000+ Representatives? Aren't smaller districts are easier to gerrymander?
 
Same sex marriage is legal (despite your debunked claims of we “just want to be left alone”). Woman aren’t barred from any occupations. They can’t be fired for being pregnant. Jim Crowe is over and there are a whole lot of rights wrapped up in there. Women have a right to privacy in their medical decisions. It is not illegal for married couples to get birth control.
None of your examples "debunk" any of my claims. Try again?

P.S. How do you define "same sex" marriage? Do you use the same definition for women's sports?
 
None of your examples "debunk" any of my claims. Try again?

P.S. How do you define "same sex" marriage? Do you use the same definition for women's sports?
Do you know what definition I use for women's sports or do you just thnk you do?
 
Do you know what definition I use for women's sports or do you just thnk you do?
No, that is why I asked. How does it compare with your definition of "same-sex" marriage?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top