2016 may produce a convention that our poloticians didn't expect

[SteelChip]

I have heard the drums beating from across the holler for some time, but I didn't think that they were that serious or that organized.

A Grassroots Effort to Amend the Constitution

A group of activists are building a network with the goal of amending the Constitution by calling a convention of the states. Mark Meckler helped organize one of the first Tea Party protests on Feb. 27, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. By March of that year Meckler and a group of other activists founded the Tea Party Patriots. Meckler left the Tea Party Patriots in early 2012, and in April of that year he formed Citizens for Self-Governance. Today Meckler and Citizens for Self-Governance are undertaking a grassroots campaign to force Congress to call a convention of states and amend the constitution.

“I think it’s self evident that Congress will never propose anything that restrains its own power or actually restrains the federal government in any way,” Meckler said. “Today 66 percent of Americans say that the federal government is too big so that’s not even partisan. Ask people on the left. Ask people on the right. They think D.C.’s out of control.”

“We’re proposing, specifically, restrictions on the scope, power, and jurisdiction of the federal government, fiscal restrictions on the federal government, and term limits on the federal government.”

“We were told in the beginning of the home schooling movement that we could never overcome the National Education Association, which was the biggest lobbying group in every state. Well, in state after state after state we beat them. We out hustled them. We out worked them. We were right on the issues and we believed that God blessed.”

“We think the same combination of things are possible here.”

Currently three states have passed their application bills and 26 states are considering them. Meckler said he plans to have the convention of states grassroots organization fully built out, with a volunteer district captain in each targeted district, by the end of the year.

“I’m trying to be realistic and I think we can get it done in 2016,” Meckler said. “I think 2016 would be a great year for a convention. It would be awesome to have a convention going during a presidential race.”
http://freebeacon.us4.list-manage.c...1bb9bfafcbd472bee2&id=34d9fac60b&e=1b60289474

 

[DBS1970]

Maybe this attempt will be successful. The other numerous times it hasn't been. It seems like the only way an amendment gets made is if it EXPANDS FedGov INC.

 

[Steelr4evr]

We need this so bad it's not even funny. The power tit in Washington has grown massive,oppressive and controlling way beyond what the founding fathers envisioned. In fact hey warned us about this ****.

 

[Vis]

A Constitutional Convention, once called, can do anything. Who decides who goes representing each state? Who decides what it can address or how it decides what it ultimately does decide? The people there decide it all for themselves. Will they be power hungry politicians or some mythical altruistic Constitutional scholars?

 

[ark steel]

A Constitutional Convention, once called, can do anything. Who decides who goes representing each state? Who decides what it can address or how it decides what it ultimately does decide? The people there decide it all for themselves. Will they be power hungry politicians or some mythical altruistic Constitutional scholars?

I think we all know who it will be and the result is, likely, to be a disaster.

 

[ark steel]

We don't need a new constitution, we need elected representatives that give a **** about the one we have.

 

[Vis]

I think we all know who it will be and the result is, likely, to be a disaster.

Right. We don't like politicians stretching their limits so we'll do the one thing that takes all the limits off of them in hopes they create greater and stronger limits.

 

[Spike]

“We’re proposing, specifically, restrictions on the scope, power, and jurisdiction of the federal government, fiscal restrictions on the federal government, and term limits on the federal government.”

That sounds like more than one amendment. - good luck with that



'Since the Bill of Rights and the first 10 amendments passed in 1791, only 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution. And one of those, the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition, was repealed. The last amendment passed was the 27th Amendment, which was ratified in 1992. It bars Congress from giving itself a pay raise during its current session.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

The bar is high for a proposed amendment to make it to the ratification process. In all, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed in congressional history, according to the Senate’s historian. Just 37 proposed amendments were approved by Congress for submission to the states; 27 were approved including the Bill of Rights; one amendment in the original Bill of Rights was rejected; and six others congressionally-approved amendments weren’t ratified by the states'


States have made the requests in differing forms, with some calling to confine such a convention to specific amendments, such as one requiring a balanced federal budget.

For example, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire called for a convention in the 1970s, and all later rescinded the requests. While they were not the only states to rescind the measure, since 2010 the four states have again called for a convention to specifically deal with a balanced-budget amendment.

The resulting confusion, and lack of clear guidance in the Constitution, will have to be sorted out by the congressional leadership since Article 5 says that Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments" when requested by enough states.

Under Article 5 of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation's founding document.

The other method — by which all previous constitutional amendments have been initiated — requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Ratifying amendments then require three-fourths of the states to approve.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/constitutional-convention-Boehner-balanced-budget/2014/04/11/id/565155/

 

[DBS1970]

A Constitutional Convention, once called, can do anything. Who decides who goes representing each state? Who decides what it can address or how it decides what it ultimately does decide? The people there decide it all for themselves. Will they be power hungry politicians or some mythical altruistic Constitutional scholars?

The answer to that is the states send delegates that aren't Pols and refuse to ratify anything that expands the power of FedGov Inc. I think there is a massive need to hit the reset button though. We need to put a hard spending limit in place, forbid an metric **** ton on alphabet agencies and Term limits for all the Pols and Judges, forbid and repeal the income tax and clarify the 14th Amendment as to what constitutes being a natural born citizen. We can either do it peaceably or there will be a total collapse and a whole lot of bloodshed in another civil war.

 

[ark steel]

The answer to that is the states send delegates that aren't Pols and refuse to ratify anything that expands the power of FedGov Inc.

That is the same answer as what I gave. If we had elected representatives that fit this bill, there would be no need for this discussion.

It's not that I disagree with what you are saying I just wonder what makes you think that whoever got sent to a constitutional convention wouldn't be the same general type of person we are sending to Congress year after year?

 

[Vis]

The answer to that is the states send delegates that aren't Pols and refuse to ratify anything that expands the power of FedGov Inc. I think there is a massive need to hit the reset button though. We need to put a hard spending limit in place, forbid an metric **** ton on alphabet agencies and Term limits for all the Pols and Judges, forbid and repeal the income tax and clarify the 14th Amendment as to what constitutes being a natural born citizen. We can either do it peaceably or there will be a total collapse and a whole lot of bloodshed in another civil war.

You have this idea that all the states agree on what you want. They don't. They won't. And powerful lobby groups and Billionaires will want their say. How do you find state delegates who can't be bought?

 

[DBS1970]

You have this idea that all the states agree on what you want. They don't. They won't. And powerful lobby groups and Billionaires will want their say. How do you find state delegates who can't be bought?

Most of the states do want what I have laid out. As to the other thing that's what the ratification referendum is for.

 

[Vis]

Most of the states do want what I have laid out. As to the other thing that's what the ratification referendum is for.

If that's true they must have laid it out somewhere. What are the proposed spending limits? What's the definition on natural born citizen being proposed? What term limits for congress and the judiciary? What replaces the income tax, or are we just repealing it by fiat and selling off the military equipment we can no longer support?

This whole idea is a dog chasing a car with no idea what will happen if he catches it.

 

[ark steel]

Uggh. I hate agreeing with Vis on something. Will need to shower when I get home. OTOH, he must be excited to finally be right about something.

 

[Superman]

y'all can shower together!

 

[ark steel]

y'all can shower together!

He's getting the soap.

 

[Confluence]

He's getting the soap.

that mean you wanna pitch?

 

[ark steel]

that mean you wanna pitch?

I ain't a catcher. Hurts my knees too bad..

 

[DBS1970]

If that's true they must have laid it out somewhere. What are the proposed spending limits? What's the definition on natural born citizen being proposed? What term limits for congress and the judiciary? What replaces the income tax, or are we just repealing it by fiat and selling off the military equipment we can no longer support?

This whole idea is a dog chasing a car with no idea what will happen if he catches it.

That's what your side would like us to believe, that plebs like us are to stupid to handle our own affairs and have a say in how the government is run except for voting for approved candidates in elections.

I have seen it talked about in lots of places and these Ideas are not my all my own.

Term limits on all Federal Judges of 12 years,

Term limits of two terms for Senators.

Representatives get three terms.

Life time ban on being lobbyists.

The spending limits are really simple, Congress may not spend more than it takes in unless it is during the time of a declared war.

Repeal the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. Instead shrink the government and confine it to doing the 18 things laid out in the Constitution.

The definition of a natural born citizen is this: to be a natural born citizen at least one parent must be a US Citizen or both parents must be legal resident aliens with green cards. No more anchor babies, no legal status means no citizenship.

The fact of the mater is we need to cut our military spending in half anyway so yeah lets de-mil and scrap a ****-ton of that equipment and stop the foreign adventures.

Seems pretty ******* simple to me. You would be amazed how prosperous this nation can become if we stop subsidizing sloth and failure.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

^^^I'm good with all that. Need a tax of some type to run the govt, I say Fair Tax, but as long as you're not spending more than what comes in it's all good.

 

[DBS1970]

^^^I'm good with all that. Need a tax of some type to run the govt, I say Fair Tax, but as long as you're not spending more than what comes in it's all good.

Excises and duties on imports ran the government just fine for over a hundred years. We needed a income tax to pay for WWI and then it was supposed to go away. Like all taxes though it grew and became permanent. You yourself have pointed out how the income tax is a tool to control behavior and buy votes. If we shrink the government we wont need to have the government raising so much revenue.

 

[Cathy]

Do Not Support an Article V "Convention of States"

The original Constitutional Convention of 1787 convened to amend (change) the Articles of Confederation and instead produced an entirely new Constitution. We had leaders like Washington, Madison and Jefferson back then so it turned out OK. Today it would be entirely different, run by political elites! How many of our "leaders" believe in unalienable rights, over the interest of the government? Those who say that bad amendments will not be ratified by the states, fail to understand that Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to choose how amendments will be ratified. They could choose "conventions" and anyone in politics knows conventions can be rigged. Revising the Constitution has been a dream of the Left for decades, only now, some "conservatives" have made their job easier. Here is a You Tube of the Young Turks when their Article V Convention Application passed in Illinois.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGh6qE4UZfQ

The Young Turks and Wolf-PAC want "free and fair" tax funded election campaigns! Imagine how fair the Feds will be doling out campaign donations after the IRS scandal! Please read Article V! States do not control the process. There is so much misinformation out there. Congress calls the Convention after 34 states apply to Congress for it. Any entity which "calls" a convention usually sets the agenda, rules,. etc. Congress believes they have this authority and already authored 41 pieces of legislation to establish rules. The legislation did not pass because decades ago, when it looked like enough states would apply for the convention, the states starting rescinding their applications, so the laws were not necessary.

No one has any idea what will be proposed at such a bi-partisan convention, but the co-chair of the Assembly of State Legislatures, Senator Jason Holsman, said there will be a "grand bargain" at the Convention. We don't want to bargain with our Constitution after all our Founders sacrificed! Further, the scope of the convention cannot be limited (even according to convention proponents) so anything can happen. Do you really think Bloomberg, Soros, Zuckerberg, and the liberal media will sit on the sidelines and let the Convention proceed without interference? Please contact your state reps and urge them to reject all applications for an Article V Convention before we lose our beloved Constitution! Besides, why would Congress obey an amended (changed) Constitution when they disregard the one we have?

 

[ark steel]

Best first post ever.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Best first post ever.

Bomma has already said that He doesn't think the Constitution gives the government enough rights.

 

[DBS1970]

Best first post ever.

We got a Bomma Troll!