If we could add one amendment to the costitution what would it be (Page 7): Won't be easy to do. Just getting more than 1/2 of the people in 28 states to sign on will be a job. Then in...

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

ldsuttonjr wrote:

I'm on board with that!.....Texas pretty much works that way (3 months I think?)

Won't be easy to do. Just getting more than 1/2 of the people in 28 states to sign on will be a job. Then in the same 18 states, we would need to get the Governors to sign on. I would say print that off, and start getting it singed if you can. I am working on NM now, just not sure I can get 1/2 of then to sign.

Owl32 Loc: ARK

but the actually funding of any bill must originate in Senate.

Docadhoc wrote:

Any federal bill that generates revenue must originate in the house. It is why the ACA was illegal to begin with.

Spending? If you took spending away from D.C. they would wither and die.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

Owl32 wrote:

but the actually funding of any bill must originate in Senate.

An amendment is not a bill. It can be ratified by 28 states, agreeing to it. That is with out any input from any part of congress.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Rainrider wrote:

Won't be easy to do. Just getting more than 1/2 of the people in 28 states to sign on will be a job. Then in the same 18 states, we would need to get the Governors to sign on. I would say print that off, and start getting it singed if you can. I am working on NM now, just not sure I can get 1/2 of then to sign.

Rainrider: I'm sure your aware of Article 5 ....Convention of States?

Why It Will Succeed
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.

It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.

Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook).

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Can we Trust the Constitution?” by Michael Farris).

American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.

We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.

pafret Loc: Northeast

ldsuttonjr wrote:

Rainrider: I'm sure your aware of Article 5 ....Convention of States?

Why It Will Succeed
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.

It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.

Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook).

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Can we Trust the Constitution?” by Michael Farris).

American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.

We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.

Rainrider: I'm sure your aware of Article 5 ....... (show quote)

Given the existence of the "dark" government and the undue iunfluence of corporations and unions over our government, I woud say the convention of States under Article V is our only hope of achieving needed restrictions on the unbridled power of the Federal Government.

There is no way our Congressional whores will ever do anything to alter the current status except to make it worse.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

pafret wrote:

Given the existence of the "dark" government and the undue iunfluence of corporations and unions over our government, I woud say the convention of States under Article V is our only hope of achieving needed restrictions on the unbridled power of the Federal Government.

There is no way our Congressional whores will ever do anything to alter the current status except to make it worse.

Spot on!!!!

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

Owl32 wrote:

but the actually funding of any bill must originate in Senate.

And as I said, take away spending and they wither.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

ldsuttonjr wrote:

Rainrider: I'm sure your aware of Article 5 ....Convention of States?

Why It Will Succeed
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.

It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.

Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook).

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Can we Trust the Constitution?” by Michael Farris).

American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.

We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.

Rainrider: I'm sure your aware of Article 5 ....... (show quote)

It boils down to trust. Do we trust the majority of states to.believe what we believe, or do we trust D. C.?

I choose my fellow man at the state level because trusting D. C. has done little more than slide us downhill.

If it turns out that the majority of my fellows disagree with me, I'd rather be over ruled by a majority of my fellows than a handful of corrupt politicians.

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

An Article V convention would have the inherent power to be a runaway convention because it would supersede the power of Congress and would possess the power of the sovereign people to alter or abolish the current Constitution as its delegates would see fit. (Furthermore, the process of selecting delegates is not clear, at least not to me, and the quality and biases of these delegates would be crucial!) Proponents of such a convention believe that a single-subject convention can be held by some sort of rule-setting in advance, but, once seated, the delegates, acting with a majority, could nullify those rules and proceed to enact whatever suited them. This thread is an example of the many possible pressures on delegates to consider all sorts of amendments, and hence, to change the rules. Fortunately, the safety valve for this outcome would be the states ratification process. Since we have never had such a convention after the first congress, there is no historical information to fall back on and guide the process. I suggest proceeding with great caution!

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Owl32 wrote:

but the actually funding of any bill must originate in Senate.

They use a weasel tactic to get around it effectively.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Super Dave wrote:

They use a weasel tactic to get around it effectively.

Actually The demorats did use a weasel tactic concerning ACA

Passed by Congress...?? Actually it did not receive a single 'R' vote in either house... so dingy harry (reid) broke Senate rules and put the bill into a conference committee where the dims needed only a simple majority to pass it, and pass it they did--without a single Republican vote. First time in history a major piece of legislation (20% of our economy) was crammed through without bi-partisan support. Additionaly... the public was then, and still is, overwhelmingly against ObozoCare.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Rainrider wrote:

An amendment is not a bill. It can be ratified by 28 states, agreeing to it. That is with out any input from any part of congress.

Rainrider: Take ACA a trick was pulled to pass that piece of shit!!!! Passed by Congress...?? Actually it did not receive a single 'R' vote in either house... so dingy harry (reid) broke Senate rules and put the bill into a conference committee where the dims needed only a simple majority to pass it, and pass it they did--without a single Republican vote. First time in history a major piece of legislation (20% of our economy) was crammed through without bi-partisan support. Additionaly... the public was then, and still is, overwhelmingly against ObozoCare.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

Docadhoc wrote:

It boils down to trust. Do we trust the majority of states to.believe what we believe, or do we trust D. C.?

I choose my fellow man at the state level because trusting D. C. has done little more than slide us downhill.

If it turns out that the majority of my fellows disagree with me, I'd rather be over ruled by a majority of my fellows than a handful of corrupt politicians.

Sadly we can't trusty any of them. Though we do have a bit more power over the states. Not much more, yet if more people would pull their heads out, we could get something done. Most folks want to play the blame game, yet are unwilling to admit that when the people stopped standing up, is when we started to see what we have now coming about. The less the people pushed back, the more the feds ignored the law. The more they got away with, the more they ignored it. The longer it takes for people to wake the f@#$ up, the harder it is going to be to put the feds back in line.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

ldsuttonjr wrote:

Rainrider: Take ACA a trick was pulled to pass t... (show quote)

True. Yet by doing so they also opened a door they now wish was closed. Why the R won't ues the same taktices to repeal that failed POS, I have no clue.

Rainrider Loc: Lovington NM

Manning345 wrote:

An Article V convention would have the inherent po... (show quote)

Lets just say that a convention of states decided to rewrite the Constitution. If there were average working class people doing so, and they made clear the intent of every article, section, and amendment. Using plain language that even a 4 grader could comprehend. I see nothing wrong with that. You see, a lot has changed over the years. Privicy has a truck load of new questions, and meanings. Like if we put something on here, is that privet or public? If we intend it to be privet, yet it can be seen by anyone that may find it, does that change the intent of the law?

Take facebook, or whatever. If they have a place to send a privet message, from me to you, yet your message to me somehow got posted to an open forum, it was privet was it not? There for it should be seen as that. I don't use any of that, so I am not even sure if this might happen. I do know that I have gotten what seemed like a privet text to someone I don't know, from someone I didn't know. Does that text remain privet now, or do I have the right to resend it to anyone I want? By Law, it came to my phone, and that means I can resend it if I see fit. Yet at teh same time, that as we know would be wrong. It may be legal, yet should it be?

I can also see that if we let the feds pick the members of a convention, and the tree hugging bunny fuckers, got to decide, then everything would be their way. Yet at teh same time, if say, they were all overly religious we may well end up with a constitution that removes much of rights we now hold dear.