Comment Loc: California

Yes! Hell yes!!!!!

Comment Loc: California

Mexico has dumped 25% of their population on the USA. I have heard recently that each illegal costs the USA $70,000 each multiplied by the # that are here already 10 million-20 million (U can do the math.) To present mitigating stats: I read that 8 million are working. But because they are working does not relieve the American taxpayer from supporting their low paying jobs with welfare and free medical care, schools , phones, electricity, and gas. They contribute to a carbon footprint c*****e c****e and garbage, highway congestion, over crowding., etc.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

How does shutting down the gov cost us billions???

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Supporting that "Convention of States" thing always makes me wonder just how much one who does it knows about the history of the United States. When the Congress under the Articles of Confederation wanted to clean up some of the law and told the states to send people to such a convention as you mention they soon found out that they had made a mistake. Of course, I like our Constitution much better than the Articles but I do know that the first thing the members of that convention decided on was to write a whole new constitution and off they went. What might happen if more liberals turned up at your convention than we need in one place? I am sure that I wouldn't like that bunch writing anything like they may well do. I do feel safe in that the both the States and the Congress would have to approve the new document.

Think about what happened in those early days of our Constitutional period and remember what could easily happen here. THEY were asked to clean up some of the wording of the Articles and wrote a complete new document. What would keep your group from doing the same thing? What would it look like with what you people talk about along with some of the things liberals of today want?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

You of the left lean keep talking about a board wall. That is so bad in that a boarder, back in the days of room and board, were called boarders. Can't you see that there is a considerable difference in boarders and borders? I guess you of the left lean want to chance the meaning of words as much as you do many of our laws.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

An Article V Convention of states IS NOT a constitutional convention. It is merely one of two procedures specified in Article V for PROPOSING amendments to the constitution. The delegates to an Article V convention, appointed by the state legislatures, cannot rewrite or alter in any way the body (Articles) of the constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

rumitoid

If that is true, that is terrible. Please show me where you got your facts.

rumitoid

Lol, huh? What on earth are you talking about?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

You poor soul who only speaks of God when he can use Him. I wonder if Trump spells borders the way you do, boarders.

Just this evening I saw a group of people who have tried to get into the US from Tijuana marching down to the American consulate to demand r********ns. Now what would that be for. What have we done to them other than to use our sovereignty, part of which is border control. We don't owe any of them any r********ns any more than we do the b****s who came from s***es. You do know that s***ery has been illegal in the US more than 100 years, don't you. You really don't know that do you?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Maybe I screwed up back when I spelled change with the letters chance. At least it is very obvious that that was a typo.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I am sorry to see that you don't know too much about how our Constitution got written, as to how and why. Of course, their states did send delegates although some of them sent more than others.

I am also sorry that you don't know that words don't mean the same thing to progressives as they do to the rest of us. That is, if more progressives got sent to your convention, you know by New York and California what might they send along to the Congress? I have tried to explain to you what happened when our document was written and you, like all the many others who tried to suck me in on this thing, don't really understand why progressives of today are supporting this move like you are. I know just what happened in Philadelphia and it sure wasn't what the Congress called on them to do. Surely you can understand that writing things that may improve the Articles just wasn't any different than trying to put term limits into the Constitution now. Maybe you can't any more than many of those who have tried to convince me did then or now.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Apparently I know one hell of lot more about the history of our founding, the constitutional conventions in Philly, and how our constitution was written than you do. If you cannot even understand the amendment process specified in a single article in the constitution, it is patently obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about.

First of all, the constitutional convention convened on May 25, 1787. After 3 months of debate, the constitution was signed by 38 of the 41 delegates on September 17, 1787. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify, and this officially established the federal government. In June of 1788, Virginia was the tenth, followed in July by New York. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify, and on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island was 13th.

George Washington was elected president on February 4, 1789, and the First Continental Congress convened a month later on March 4, 1789. This all occurred nearly a year after the final ratification of the constitution necessary to establish our government.

Put simply, oldroy, our entire federal government, including congress, did not exist until the constitution was signed and ratified. So, if congress did not exist, how can you say that the convention delegates didn't do what congress wanted them to do?

I have been following the Article V Convention of States Project very closely and I have yet to see any indication that progressives anywhere are supporting this. If you understood Article V of the Constitution and the procedures and protocols of the Convention of States, you would know that there is no possibility of a runaway convention or that it could be hijacked by any ideological movement. The delegates at an Article V convention cannot in any way, shape or form alter or rewrite any or all of the Articles of the Constitution, they can only PROPOSE amendments, any amendment issuing from this must be ratified by 38 state legislatures.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

Currently, 31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 23 of them are Trifectas. Democrats control the legislatures of 18 states, 14 of them are Trifectas. One state has a democrat governor and a split legislature.

I suggest you register for and study Hillsdale College's free online course Constitution 101: The Meaning & History of the Constitution, and that you get a copy of The Liberty Amendments and read it cover to cover.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I see that you know nothing about the group that called that first convention that was known as the Congress. However, they tried to govern under the Articles of Confederation. It was that document that they were told to make some changes in, not the whole damned thing. I have spent too much time, it seems, studying the whole Constitutional Era so will give up trying to explain what Congress was originally involved. Maybe I wasted my time reading the book about the history of the writing of that Constitution. Is there a chance that Madison wasted his time writing his notes every evening and even mentioned the near fist fights that often nearly erupted.

I will mention this one more time. They were told to come up with some changes, not write a new document. What happens if your Convention of States group decides to write a whole new document instead of some amendments? It could happen since it did in 1787, as I keep telling you. There is a chance that again wouldn't be too soon. I fear progressives since most of them are not liberals but something totally different. They could be the largest number of people on that Convention.

I h**e to tell you this, but I have read the whole thing from Hillsdale College and do find that you know little about things from 1777 while the Articles of Confederation were in effect. The Founders did learn a lot from how little the Articles would work but they did learn and what they did was the best thing they could do. The Articles lasted less than 15 years and our Constitution has lasted a little longer. However, the Congress has selected only one method of writing amendments not the one you are in love with. Yep, all our amendments were written by Congress and ratified by the State Legislatures. Surely you know this and why only that method has been used.

I do not want to see any amendments written by a convention because I do know what happened when it was tried. The first decision that group made was to write a whole new document. I am very glad they did that because the Articles just weren't ever going to work, but they did do exactly that and I fear it could happen again.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Sorry, oldroy, as I have repeatedly told you, the delegates at an Article V convention CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES "write a whole new document." An Article V convention of states is a constitutional process for the sole purpose of proposing amendments, or repealing existing ones.

In order for a new constitution to be written and established, our existing constitution would have to be abolished entirely, and a convention convened to produce a new one. That ain't going to happen, not at an Article V convention of states or under any other circumstances any time soon.

The Articles of Confederation was the first written constitution of the United States. Stemming from wartime urgency, its progress was slowed by fears of central authority and extensive land claims by states before was it was ratified on March 1, 1781. Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. Congress was also given the authority to make treaties and alliances, maintain armed forces and coin money. [b]However, the central government lacked the ability to levy taxes and regulate commerce, issues that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for the creation of an entirely new constitution.

Throughout our history, many times state legislatures have applied for an Article V convention of states. The reason they never convened is that in no case did the required number of state legislatures sign on.

Article V of US Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

An Article V convention of states would not destroy the Constitution



Excerpt from Federalist #85, Hamilton

By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States Uwhich at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political t***h can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light with me, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption, as the most direct road to their own object.