WTF? We only need two more states until there's a Constitutional Convention??

[socialize_me]

Wow, fill me in please :eek:

I heard and knew Ohio was voting on something like this, but I thought that was the only state. Apparently there's 33 others who have approved this measure?? What the fuck is going on?

[vegaspilot03]

yeah i read about that.... its awesome that it doesnt make cnn

[Flirple]

Excuse my ignorance for being too lazy to look into this myself but isn't this a case where there is no time limit so many of these states ratified probably years or even decades ago? If so there is not necessarily local popular support (or even awareness that their state ratified) for it right now.

But still, yeah this is big. And very good. I want to know more.

[socialize_me]

yeah i read about that.... its awesome that it doesnt make cnn

sooo...where exactly did you read this at?? I can't find it anywhere. I just heard it and posted this thread to see if anyone could confirm this.

[socialize_me]

Excuse my ignorance for being too lazy to look into this myself but isn't this a case where there is no time limit so many of these states ratified probably years or even decades ago? If so there is not necessarily local popular support (or even awareness that their state ratified) for it right now.

But still, yeah this is big. And very good. I want to know more.

How is it good? The Convention can decide to write a new Constitution or do whatever it wants to our existing one! Article V places no restrictions on what the Convention decides, even if the purpose of it is to have a balanced-budget amendment which is the driving force behind Ohio's reasoning. The problem is that you send these delegates for a one-amendment issue and they can walk away with an entirely new Constitution with no say by anyone. Not the Feds, the States, or the People. Of course, the states need to approve the new Constitution. :P

[nate895]

How is it good? The Convention can decide to write a new Constitution or do whatever it wants to our existing one! Article V places no restrictions on what the Convention decides, even if the purpose of it is to have a balanced-budget amendment which is the driving force behind Ohio's reasoning. The problem is that you send these delegates for a one-amendment issue and they can walk away with an entirely new Constitution with no say by anyone. Not the Feds, the States, or the People. Of course, the states need to approve the new Constitution. :P

The Constitution would have to be put through the ratification process. People would rebel, and I am willing to bet people will rebel even if it is put through the proper channels and confirmed.

[ihsv]

I posted this in the other thread, too:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

[socialize_me]

The Constitution would have to be put through the ratification process. People would rebel, and I am willing to bet people will rebel even if it is put through the proper channels and confirmed.

What good would a rebellion do?? Why does everyone on this forum think a revolt would be great? Have you looked around at these people?? The majority voted for Barack Obama. Congress had almost 90% incumbent rate after they voted to pass $850 billion in pork/bailout money a MONTH...A FUCKING MONTH--before elections when 9 out of 10 Americans were against it!!! We're 47th in the world in literacy, and most Americans don't know how many states we have let alone the number of presidents in our history.

Honestly, I'd be scared shitless to see who would arise from all this chaos. Americans are dumb enough to follow anyone if they promise them low taxes, won't take away their guns (that one is damn iffy today), and lets us all keep our precious Shit-on-a-stick food culture.

We don't have an intellectual pool we had in the 1770's. Honestly, Ron Paul is the only politician who mentions the Constitution and actually follows it. Most can't even say the word "Constitution", and the few that do actually don't follow it. There's nothing in the private sector either. Hell, we plucked Paulson from there!

[dr. hfn]

Move to New Hampshire! Join the Free State Project! Take over the Government! Secede!

Repeat in other States!

[Flirple]

How is it good? The Convention can decide to write a new Constitution or do whatever it wants to our existing one! Article V places no restrictions on what the Convention decides, even if the purpose of it is to have a balanced-budget amendment which is the driving force behind Ohio's reasoning. The problem is that you send these delegates for a one-amendment issue and they can walk away with an entirely new Constitution with no say by anyone. Not the Feds, the States, or the People. Of course, the states need to approve the new Constitution. :P

Forgive me I was shooting from the hip. The original post was the first I had heard about this. I guess I was assuming the effort was initiated by liberty loving state's rights type folks who saw that we no longer had a written constitution anyways and thought it was time for a restatement of our founding principles. Jefferson after all thought each generation should rip up their constitution and start fresh since the government belongs to the living not the dead....

But after seeing the other threads as well as the post over on the Campaign for Liberty website I see I might be delusional.

But, maybe it's still just wishful thinking on my part but I still like to think that if a constitutional convention was to happen, then all bets are off and you might see a few areas or even states make an effort to secede. I mean, lets face it, we don't have a constitution as things stand right now anyways. I guess I'm torn, part of me wants to roll the dice and see what what a constitutional convention brings. I think you might see a major realignment, secession, and/or revolution within at least a minority of the population.

...thinking out loud...still forming opinion on this issue....need more info....

[pacelli]

How is it good? The Convention can decide to write a new Constitution or do whatever it wants to our existing one! Article V places no restrictions on what the Convention decides, even if the purpose of it is to have a balanced-budget amendment which is the driving force behind Ohio's reasoning. The problem is that you send these delegates for a one-amendment issue and they can walk away with an entirely new Constitution with no say by anyone. Not the Feds, the States, or the People. Of course, the states need to approve the new Constitution. :P

That's why I call it the CONstitution.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Wow I had no idea any of this was going on and I too thought it was a good thing for us liberty lovin' folks. :( I should have known better.

[revolutionary8]

Wow, fill me in please :eek:

I heard and knew Ohio was voting on something like this, but I thought that was the only state. Apparently there's 33 others who have approved this measure?? What the fuck is going on?

what are you talking about? What is "like this"?

[revolutionary8]

Excuse my ignorance for being too lazy to look into this myself but isn't this a case where there is no time limit so many of these states ratified probably years or even decades ago? If so there is not necessarily local popular support (or even awareness that their state ratified) for it right now.

But still, yeah this is big. And very good. I want to know more.

whaaat?
ratified what?

[revolutionary8]

I posted this in the other thread, too:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
From your link:


According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a convention when 2/3rds of the states apply. That magic number is 34 states. Since three states have formally withdrawn (rescinded) their calls, that would seemingly leave us 5 states away from having a Con-Con. However, we have been informed that the advocates of the convention are waiting to capture not five, but only two more. It is said that if they get two more states to pass resolutions for a Con-Con, they plan to challenge the rescissions of the three states and throw them into the courts while going ahead with a convention.

Considering the blatant corruption in courts at all levels today, it would be folly to rest on our laurels and feel safe that the courts would uphold those rescissions. For that reason, it should be considered at this time that only two states are needed to require the Congress to call a Constitutional Convention.

After experiencing the onslaught of lawyers (scribes, as in "scribes and Pharisees") in Florida's presidential election fiasco, can you imagine the hay-day they would have with a court battle of this magnitude and importance?

I fail to see the urgency, but that may be due to my own beliefs- urgency in my eyes are - THE NAU, THE NWO and THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

[Flirple]

whaaat?
ratified what?

Well the 33 states that have already approved the measure to have another convention.

[revolutionary8]

Well the 33 states that have already approved the measure to have another convention.

what 33 states? The answer to that question is THE most important category of "change", if what you say is true. IF it isn't true, it must be noted. CORRECT?
(naww, just sayy "change, change" and wait for the rest )
-no offense intended.

[Flirple]

what 33 states? The answer to that question is THE most important category of "change", if what you say is true. IF it isn't true, it must be noted. CORRECT?
(naww, just sayy "change, change" and wait for the rest )
-no offense intended.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

[revolutionary8]

I don't understand what you are talking about.


Well the 33 states that have already approved the measure to have another convention.
I apologize. It is 34 states, not 33.
Pardon me.


Originally Posted by Flirple
Well the 33 states that have already approved the measure to have another convention.

[nobody's_hero]

Few here seem to have a clue as to what an Article V convention is. The fact that they don't teach you Article V in a public school ought to tell you something, but if you believe that the Constitution is a safe-guard on our liberties (here to protect the people and contain the state), then there is no possible way that you can turn around and tell me that the founders included some self-destruct mechanism for it—at least not in original-intent viewing of the Constitution.

The State of Ohio called for a convention to AMEND the U.S. Constitution we have now. They did not call for a convention to throw it in the garbage.

Here's a FAQ list that will help clear up some of the lies put out by that damned 4-part youtube series that has everyone up in arms about one of our Constitutional rights. FOAVC.ORG (http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60)

Keep in mind: Anything proposed in an article V convention HAS to be ratified by the states before it becomes official. :rolleyes:

Edit: Adding:

According to foavc.org, over 643 applications for an Article V convention to amend the constitution have been filed. Congress has—for reasons that should be obvious—ignored them all. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that the establishment is going to ruin us if we call a convention? Right. Got it.

http://www.foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm

[TastyWheat]

As is the Congress and White House almost completely ignore the Constitution. If we had a Constitutional Convention there's no way we'd come out with a better one and even less of a chance it would be followed to the letter.

[revolutionary8]

Few here seem to have a clue as to what an Article V convention is. The fact that they don't teach you Article V in a public school ought to tell you something, but if you believe that the Constitution is a safe-guard on our liberties (here to protect the people and contain the state), then there is no possible way that you can turn around and tell me that the founders included some self-destruct mechanism for it—at least not in original-intent viewing of the Constitution.

The State of Ohio called for a convention to AMEND the U.S. Constitution we have now. They did not call for a convention to throw it in the garbage.

Here's a FAQ list that will help clear up some of the lies put out by that damned 4-part youtube series that has everyone up in arms about one of our Constitutional rights. FOAVC.ORG (http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60)

Keep in mind: Anything proposed in an article V convention HAS to be ratified by the states before it becomes official. :rolleyes:

Edit: Adding:

According to foavc.org, over 643 applications for an Article V convention to amend the constitution have been filed. Congress has—for reasons that should be obvious—ignored them all. But yet, I'm supposed to believe that the establishment is going to ruin us if we call a convention? Right. Got it.

http://www.foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm

Thank you.

[hillbilly123069]

You don't need a Constitutional Convention.You only need to enforce the 1 we have!

[nobody's_hero]

As is the Congress and White House almost completely ignore the Constitution. If we had a Constitutional Convention there's no way we'd come out with a better one and even less of a chance it would be followed to the letter.

The fact that Congress ignores, has ignored, and likely will continue to ignore our Constitution is one that I cannot refute. :(

But, we're talking about a right to call a convention—A power reserved to the states (which may often be pressured by the people to make motions to apply for amendments, no matter how wacky (or ingenious?) those amendments may be ;)).

I just don't understand why people have allowed themselves to be conditioned to believe that Article V is some deadly infection of our Constitution. I often see the argument that, when we last had a Constitutional Convention (which, actually, is different from a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution), the Articles of Confederation were thrown out, and replaced with the U.S. Constitution during the convention of 1787. The story continues, though, when it didn't mean anything until 9 of the states ratified the new (and possibly superior?) document. Ultimately, it was the decision of the people whether or not to grant the few powers to a central government which were called for in this new thing called "the Constitution." Sure, some states were hesitant to adopt it. Hell, it failed to ratify the first time, because there was NO Bill of Rights. The Philadelphia convention had to go back to the drawing board, and they came back with something more-worthy of ratification. Could we take powers back from the central government? Sure, but we'll need Article V conventions to do so.

Article V works something like this (and I'm just making this up as an example):

At any point, the states may announce a desire for convention to be called, and *propose* to amend the Constitution so that Congress is denied powers that it does use—the powers that it is not likely to strip itself of (the ones it enjoys, like, levying taxes :mad: or determining its own pay :mad:). At least two-thirds of the states must agree to call for a convention to *propose* amendments to the Constitution. Suppose an amendment is *drafted* by a convention of delegates from the states which, let us pretend, denies Congress the power to levy taxes in times of bad Congressional behavior (without getting into all the detailed definitions of what "bad behavior" might be, I'm just hypothesizing so bear with me). Do 38 states agree to spank Congress by ratifying such an imaginary "Amendment 28"—summarized as "an amendment to deny tax revenue to the Federal Government at the discretion of the states" (or something like that :p, you know)? Let's say that's a "yes" and your state, Texas, agrees to ratify such an amendment (either 'via state-convention' or by act of 'state legislature'—Congress does get to choose which Mode of Ratification (but not the procedure or details of the Mode!), and that's basically ALL it chooses).

Texas is the 38th state to ratify it. Amendment 28 succeeds! There is great celebration in the land. Congress just had its ass handed to itself. The states then essentially tell Washington, D.C.:

"Sorry, big bro, you'll have to find some other way to fund those gigantic, unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Dept. of Education, or abolish them (then maybe we'll talk about amending those taxation powers back to you). Oh, and don't think you can print that money out of thin air either. 38 states just ratified another proposed amendment to suspend Congress's power to "coin money" (which now, unfortunately, means print worthless paper). That's okay though, because 38 states, each tired of seeing their local economies collapse under the weight of poor currency management at the federal level, just ratified an amendment for 'competing currencies' and the states can now legally print paper money ONLY if it is backed by guarantee of Gold and Silver'"

(END hypothetical scenario here)

There is EXTREME power there—and for once, it is not in the hands of the Fed. Gov.

In other words, an Article V convention might just be a way to get things done around here. As the old saying goes, "if you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself." Besides, who is better to tend to the 'general welfare' of the states, than, well, the states!

Is it risky? Sure—the tempestuous sea of liberty is not without a few waves. You're going to have a few radical amendments get brought to the table, like my state of Georgia's flag-burning amendment proposal (a convention applied for in 1991, on the subject). Such proposed amendments are not likely to get 38 states to ratify them. Even if such silly amendments were to pass, no amendment is guaranteed permanent (see the 18th).

As it stands now, Congress already proposes all of our amendments (Historically). I don't know how having the states demand a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments is supposed to be a bad thing.

Though, unfortunately, you are correct, tastywheat, Congress does ignore our Constitution. But more disheartening to me than that, is that we have rights which we're downright . . . scared of. :(

(Not meaning to lecture you personally tastywheat, respectfully. They just don't teach this stuff in public school Civics classrooms, and 9/10 RPF members are undoubtedly shooting themselves in the foot on the subject of Article V conventions!)

[nobody's_hero]

You don't need a Constitutional Convention.You only need to enforce the 1 we have!

Indeed, but how could we do that?

My arguement is that an Article V convention is a final show of force by the states—just short of an actual modern day Lexington and Concord where lead gets exchanged. Even if nothing comes of an amendatory convention, we can at least say that we took every last Constitutional venue to peaceable alteration of government.

Then, if they start shitting, we'll turn the fans on "high." :cool:

[angelatc]

As is the Congress and White House almost completely ignore the Constitution. If we had a Constitutional Convention there's no way we'd come out with a better one and even less of a chance it would be followed to the letter.

Exactly. I'm so discouraged about the way the Constitution isn't even acknowledged that it seems like it doesn't matter anyway.

[Elwar]

But yet, I'm supposed to believe that the establishment is going to ruin us if we call a convention?

You say we as if there is some liberty loving contingent that is going to Washington for this convention. That same we elected a president who wants a new New Deal and people are happy about that. When the issue of the day is which industries should be nationalized, tinkering with the Constitution isn't the most prudent thing to be doing.

As a libertarian I always felt that the Constitution was ok but not quite good enough (general welfare clause, 16th Ammendment etc.), but at this point I'm clinging on to that document as the last vestige of liberty in our country.

When the country wants socialism, any change to the Constitution will not bring about more liberty.

[socialize_me]

Indeed, but how could we do that?

My arguement is that an Article V convention is a final show of force by the states—just short of an actual modern day Lexington and Concord where lead gets exchanged. Even if nothing comes of an amendatory convention, we can at least say that we took every last Constitutional venue to peaceable alteration of government.

Then, if they start shitting, we'll turn the fans on "high." :cool:

nobody's_hero, you are wrong about Article V. If a Convention is called, there is NO restriction on what can come out of it! You may call it to get a single issue amendment put in the constitution, but that does not stop the delegates from adding anything they want once they are chosen and meet.

If you are to say we're ignorant as to what Article V says, then clearly you are ignorant on how the Constitution came about. It was due to the fact the states under the Articles of Confederation called a convention to amend the Articles. Turns out the Convention decided to scrap the Articles altogether and create the Constitution. HOw the fuck would this be any different?

[Peace&Freedom]

We can take the 'woe is me' approach to saying what bad can come out of a con-con, OR we can use it to mold the revised document into any form WE please. How about provisions that bring BACK the Articles of Confederation, or clarify all the Bill of Rights such that original intent replaces judicial precedent as the main means to interpret it? How about throwing out the 16th, 17th and even 14th amendments? Or adding language that unambiguously prohibits a central bank, or fortifying the 2nd amendment so it's understood that gun ownership may not be abridged by stealh (licensing and permit laws)? How about a blanket 'anti-Patriot Act' amendment that reverses all the surveillance / torture laws and regs of the Bush years?

This (if it comes about) is a last opportunity to get around the politicians and judges who are NOT honoring the Constitution we have now, and a fixed election system that bars us from realistically reforming it. Considering the most active grassroots faction ready to mobilize for mass reform of the document is US, I think we should consider this a potential blessing, not an unavoidable disaster.

[Matt Collins]

We don't have an intellectual pool we had in the 1770's. No we do, but we also have a largely outnumbering anti-intellectual pool that drowns us out. Watch the first 15 minutes of the movie "Idiocracy" and you'll see what I mean about us being drowned out.

[Bill Walker]

Whether they know it or not, a lot of the reason for the concerns by the people in this post stems from the work and effort of the John Birch Society who, for their own political gains, have spread a lot of lies about a convention.

The fact is the JBS doesn't want a balanced budget amendment but rather than oppose that they've lied about a convention. No convention, no balanced budget.

One of the main resources they've cited over and over again has been the so-called Burger Letter and the justice's dire predictions about a convention.

For those who have relied on this piece of information, I suggest you look at the following video and then decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuo6kBkHdc