What do you guys think about as a side thing pushing for a Constitutional Convention?

[DirectDemocracy]

Article V of the 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.]

The second method has never been used.

What do you guys think of putting grassroots pressure on our state legislators to apply to Congress for such convention?

If you have doubts or are worried about such a thing, this will answer your questions:
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60

[DirectDemocracy]

Article V of the 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.]

The second method has never been used.

What do you guys think of putting grassroots pressure on our state legislators to apply to Congress for such convention?

If you have doubts or are worried about such a thing, this will answer your questions:
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60

[Pete Kay]

A professor of history was on NPR last month pushing for this and I thought it was a great idea. He layed out the groundwork for it and some of his proposals were great.

America needs to sit down and make a decision about where it wants to go as a country.

[robertwerden]

What part of the Constitution do you intend on changing? The Constitutional Convention is not something that happens unless an Amendment is brought to the house. If you look at the House website you can see hundreds of proposed amendments that failed.

[MS0453]

Even though I'm not a big fan of the constitution, I realize (its importance at the moment and) that if a convention was held today, it would be absolutely desecrated. Ridiculous "rights" would be added, special provisions pertaining to welfare and warfare would be added, etc. It'd suck big time.

[Revolutn]

NO!

A CON-CON is a CON-job.

At a con-con the current Constitution all but become null and void they can rewrite ANYpart including the Bill of Rights and even original Articles!

ConCon advocates tend to be snake-oil sellers. BEWARE!

I'm just sayin'

Rev

[torchbearer]

I'd be afraid that a constitution convention today would be ruled by special interest and could very well give them the opportunity to destroy what little protection we have left.. this is a dangerous idea in our current state of affairs.

[smtwngrl]

NO!

A CON-CON is a CON-job.

At a con-con the current Constitution all but become null and void they can rewrite ANYpart including the Bill of Rights and even original Articles!

ConCon advocates tend to be snake-oil sellers. BEWARE!

I'm just sayin'

Rev

Yes! That's right! There was a lot of pushing of this idea a few years back. A "CON-job" is a good way of describing in.

[LibertyEagle]

NO!

A CON-CON is a CON-job.

At a con-con the current Constitution all but become null and void they can rewrite ANYpart including the Bill of Rights and even original Articles!

ConCon advocates tend to be snake-oil sellers. BEWARE!

I'm just sayin'

Rev

QFT.

People have been trying to do this for years. A Constitutional Convention should be avoided at all costs. Does everyone understand that EVERYTHING would be up for grabs in a Con-Con? The Bill of Rights, the separation of powers.... EVERYTHING. This is extremely dangerous!

What we need to get them to do is to follow the one we have.

[LibertyEagle]

By the way, "DirectDemocracy", you do realize that we were established as a Republic, not a Democracy, right?

[Pete Kay]

A Constitutional Convention is a great idea. It shouldn't be feared. The Founders expected us to have one every hundred years. The new Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be near impossible to put some outrageous provsions in there. Cosensus among the American people would be needed.

Here's a good article:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19276

[Pete Kay]

It's kind of sad that some of you that promote the ideas of America really don't believe in "We the People..." at all.

[Revolutn]

A Constitutional Convention is a great idea. It shouldn't be feared. The Founders expected us to have one every hundred years. The new Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be near impossible to put some outrageous provsions in there. Cosensus among the American people would be needed.

Here's a good article:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19276

I can NOT disagree with you or anyone who support this more fervently.

It is Constitutional SUICIDE!

There is a proper procedure defined in the Constitution for making necessary changes, it's called the Amendment process, and it is VERY difficult BY DESIGN.

Our founders knew well that any government ultimate tries to suppress it's people.

As stated above.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Let's start by following the Constitution we already have and have been ignoring!

Rev

[LibertyEagle]

A Constitutional Convention is a great idea. It shouldn't be feared. The Founders expected us to have one every hundred years. The new Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be near impossible to put some outrageous provsions in there. Cosensus among the American people would be needed.

Here's a good article:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19276

Have you checked out your state government lately?

This is a horrible idea.

Note: If you think consensus is such a great thing, what do you think about the people who have been elected for the past upteen years? Yes, and you can just look at what the popular votes were. You want to put your right to bear arms, your freedom of speech and all the rest in the hands of a consensus?

Tell me something. If there had been a popular vote back when our founders were considering declaring their independence, which way do you think the popular vote would have been? No. It was a relatively small group of people who stood up to the British. The masses were too busy sucking up to the British, or hiding under their beds. We were not founded on a "consensus". That is the very definition of a democracy, which our founders repeatedly warned us about.

[LibertyEagle]

It's kind of sad that some of you that promote the ideas of America really don't believe in "We the People..." at all.

You seem to be promoting mass rule, or democracy.

Take a look at this. It is the best essay that I have ever read that compares Republics and Democracies.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

[specsaregood]

It's kind of sad that some of you that promote the ideas of America really don't believe in "We the People..." at all.

I look at the politicians that "we the people" have elected in my lifetime and thus lose my faith. A "Constitutional Convention" at this time would be a disaster. Just look at what the current crop of elected candidates have done in the past decade.

Let's kick all the bums out first, elect Ron Paul, then consider it.

[DirectDemocracy]

ConCon advocates tend to be snake-oil sellers. BEWARE!


I have never really heard of this idea before. Where have you heard of it?

Why would you jump on it and not keep an open mind to an idea of how to fix our country. You also don't seem to know the Constitution as this method is expressly there in the Constitution-put there by our founding fathers.

Do you think they put something there that they didn't want to be used? You believe in the Founding fathers but not this part?

Are you a real Ron Paul supporter or just an enemy infiltrator here trying to saubatauge things that threaten the elite?

[angelatc]

What part of the Constitution do you intend on changing? The Constitutional Convention is not something that happens unless an Amendment is brought to the house. If you look at the House website you can see hundreds of proposed amendments that failed.

2/3rds of the State Legislatures have never brought a proposed Amendment to the House though.

This is why the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. The Senators used to answer to the governor.

But I think that this will only dilute our efforts to get Congressman Paul into office. After he is in the White House, this can be our next project.

[LibertyEagle]

If we had the same type of patriots, who also had such a deep knowledge of history and governments under their belt, TODAY, a ConCon would be ok. But, the reality is that these people are very few and far between.

Heck, people can't even name the branches of our government, much less know why one form of government is better than another. Just look at all the idiots who believe that if we banned guns, that guns would no longer be used. Look at all the people who blindly trust the government to do good and who do not even understand that governments throughout history have been the worst mass murderers in existence.

[Pete Kay]

You seem to be promoting mass rule, or democracy.

Take a look at this. It is the best essay that I have ever read that compares Republics and Democracies.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

No, I am not. I'm just saying that we should be willing to put some faith in people. I understand that this is a Republic. I don't want mob rule. We just need to come together as a country and decide where we are going. The very fact that many people are fearful of this is a good sign of the debate that will come. There will be rallies and discussions. There will be fighting and arguing. The American people who have been asleep at the wheel will have to wake up and recognize what is at stake here.

I think it's time for change.

[torchbearer]

It's kind of sad that some of you that promote the ideas of America really don't believe in "We the People..." at all.

That's the point, we the people, are not yet awaken and educated enough to know that Rudy is a police state fascist. Look at the polls.
People still want the nanny state, look at clinton and obama's supporters...
It will be a feasting time for the socialist. I have no trust in the people who would "really be the leaders and deciders of the "new socialist constitution"

The new bill of rights would probably read something like this:
1. Everyone has a right to medical care.
2. Everyone has the right to a house.
3. Everyone has the right to their neighbors possessions if they are in need.
4. All power shall be vested in a central government.
5. Gold and silver will be official repealed.
6. The Federal Reserve will be constitutional mandate.
7. Total direct taxation will be legal.
8. Drug laws will be made constitutional.
9. Affirmative action will become constitional.
10. A chicken in every pot.
etc.

We are still a minority... 3/4 of the corrupt politicians in congress are for the above... the people who keep voting them in office are for the above.... though they don't understand why its wrong....
We will have politicians spinning everything... making us look like we hate people, and that the constitution should be "compassionate" I can see the circus tent going up right now...

[MS0453]

It's kind of sad that some of you that promote the ideas of America really don't believe in "We the People..." at all.

"I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.

The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely." - American badass, Patrick Henry

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

I gottta agree with him. The notion of We the People is a horrible one.

[steph3n]

No, I am not. I'm just saying that we should be willing to put some faith in people. I understand that this is a Republic. I don't want mob rule. We just need to come together as a country and decide where we are going. The very fact that many people are fearful of this is a good sign of the debate that will come. There will be rallies and discussions. There will be fighting and arguing. The American people who have been asleep at the wheel will have to wake up and recognize what is at stake here.

I think it's time for change.
We have the best system in the world right now, a hybrid.
We simply need to follow the constitution as it stands now. Once people have awoken we can THEN look at fixing a few minor problems.

[DirectDemocracy]

There is a group out there called "Friends of Article V of the Constitution" www.foavc.org

The person in charge is the former chief judge of the Michigan Supreme Court.

They have on their website a FAQ's that would allay all your fears: http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60

Also, Larry Sabato supports such an idea:

Here is a video of him talking about it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2657766609062800867

If anyone is interested here is Sabato's website where he is promoting fixing the Constitution in general:
http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/

[Birdlady]

I have never really heard of this idea before. Where have you heard of it?

Why would you jump on it and not keep an open mind to an idea of how to fix our country. You also don't seem to know the Constitution as this method is expressly there in the Constitution-put there by our founding fathers.

Do you think they put something there that they didn't want to be used? You believe in the Founding fathers but not this part?

Are you a real Ron Paul supporter or just an enemy infiltrator here trying to saubatauge things that threaten the elite?

/sigh

A con con could be a disaster to this country. I think it's a really bad idea right now. We are not in control of our legislature at all. They pass bills left and right that violate our rights. You write them asking them to vote against bills and you get scripted messages telling you how good the bill is and how they take your concern seriously. (mmhmm sure-2 weeks later they pass it unanimously) They don't care about their constituents.

What makes you think they wouldn't get rid of the Bill of Rights? I certainly don't trust them!

[LibertyEagle]

No, I am not. I'm just saying that we should be willing to put some faith in people. I understand that this is a Republic. I don't want mob rule. We just need to come together as a country and decide where we are going. The very fact that many people are fearful of this is a good sign of the debate that will come. There will be rallies and discussions. There will be fighting and arguing. The American people who have been asleep at the wheel will have to wake up and recognize what is at stake here.

I think it's time for change.

A whole lot of education has to take place before that could happen. The reality is that our schools stopped teaching much about our country's founding, a long time ago. The vast majority of the people have not even read the Constitution, much less have any understanding of WHY our Founding Fathers wrote what they did. Nor, have they studied history and have a deep knowledge of the hazards of certain types of governments and why it is so very dangerous to construct a form of government that relies on "trusting" that their public servants will just do a good job.

It IS time for a change alright. It is time we start holding our public servants accountable to the Constitution. You've been listening to Ron Paul, the same way that I have been, right? Then, you must know that he does not advocate overthrowing the Constitution, but rather to FOLLOW IT. Yes, we should repeal a few amendments and maybe add one or two to clarify a couple of loopholes. But, we most certainly should not start from scratch.

If you think we should, why are you supporting Ron Paul? :confused:

[steph3n]

There is a group out there called "Friends of Article V of the Constitution" www.foavc.org

The person in charge is the former chief judge of the Michigan Supreme Court.

They have on their website a FAQ's that would allay all your fears: http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60

Also, Larry Sabato supports such an idea:

Here is a video of him talking about it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2657766609062800867

If anyone is interested here is Sabato's website where he is promoting fixing the Constitution in general:
http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/

my biggest issue with it is most of the big pushers of it are more of the socialist wing that proclaim the constitution to be outdated and not suitable.

no thank you, our constitution is QUITE suitable for today

[DirectDemocracy]

There seem to be people here who have infiltrated the legitimate Ron Paul Revolution working for the enemy elite (bankers, vatican) and are trying to squash anything that really threatens them.

[Pete Kay]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

[Matt]

I have never really heard of this idea before. Where have you heard of it?

Why would you jump on it and not keep an open mind to an idea of how to fix our country. You also don't seem to know the Constitution as this method is expressly there in the Constitution-put there by our founding fathers.

Do you think they put something there that they didn't want to be used? You believe in the Founding fathers but not this part?

Are you a real Ron Paul supporter or just an enemy infiltrator here trying to saubatauge things that threaten the elite?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the Constitution and what do you want to change? It seems to me the problem is that it's being ignored not that it's flawed.

A Constitutional Convention would just give corrupt politicians and special interests a chance to change parts of it they don't like such as that pesky 2nd Amendment. Never mind that the Bill of Rights merely enumerates rights that are inalienable and any attempt to limit them is illegitimate. It would be definite cause for a revolution.

[MS0453]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

No

[LibertyEagle]

There seem to be people here who have infiltrated the legitimate Ron Paul Revolution working for the enemy elite (bankers, vatican) and are trying to squash anything that really threatens them.

You must be misinformed. The Ron Paul campaign is all about the Constitution and restoring individual liberty.

If you however want to overthrow the Constitution, this is not the campaign for you. Hillary's or Giuliani's campaigns may be a better fit for you.

[DirectDemocracy]

You've been listening to Ron Paul, the same way that I have been, right? Then, you must know that he does not advocate overthrowing the Constitution, but rather to FOLLOW IT. Yes, we should repeal a few amendments and maybe add one or two to clarify a couple of loopholes. But, we most certainly should not start from scratch.

If you think we should, why are you supporting Ron Paul? :confused:

The people who advocate this idea don't advocate big changes. A Constitutional Convention doesn't mean that the whole thing gets changed.

[Matt]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

What's wrong with the current constitution?

[LibertyEagle]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

Ron Paul supports the Constitution. Which part of that do you not understand? :confused:

[Matt]

The people who advocate this idea don't advocate big changes. A Constitutional Convention doesn't mean that the whole thing gets changed.

What would you change?

[LibertyEagle]

The people who advocate this idea don't advocate big changes. A Constitutional Convention doesn't mean that the whole thing gets changed.

When a Constitutional Convention is held, EVERYTHING is up for grabs. EVERYTHING. Do you seriously not understand that? :confused:

[torchbearer]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

Before you bury yourself any furthur, you need to watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

It will explain to you that "the pirates have hijacked the ship and are in control"
The only chains that are left.. holding them back... is the consitution... not that they are following it... but, they would love an opportunity to "rewrite" it... and they are the ones behind the push. They are taking up positions in organizations that seem like they are for the people.
I will say your above statement is 100% ignorant.
Watch the above video, and then tell me I'm wrong.. until then, you don't have a clue what is going on in this country.
Sorry to seem like a prick, but you are spouting a very dangerous thing, and you really need to know why its dangerous. It's explained in the above video.
Watch it, then pm me. we will need to talk.

[DirectDemocracy]

If you however want to overthrow the Constitution, this is not the campaign for you. Hillary's or Giuliani's campaigns may be a better fit for you.

I am not looking to overthrow the Constitution. i acctualy just want to see one change in it. The change is amend the amending process so that the states don't have to go through Congress to amend the Constitution. The Confederate states fixed this flaw when they wrote their Constitution. I am looking for the same fix.

Text of Article V of the Confederate States Constitution:

Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

[Matt]

When a Constitutional Convention is held, EVERYTHING is up for grabs. EVERYTHING. Do you seriously not understand that? :confused:

Yep, it would be disastrous because there is no concept of inalienable, individual rights in this country anymore.

[dwdollar]

A new Constitutional Convention is a great idea. IF AND ONLY IF, the current power structure is circumvented. Also it must be a true representation of the people. That eliminates the minority liberals and neocons. We are the majority.

[DirectDemocracy]

A professor of history was on NPR last month pushing for this and I thought it was a great idea. He layed out the groundwork for it and some of his proposals were great.

America needs to sit down and make a decision about where it wants to go as a country.

We should discuss this futhur. I am trying to see whether there is anyone here besides yourself who is not a hack.

[steph3n]

Ron Paul supports the Constitution. Which part of that do you not understand? :confused:

right that is the point, and these proposed ideas, while a few are good many are VERY bad.



1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.

2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”

3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.



Presidency:
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.

10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.

11. Give the President a line-item veto.

12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.



Supreme Court:
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.



Politics:
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.

20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.



Universal National Service:
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.



National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.

1. Bad idea, 100 is the perfect amount. The house is where you have the voice of the majority.

2. WOWSER NO WAY!!!!!!

3. this is a state matter that needs reform at the state levels

4. I am not sure how this benefits really, the current staggered system prevents a tyranny of a party in the current form.

5. WHY? This has to be a joke.

6. fine with it, term limits should be explored.

7. we can do this without an amendment by promoting responsible government in a major way and forcing those not responsible out of the office. WE THE PEOPLE have FAILED.

8. This could be explored but really is a state rights matter.

9. NO!!!!!!

10. congress already has the needed authority if they take it seriously and stop giving it away.

11. I can see pros and cons but am thinking more and more the cons outweigh, the president should simply veto and explain why and have the legislative to make it constitutional.

12. at this point I don't like it.

13. non renewable? not sure i like that, there are some great sitting judges, and some bad.

14. mandatory retirement?

15. 9 is an odd number and just fine, 12 would create deadlock and not represent anymore. heck why not expand it to 2000 and be really representative.

16. why put this in the constitution?

17. uhhh, this is DANGEROUS

18. not really needed we need party reform but it doesn't have to be made in the constitution we the PEOPLE need to step up and demand change.

19. more populated states already have more electors, useless waste of time and money

20. nope don't agree at all, public finance of election runs will create people that run for office just to make a buck, even more than now.

21. people can step up to vote now, we are not preventing it, their own apathy prevents it.

22. go take a hike!

23. more and more not a good idea.

[Revolutn]

I have never really heard of this idea before. Where have you heard of it?

Why would you jump on it and not keep an open mind to an idea of how to fix our country. You also don't seem to know the Constitution as this method is expressly there in the Constitution-put there by our founding fathers.

Do you think they put something there that they didn't want to be used? You believe in the Founding fathers but not this part?

Are you a real Ron Paul supporter or just an enemy infiltrator here trying to saubatauge things that threaten the elite?


I am a person with critical thinking skills and much experience and legal research hath led me to form this opinion.

I did not need anyone to tell me.

I like your attempt to turn the light on me, all the while ignoring the questions posed to you in this thread, and you sir or madam as the case may be are the one proposing an idea that the average well informed patriot, which tend to be Ron Paul supporters, as evidenced by this thread, are trying to 'push' an idea not widely supported thereby, hence perhaps it is you, and not I that is attempting to infiltrate.

Your language suggests strongly to me, someone who reads extensively, that you've been coached in writing style and talking points.
That, combined with your general pushiness, and descension into personal attacks against persons not agreeing with your premise smack of cointelpro or similar FUD.

In either event I've really plainly stated my position on page one, and will not feed into trolling, so I simply will sign off as saying.

I agree to STRONGLY disagree with you, even if you do not agree with my right to do so. :)

Good day.

Rev

[steph3n]

A new Constitutional Convention is a great idea. IF AND ONLY IF, the current power structure is circumvented. Also it must be a true representation of the people. That eliminates the minority liberals and neocons. We are the majority.

the minority needs to be protected.

[MS0453]

We should discuss this futhur. I am trying to see whether there is anyone here besides yourself who is not a hack.

So the majority of us here are hacks? Democracy ftw

[DirectDemocracy]

2/3rds of the State Legislatures have never brought a proposed Amendment to the House though.

But I think that this will only dilute our efforts to get Congressman Paul into office. After he is in the White House, this can be our next project.

1) 2/3 have but Congress didn't accept it because the states didn't ask for it unformilay in a certain perion of time

2) You are 100% right about RP. My idea is not meant fot the general campaign but for a certain group of people that would want to work behind the scenes on such a project.

[specsaregood]

There seem to be people here who have infiltrated the legitimate Ron Paul Revolution working for the enemy elite (bankers, vatican) and are trying to squash anything that really threatens them.

That sounds like a confession.

[AlexMerced]

also... considering Hillary's lead in the polls and such, I'd be scared of some of these new provisions if people agree with her ideaology

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

All kinds of absurd "rights" would be thrown in there. I fear we would end up with something similar to Venezuela.

"Right to work"
"Right to learn"

[hambone1982]

The whole reason I support Ron Paul is because I want to return our government to its proper and constitutional role. After the government is out of the hands of special interests, bankers and foreign powers, and back in the hands of the American People, I would prefer that any major changes to our laws and government be done through the amendment process; in this manner I would agree to the idea of a Constitutional Convention.

I would hope, after we win and return the government's power to the people, we would learn our lesson and not attempt to legislate away the constitution.

[DirectDemocracy]

I wonder why some of you even support Ron Paul. You seem to think that people are so dumb and inept that they can't make any decisions for themselves. That's the argument against a Constitutional Convention. "No way, people are morons! The country will go down the tubes!" It's time for serious debate in this country. You don't think the average American will be actively concerned about the protection of their rights once they know that a new Constitution will be written?

Are the people here ignorant or cointelpro agents?

[torchbearer]

Before you bury yourself any furthur, you need to watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

It will explain to you that "the pirates have hijacked the ship and are in control"
The only chains that are left.. holding them back... is the consitution... not that they are following it... but, they would love an opportunity to "rewrite" it... and they are the ones behind the push. They are taking up positions in organizations that seem like they are for the people.
I will say your above statement is 100% ignorant.
Watch the above video, and then tell me I'm wrong.. until then, you don't have a clue what is going on in this country.
Sorry to seem like a prick, but you are spouting a very dangerous thing, and you really need to know why its dangerous. It's explained in the above video.
Watch it, then pm me. we will need to talk.

repost for video link and its importance. watch it if you haven't.

[MS0453]

Are the people here ignorant or cointelpro agents?

Personally, I'm an equal mixture of both.

[Revolutn]

Are the people here ignorant or cointelpro agents?

LoL

Caught ya.

Another tactic is to pick up terminology used against you and reflect it back.

Wow, you need more training we smoked you out way too fast. :p

[LibertyEagle]

Are the people here ignorant or cointelpro agents?

Please read this.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

[steph3n]

LoL

Caught ya.

Another tactic is to pick up terminology used against you and reflect it back.

Wow, you need more training we smoked you out way too fast. :p

honestly I think they are just confused and not well studied. And WAY TOO TRUSTING.

[SocraticAce]

There seem to be people here who have infiltrated the legitimate Ron Paul Revolution working for the enemy elite (bankers, vatican) and are trying to squash anything that really threatens them.

Bankers, not the ultimate enemy of Ron Paul or his revolution, the Federal Reserve, Nationalized bank is. Free markets generally can't exist w/o loans from banks.

The vatican?? haha yes, the vatican is actually running dubya and the whole neo-con/socialist agenda so they can conquer the world for the jews... or not.

I think a con con is a good idea, but not right now. Get RP in the big white house first, and then we can direct our grassroots movement to educating the people and changing state governments.

[MS0453]

Please read this.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html


Good call and I'd like to re-post my link to a Patrick Henry speech outlining a serious flaw in the current constitution. (Pertaining to democracy and "we the people")

http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

[slantedview]

in a way, good idea, in a way, bad idea.

if we got all of our current leaders together to decide what to do with the constitution should be now, god save us.

patriot act integration?

[Kregener]

MS0453 (and others) beat me to it.

If you truly want a socialist America, let "them" hold a Con-Con.

Goodbye Republic.

[DirectDemocracy]

I think a con con is a good idea, but not right now. Get RP in the big white house first, and then we can direct our grassroots movement to educating the people and changing state governments.

I agree with you. Now is not the right time, bit while everyone in the campaign is focusing on gettinr RP elected I want to along with anyone else who wants to look way ahead to see how to do the next step.

[Goldwater Conservative]

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I think this is a great idea, as long as we first have an Amendment that mandates paper trails for all elections (as is done with presidential electors) and an another requiring that certain popular super-majorities be reached (in addition to the 3/4 of states) for the proposals of any Constitutional Convention to take effect. Otherwise, I'm afraid it would be at the whim of special interests.

[steph3n]

I agree with you. Now is not the right time, bit while everyone in the campaign is focusing on gettinr RP elected I want to along with anyone else who wants to look way ahead to see how to do the next step.

do you agree with those 23 proposals made?

[jjockers]

I haven't read all of the posts here, but the first few pages were pretty disturbing. Those in favor of a Constitutional Convention want to change the very thing that Ron Paul and his supporters so fervently protect. Why would we want to change it? Had we been following it in the first place, things would not be as they are. Let's get back to the basics, the constitution as it stands.

It's rash to say we should change the constitution because we don't like how things are going. It's constitutional ignorance that led us to this poor position in the first place.

Seems insane to replace the binding document that is perhaps our last vestige of personal freedom in this country.

[steph3n]

I haven't read all of the posts here, but the first few pages were pretty disturbing. Those in favor of a Constitutional Convention want to change the very thing that Ron Paul and his supporters so fervently protect. Why would we want to change it? Had we been following it in the first place, things would not be as they are. Let's get back to the basics, the constitution as it stands.

It's rash to say we should change the constitution because we don't like how things are going. It's constitutional ignorance that led us to this poor position in the first place.

Seems insane to replace the binding document that is perhaps our last vestige of personal freedom in this country.

exactly, what is so disturbing is that many of those proposing such a convention are doing it to promote socialist agendas that are totally against freedom and liberty, such as FORCED SERVICE.

[Goldwater Conservative]

1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator.

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the states, and that proposal deprives them of their right to equal representation.


2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”

Republics are founded on not having hereditary rulers or nobility. We're already dealing with the possibility of 36 years of Bushes and Clinton (just wait for Jeb to change his mind about running for president by 2016), so let's not make things worse.


3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.

I think there's merit to this idea, considering that the Constitution guarantees us republican government and gerrymandering alone has given us 95+% reelection rates.


4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

I think 2-year terms are good for the House since it forces them to maintain strong ties with their districts while making every other congressional election coincide with the only national election in the country. Also, the mid-terms often serve as a good indicator of what the people are thinking of the presidential administration in power.

The Senate terms should be staggered so as to ensure some stability, although I think 4-year terms might be a better idea to strengthen their ties with their constituents.


5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

More members means less equality among representatives, less true deliberation, and more party leadership rule (see European parliaments). The exploding U.S. population means we should decentralize government if we want to achieve real representative government.


6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.

I'm definitely open to the idea, although I think other reforms (districting, voting) are needed first.


7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

Agreed.


8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation.

Leave that to the States.


9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.

I like the 4-year terms with a two-term limit. It's effectively an 8-year term (long enough time for any man) with a mid-term referendum.


10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.

They already have all the war-making powers (declaration and purse strings), they've just delegated it all away in violation of the Constitution. The president really only has war-waging powers.


11. Give the President a line-item veto.

Agreed.


12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.

I don't see the need for this. If anything, the residency requirements should be stricter.


13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

I think the terms should be longer for the Supremes, but other than that I agree. Also, require a 2/3 Senate majority for confirmation.


14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

Sounds fine to me.


15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

Not to be more representative, but to reduce the importance of any one seat.


16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.

That should be a statutory issue.


17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

I hope this is not referring to our party system or anything like that.


18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

Primaries are the matter of private organizations (political parties). We should be looking at voting reform (like adopting approval voting to replace plurality voting) that weakens the influence of political parties, and therefore the significance of their primary processes, instead.


19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.

I haven't found a solution I'm sold on, but right now I'm leaning in favor of keeping the EC but having an Amendment stipulating that where the popular vote is used to determine electors the electoral votes should be assigned proportionally to the popular vote.


20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

Again, there are far better ways of improving the political process.


21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.

That's a state issue, but I like the idea for my state.


22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.

Hell no. :)


23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.

Hopefully not if some of this person's ideas are the norm. :)

[steph3n]

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the states, and that proposal deprives them of their right to equal representation.



Republics are founded on not having hereditary rulers or nobility. We're already dealing with the possibility of 36 years of Bushes and Clinton (just wait for Jeb to change his mind about running for president by 2016), so let's not make things worse.



I think there's merit to this idea, considering that the Constitution guarantees us republican government and gerrymandering alone has given us 95+% reelection rates.



I think 2-year terms are good for the House since it forces them to maintain strong ties with their districts while making every other congressional election coincide with the only national election in the country. Also, the mid-terms often serve as a good indicator of what the people are thinking of the presidential administration in power.

The Senate terms should be staggered so as to ensure some stability, although I think 4-year terms might be a better idea to strengthen their ties with their constituents.



More members means less equality among representatives, less true deliberation, and more party leadership rule (see European parliaments). The exploding U.S. population means we should decentralize government if we want to achieve real representative government.



I'm definitely open to the idea, although I think other reforms (districting, voting) are needed first.



Agreed.



Leave that to the States.



I like the 4-year terms with a two-term limit. It's effectively an 8-year term (long enough time for any man) with a mid-term referendum.



They already have all the war-making powers (declaration and purse strings), they've just delegated it all away in violation of the Constitution. The president really only has war-waging powers.



Agreed.



I don't see the need for this. If anything, the residency requirements should be stricter.



I think the terms should be longer for the Supremes, but other than that I agree. Also, require a 2/3 Senate majority for confirmation.



Sounds fine to me.



Not to be more representative, but to reduce the importance of any one seat.



That should be a statutory issue.



I hope this is not referring to our party system or anything like that.



Primaries are the matter of private organizations (political parties). We should be looking at voting reform (like adopting approval voting to replace plurality voting) that weakens the influence of political parties, and therefore the significance of their primary processes, instead.



I haven't found a solution I'm sold on, but right now I'm leaning in favor of keeping the EC but having an Amendment stipulating that where the popular vote is used to determine electors the electoral votes should be assigned proportionally to the popular vote.



Again, there are far better ways of improving the political process.



That's a state issue, but I like the idea for my state.



Hell no. :)



Hopefully not if some of this person's ideas are the norm. :)

I gave a similar rundown and have a few disagreements with you but.....understand. I still don't think much of this could not be addressed by WE THE PEOPLE standing up adn voting the jokers out of office.

[DirectDemocracy]

I think this is a great idea, as long as we first have an Amendment that mandates paper trails for all elections (as is done with presidential electors) and an another requiring that certain popular super-majorities be reached (in addition to the 3/4 of states) for the proposals of any Constitutional Convention to take effect. Otherwise, I'm afraid it would be at the whim of special interests.

Here are some links to the idea:

http://www.foavc.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x23Wbrq0h0

http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/

If you are interested in working on it let me know.

[Gorgy]

This is a horrible idea. The last time we called a convention of this type was when the Constitution was adopted. The route? Completely scrapping the old government (under the Articles of Confederation) for our new one. That worked out well -- for a time -- so why do I say this is an awful idea?

The fact is, these modern times would see another scrapping of our previous form of government and the institution of a new one. Things like the 2nd Amendment would be gutted, things like an income tax would be written into the document, and protections from "unreasonable search and seizure" would surely be limited to make current federal practices constitutional.

Make no mistake about it, if a convention is called, the modern statist ideas will win out and our libertarian form of government will be scrapped. This is a horrible, horrible idea and one for which most people don't seem to understand the potential (and likely) repercussions.

[steph3n]

This is a horrible idea. The last time we called a convention of this type was when the Constitution was adopted. The route? Completely scrapping the old government (under the Articles of Confederation) for our new one. That worked out well -- for a time -- so why do I say this is an awful idea?

The fact is, these modern times would see another scrapping of our previous form of government and the institution of a new one. Things like the 2nd Amendment would be gutted, things like an income tax would be written into the document, and protections from "unreasonable search and seizure" would surely be limited to make current federal practices constitutional.

Make no mistake about it, if a convention is called, the modern statist ideas will win out and our libertarian form of government will be scrapped. This is a horrible, horrible idea and one for which most people don't seem to understand the potential (and likely) repercussions.

Agree fully, the person advocating this does not understand that we have only a few statesmen alive today!

[DirectDemocracy]

Agree fully, the person advocating this does not understand that we have only a few statesmen alive today!

Oh, you don't seem to know what is going on in this country and plus you disagree with Jefferson if you don't agree with me. I have got good company, how about you?

[jjockers]

DirectDemocracy,

I welcome your vote in favor of Ron Paul! :D

That being said, you are advocating replacing the very thing that Ron Paul has fought for 20 some years to restore to the forefront of US politics as the quintessential government-people contract that it is intended to be.

There may be a time and place for such a movement, but that time is not now.

[steph3n]

Oh, you don't seem to know what is going on in this country and plus you disagree with Jefferson if you don't agree with me. I have got good company, how about you?

Jefferson did not endorse the idea of radically re-writing the constitution exactly. It is why there is an AMENDMENT process!

[hambone1982]

I have noticed that some of you guys are in favor of a line item veto. Doesn't a line item veto give the president the power to reshape any piece of legislation to exactly what he wants? Doesn't a line item veto ignore the Will of Congress?

Sure, it will save money - but at what cost?

[torchbearer]

I have noticed that some of you guys are in favor of a line item veto. Doesn't a line item veto give the president the power to reshape any piece of legislation to exactly what he wants? Doesn't a line item veto ignore the Will of Congress?

Sure, it will save money - but at what cost?

The Will of Congress? People vote on bills they don't like because of "concessions" of money going to their district to buy their support of the bill. A line item veto will allow congress to debate items one at a time, and their TRUE WILL, can then be determined, One item at a time. And the president can veto one item at a time. No more bribery, no bullshit period. Don't assume the WILL OF CONGRESS is represented in an overstuffed bill of entitlements to buy the UNWILLING congressmen.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Even though I'm not a big fan of the constitution, I realize (its importance at the moment and) that if a convention was held today, it would be absolutely desecrated.

Please tell me that you just wrote that wrong. If not, how can you be a Ron Paul supporter?

[Goldwater Conservative]

Jefferson did not endorse the idea of radically re-writing the constitution exactly. It is why there is an AMENDMENT process!

He did, however, endorse the idea of having a Constitutional Convention every few years (he proposed 19-20, which corresponds to one generation in his time), even if only for the purpose of a few amendments. A convention that totally scrapped the constitution we now have would not fly today (and it barely did in the 1780s).

[xd9fan]

We first have to get America to agree that we have one.......
then to read it....
then to obey it....

[CableNewsJunkie]

Here's the thing about a new Constitutional Convention....it could usher in something like this...

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm

And that should scare the mess out of everyone on this board.


Excerpts:

Actually, the whole darn thing should be posted here as an excerpt, but here is one provision that really stood out.

"SECTION 8. There shall be a responsibility to avoid violence and to keep the peace; for this reason the bearing of arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law."

[Matt Collins]

Looks like a good thread to bump

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Looks like a good thread to bump

Fudging doughbag.

[Matt Collins]

Fudging doughbag.Huh? Why would you say that? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

A Constitutional Convention is a great idea. It shouldn't be feared. The Founders expected us to have one every hundred years. The new Constitution would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be near impossible to put some outrageous provsions in there. Cosensus among the American people would be needed.

Here's a good article:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19276

You do realize these are the same people who elected BUSH and OBAMA, right?

No, thank you.

[Zippyjuan]

A Constitutional Convention is used to propose amendments to the Constitution. Any proposed amendments would require ratification by three fourths of the states afterwards to take effect. Not likely you would get any radical changes in the original document- and you could not be certian that the proposals would be libertarian in nature. Overthrowing the government can ofter lead to a less desirable form than the one you have.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Huh? Why would you say that? :confused:

Huh? Are you seriously bumping a thread that was last posted in back in 2007?

[Matt Collins]

Huh? Are you seriously bumping a thread that was last posted in back in 2007?Yes... why? BECAUSE IT'S RELEVANT TO CURRENT EVENTS! :rolleyes:

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Yes... why? BECAUSE IT'S RELEVANT TO CURRENT EVENTS! :rolleyes:


To what current events?

[LibertyEagle]

I am not looking to overthrow the Constitution. i acctualy just want to see one change in it. The change is amend the amending process so that the states don't have to go through Congress to amend the Constitution. The Confederate states fixed this flaw when they wrote their Constitution. I am looking for the same fix.

Text of Article V of the Confederate States Constitution:

Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

That is what amendments are for, but good luck getting something like that passed. Still, a Con-Con is much too dangerous. Regardless of the intended lofty purposes. It could easily backfire in all our faces.

[Matt Collins]

To what current events?
Search for concon or "constitutional convention" and you'll see what I'm talking about

[Matt Collins]

If you have doubts or are worried about such a thing, this will answer your questions:
http://www.article-5.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=60


I can't thank you enough for this link!

A state rep asked me for more information about it and I have had a hell of a time finding anything online.


Thanks again!