Stop the CON CON

[NH4RonPaul]

This is the most hair brained idea anyone could have yet the neocons are hot for it.

http://www.girardatlarge.com/2015/02...-stop-con-con/

[mosquitobite]

The proponents are way scary and naive.

[William Tell]

The proponents are way scary and naive.

Yes they are, a couple are sincere and well meaning. I hope they wake up!

[TaftFan]

Libertarian legal experts-Judge Napolitano, Randy Barnett, Kevin Gutzman, Bruce Fein, etc.-are proponents of the convention of states.

The "runaway" convention is a myth.

[idiom]

Libertarian legal experts-Judge Napolitano, Randy Barnett, Kevin Gutzman, Bruce Fein, etc.-are proponents of the convention of states.

The "runaway" convention is a myth.

Because everyone will follow the rules with good and honest intentions.

[amartin315]

What's the point of a convention with no specific purpose? If there is something in particular that some group wants to change, then petition for the convention. But don't just open up the floor to change for the sake of change itself.

[William Tell]

Mark Levin, the Young Turks, and George Soros groups agree on one thing: Changing the Constitution.

[fisharmor]

The "runaway" convention is a myth.

Uh-huh. Despite the fact that past constitutional conventions in the United States have a 100% rate of completely trashing the existing system and replacing it with something way more authoritarian.

But that makes me sound like I'm against it. I'm not. Do it. Trash the Constitution openly - we've been doing it covertly since 1788, so it really doesn't matter to me what they do.

If they trash the existing system there's at least a probability that some states will walk away and choose not to participate in any other union going forward.

[DamianTV]

If it aint broke, dont fix it!

The problems we are experiencing today are not a result from flaws in the Constitution itself, but the lack of adherece to the Constitution.

There is an exceptionally dangerous potential that if the Constitution itself can be completely altered, it will be altered to promote Big Government instead of the original intention of a Limited Government. Might as well just "throw it in the woods" and have corporations write our Neo Constitution, that benefits them, and only them. Legalized Facism.

There are very few people that would partake in the Constitutional Convention (Con Con) that have any desire to represent the best interest of the People, not the Corporations or Big Govt.

If the Con Con starts, its all over. The United States as we all knew her will truly be dead, forever.

[TaftFan]

Because everyone will follow the rules with good and honest intentions.

Because 3/4 of states have to approve any changes.

[TaftFan]

http://www.compactforamerica.org/

[fisharmor]

The problems we are experiencing today are not a result from flaws in the Constitution itself, but the lack of adherece to the Constitution.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just put cameras everywhere, so we could watch everyone, and throw the ones not following the constitution in prison for life?
If people can't be free with a document that gives them freedom, we should take that freedom away so they will stop using their freedom to violate the document that gives them freedom.

[William Tell]

If it aint broke, dont fix it!

The problems we are experiencing today are not a result from flaws in the Constitution itself, but the lack of adherece to the Constitution.

There is an exceptionally dangerous potential that if the Constitution itself can be completely altered, it will be altered to promote Big Government instead of the original intention of a Limited Government. Might as well just "throw it in the woods" and have corporations write our Neo Constitution, that benefits them, and only them. Legalized Facism.

There are very few people that would partake in the Constitutional Convention (Con Con) that have any desire to represent the best interest of the People, not the Corporations or Big Govt.

If the Con Con starts, its all over. The United States as we all knew her will truly be dead, forever.

Exactly, look who we have i the state legislatures. Sure, we have a growing handful of good people, but not enough.

[Danke]

Because 3/4 of states have to approve any changes.

In our current political enviorment, I'll I can say is "no thanks."

[William Tell]

In our current political enviorment, I'll I can say is "no thanks."

Why do you hate America?

[Danke]

Why do you hate America?

The same reason you want to kill your father and screw your mother.

PS. I don't want to kill your father.

[TaftFan]

In our current political enviorment, I'll I can say is "no thanks."

The current political environment is great for this.

31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 11 by Democrats, and 8 are split.

The whole idea that George Soros is going to rewrite the Constitution is utter bull$#@!.

[Danke]

The current political environment is great for this.

31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 11 by Democrats, and 8 are split.

The whole idea that George Soros is going to rewrite the Constitution is utter bull$#@!.

Well, I don't share your faith. I'd say it is too soon.

I work with many so-called conservatives and I don't think they think the same way as you or I about the Constitution.

[William Tell]

The current political environment is great for this.

31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 11 by Democrats, and 8 are split.

The whole idea that George Soros is going to rewrite the Constitution is utter bull$#@!.

Why are Soros funded groups supporting an "Article V" Convention? Maybe should go back to reading real pro Constitution sources like the New American. You know, the crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists Larry McDonald supported.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-V-Convention

[TaftFan]

Well, I don't share your faith. I'd say it is too soon.

I work with many so-called conservatives and I don't think they think the same way as you or I about the Constitution.

Perhaps not, but I also don't think they would accept proposals from liberals either.

[TaftFan]

Why are Soros funded groups supporting an "Article V" Convention? Maybe should go back to reading real pro Constitution sources like the New American. You know, the crazy Alex Jones type conspiracy theorists Larry McDonald supported.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-V-Convention

The Article V convention is in the Constitution. Supporting it is pro-Constitution. It was put there for a reason: states may have to go around Congress in order to force change.

I read the article. Let's run through what is being said. Wolf Pac is pushing for a campaign finance amendment. The Young Turks support Wolf Pac's efforts. George Soros supports The Young Turks. Therefore, George Soros is pushing for an Article V convention?

Wolf Pac has a right to push for a campaign finance amendment. I don't support it, but that is there right. There is no chance in hell of it passing though.

I like the JBS, but they are wrong about the Article V convention. Just completely wrong.

[William Tell]

One of these convention proponents was sent to a local tea party here. When asked about why politicians will follow the updated Constitution when they don't now, he said they follow it as they understand it. Of course, he was called out on it due to the IRS persecuting tea parties. But this shows the bizarre logic of these people. He was also grilling attenders who disagreed with him, demanding if they belonged to JBS or Eagle Forum, he made it so personal that he was told to leave by the organizer.

Anyone who thinks Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano types will control a convention, are simply delusional. There are only a couple legislators in my State who I would trust with being delegates. I certainly don't expect anyone better to be chosen.

[William Tell]

We need to elect more good State level people, and get them involved with 10th amendment. The problem is that our elected officials are not following the Constitution. They won't suddenly start following it if we change it.

[TaftFan]

One of these convention proponents was sent to a local tea party here. When asked about why politicians will follow the updated Constitution when they don't now, he said they follow it as they understand it. Of course, he was called out on it due to the IRS persecuting tea parties. But this shows the bizarre logic of these people. He was also grilling attenders who disagreed with him, demanding if they belonged to JBS or Eagle Forum, he made it so personal that he was told to leave by the organizer.

Anyone who thinks Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano types will control a convention, are simply delusional. There are only a couple legislators in my State who I would trust with being delegates. I certainly don't expect anyone better to be chosen.

The only likely amendments are term limits and balanced budget. I don't see a big problem passing them, if people get behind the amendment idea. There is no way those can be blatantly disobeyed.

[fisharmor]

The only likely amendments are term limits and balanced budget. I don't see a big problem passing them, if people get behind the amendment idea. There is no way those can be blatantly disobeyed.

Republicans at the helm, and you think things they've been in good positions to push for multiple times in the last 20 years are what's on the agenda?
Here comes the clue bus, and it's full of the things they'd actually push for in a concon.

1) Elimination of the 2-year limit on defense spending. Take the biggest, ugliest, porkiest war budgets we've seen since WWII and jack that up a bunch more. Guess what? When all that hardware is sitting around people get the idea to use it, which brings me to:

2) Explicit authorization for the president to use military power at will, with some toothless perfunctory checkbox he has to actually lift his writing hand to blacken beforehand. Republicans have shown us their cards, and they all say "WE DON'T CARE WHO IS PRESIDENT AS LONG AS HE'S MURDERING BROWN PEOPLE". And when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Look forward to an endless series of conflicts that will make what we've been dealing with for the last 15 years seem like it was being run by Charles Lindbergh.

3) Seriously, you think the 8th Amendment would emerge intact? Get a clue, buddy - explicit protections for people who torture for the old Stars and Stripes.

4) Explicit protections for all their favorite NGOs as they spy, torture, run drones, gun down vans full of journalists, or whatever else they get into in the name of patriotism.

5) What red-blooded Republican American doesn't get a 6-foot long boner thinking about no-knock raids and outright murders of all those persons of color who are so obviously up to no good? The ONLY hope that the families of people like Eric Garner and John Crawford have in this world is federal civil suits: KISS IT GOODBYE if a concon happens.

6) Do you have any idea how antiquated our ICBM and nuclear weapon technology is, and how truly good of a thing that actually is? How about a modern version that packs only about 1kt of low-radiation explosives and is capable of pinpoint accuracy anywhere on the globe? It's totally possible... but they can't do it because of a bunch of cold war baggage. Hey, look, turns out we don't like Russia again! What treaties are you talking about comrade... we just nuked the system and we're not bound by any of that. Guess what, we just went from joking about bombing Iran, to actually bombing Iran, because they're not real nukes, and come on, it's not like we even have to leave home.

7) Seriously, dude, do you think I'd still be a free man 15 minutes after posting any of these things after a Republican controlled con-con happened? You think the likes of John McCain would allow that to happen? Or do you think it's more likely that I'd be breathing a wet rag 168 times until they $#@! it up and I die, and my children would eat out of dumpsters the rest of their lives, and droves of corn-fed mouthbreathers would point at them and grunt that it was only fair because that whole attainder thing was antiquated and useless anyway, which is why we got rid of it?

All of these things are changeable with the addition or deletion of just a few words.
And like I already pointed out, the last time this happened, it wasn't just a few words: the original system got totally scrapped.

[Olaf]

Because 3/4 of states have to approve any changes.

3/4 of states approved the 16th and 17th amendments.

[DamianTV]

We need to elect more good State level people, and get them involved with 10th amendment. The problem is that our elected officials are not following the Constitution. They won't suddenly start following it if we change it.

Bam!

And with a Con Con, the first thing to go is the Bill of Rights, then every other Limitation of the scope of Big Govt! Especially the 10th Amendment!

[heavenlyboy34]

If it aint broke, dont fix it!

The problems we are experiencing today are not a result from flaws in the Constitution itself, but the lack of adherece to the Constitution.

There is an exceptionally dangerous potential that if the Constitution itself can be completely altered, it will be altered to promote Big Government instead of the original intention of a Limited Government. Might as well just "throw it in the woods" and have corporations write our Neo Constitution, that benefits them, and only them. Legalized Facism.

There are very few people that would partake in the Constitutional Convention (Con Con) that have any desire to represent the best interest of the People, not the Corporations or Big Govt.

If the Con Con starts, its all over. The United States as we all knew her will truly be dead, forever.

No Treason

The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner

---

I.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, AS AN AGREEMENT, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.

If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.
http://jim.com/treason.htm

[idiom]

The current political environment is great for this.

31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 11 by Democrats, and 8 are split.

The whole idea that George Soros is going to rewrite the Constitution is utter bull$#@!.

So which states are going to vote against building the US into a permanent war-machine?

Which states are going to outlaw the fed bailing out the states?

Which states are going to keep infrastructure funding and education funding out of the role of the federal govt?

Hell, which 13 states are going to vote against the Fed supplying the police with rocket launchers?

Which states are going to remove all authority for drug wars?

Which states are going to break up the NSA, the CIA or the FBI?

[heavenlyboy34]

The current political environment is great for this.

31 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 11 by Democrats, and 8 are split.

The whole idea that George Soros is going to rewrite the Constitution is utter bull$#@!.

R and D tell us virtually nothing. Within both of these labeled groups there is a cluster$#@! of factions-some significantly more friendly to "liberty" causes than others. If you could get the specific names and backgrounds of everyone who would vote, you might make a more convincing argument.