Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 150

Thread: After 226 Years, The House Passes Rule To Count Applications For An Article V Convention

  1. #1

    After 226 Years, The House Passes Rule To Count Applications For An Article V Convention

    Congress has been operating beyond neglect for 226 years. Perhaps up until the act of 1871, it was inadvertent. However, after that act, states began to object and over time applications, were made at an increasing rate.

    "A little-noticed change in the rules of the House may make it easier to change the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget."

    http://stivers.house.gov/news/docume...umentID=398530

    Another aspect seen in the above link is the grey areas of Article V.

    "Don Wolfensberger, a congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a resident scholar with the Bipartisan Policy Center, said many details of any constitutional convention remain unclear."

    There is a thread here at the forum which introduces the "Countermand Amendment" which clarifies a few aspects which are generally considered "grey" and provides a method, having the same authority as Article V, but only to get rid of federal laws that violate states rights.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...same-authority

    There is a history to this neglect by congress to count applications for an Article V convention which is rooted within the Article V activists. After a great deal of research, mostly by Bill Walker of FOAVC, Daniel Marks of Hawaii wrote a letter to the Clerk of congress which was understood and reacted to by Rep. Steve Stivers.

    http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmark...al-convention/

    For some reason I cannot load that page so cannot see if D. Marks letter, or the below letter is also there. The letter from Kirk Boyle, legal counsel to congress is here.

    http://www.foavc.org/reference/Boyle_Response.pdf

    The house affirmed and passed the rule as the link above shows.

    ON EDIT:
    Two threads which were posted in the U.S. politics forum were moved to grassroots. They are intrinsically related to this thread because both propose uses of Article V.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471264-Countermand-Amendment-Article-V-proposal-that-reduces-need-for-Article-V-but-same-authority
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-29-2015 at 01:20 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Noob View Post
    Why would anyone say no to the intent of the constitution to "alter or abolish" government destructive to our unalienable rights?

    Your unreasoned fear mongering will fail in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Albeit, Americans are fearful of the infiltrated government. They should as that government colluded with many corporate forms after unconstitutionally empowering those forms with individual rights. Those forms worked to confuse, mislead and corrupt the American people to try and disable them from using their constitution to secure their rights and freedoms.

    You have so little to say, just a link invoking fearful denial of our natural responsibility to ourselves and future generations.

    You should know, that saying "no" to constitutional intent says "no" to the natural need to share and understand information vital to survival.

    Saying "no" blocks our reach for our right to "alter or abolish" government destructive to our lives, our liberty and our perpetual pursuit of happiness by removing the constitutions tool for our defense of it.

    If that is not what you block by asking people to live in fear by saying no, then answer yes to this question.


    Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

  5. #4
    I'm just going to paste this here from another thread:

    I think we all agree that any amendment to the Constitution should be directed at reigning in government power. Who exactly do you think is going to push for that? The majority of the public doesn't even support the existing limits on government power. The First Amendment would not pass a popular election. The American people LOVE dictators. Why would they choose delegates to a convention that are dedicated to further limitations? And what politicians will support further limitations on government power? In the past fifty years both major parties have had multiple opportunities to change the direction of the country with simultaneous congressional majorities and control of the White House and yet the size, scope, cost, and power of the Federal government has increased unabated.

    Politicians LIKE unrestrained power. Crony capitalists LIKE unrestrained power. Even the stupid sheep LIKE unrestrained power. So who exactly is going to advocate new limitations on Federal power? Where do you think you are going to find anyone with any clout that really wants more restraint on the plunder machine?

    People might agree on term limits, but that is trivial.

    A truly balanced budget will ultimately be opposed by everyone who benefits from the largess. And if it passed it would have loopholes you could drive a truck through.

    The bottom line is that this country is not being screwed over by Congress. The American people are screwing themselves. Congress is just the middleman and a convention would simply be congress writ large. The Constitution is being ignored and liberty is being destroyed because the American people either don't care, are too stupid to know, or WANT it that way. Americans are afraid of freedom and love tyranny. We WANT a king. There is nothing at all inherent in a convention that will suddenly restore in the people a love of liberty and hatred of tyranny. And there is no reason to think that convention delegates will be any better quality of statesmen than are our congressmen. A convention will be just another opportunity to legislate our own chains, as we have been doing at an accelerating pace since the first Constitution was ratified.

    Bad idea.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  6. #5
    Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

  7. #6
    Just because it is available does not mean that you want to invoke.
    Last edited by puppetmaster; 03-27-2015 at 10:36 PM.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  8. #7
    We are a long way off from seeing our elected officials operate within their Constitutional power, and in honor
    of the oaths of office they took before they started trampling the Constitution.

    To suggest (in general, not directed to the op) we are at a point where it is safe to make changes to it
    is not respectful of that which is already largely ignored.

    , ,
    .

  9. #8
    Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol

    An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.

    Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Your unreasoned fear mongering will fail in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
    What country you living in buddy?
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever.

    It won't take very long to get them home but it won't be overnight either but Iraq says they can't stay and they are coming home just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  12. #10
    Under this The Bill of Rights well be on the chopping block, along with every thing else.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    What country you living in buddy?
    He's been listening to Mark Levin and it has warped his brain.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.
    I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
    I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

    As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

    The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

    So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

    So my point is - $#@! it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

    Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    I'm just going to paste this here from another thread:

    I think we all agree that any amendment to the Constitution should be directed at reigning in government power. Who exactly do you think is going to push for that? The majority of the public doesn't even support the existing limits on government power.
    There are two ways to view this. One, limiting governmental power, as you see it. Or two, empowering the people with the principals of the republic, constitutional intent.

    You forget that Americans do not know what constitutional intent is. The purpose of free speech is constitutional intent, and Americans like the idea of being empowered to alter or abolish government destructive to their vital rights.

    Educated Americans can unify and they WILL push for assuring their needs are met not violated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The First Amendment would not pass a popular election. The American people LOVE dictators. Why would they choose delegates to a convention that are dedicated to further limitations?
    The revision to the first amendment proposed manifests the purpose of free speech which in turn enables unity. That unity will express itself as democratic control over the the republic altering or abolishing government destructive to vital rights once the people are educated by themselves with the purpose of free speech. A few intelligent, courageous Americans is all it takes to get the snowball rolling.

    The snowball will roll fast and gain size very rabidly because Americans KNOW that their futures are seriously threatened by government neglect, malfeasance, nonfeasance and corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    And what politicians will support further limitations on government power? In the past fifty years both major parties have had multiple opportunities to change the direction of the country with simultaneous congressional majorities and control of the White House and yet the size, scope, cost, and power of the Federal government has increased unabated.
    Politicians that are sincere Americans exist, and there are quite a few. Currently they operate in fear of the infiltration of government at all levels. When they see the people capable of protecting and supporting them, they will step forward.

    The parties are designed to be divisions, and only to divide. This is why most of the framers of the founding documents opposed parties. Within that, and the constant deception with misleading of the public by media collusive with the infiltration of the government established with the act of 1871, the power of the federal government has increased to the point where it can exhibit repeated contempt for the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Politicians LIKE unrestrained power. Crony capitalists LIKE unrestrained power. Even the stupid sheep LIKE unrestrained power. So who exactly is going to advocate new limitations on Federal power? Where do you think you are going to find anyone with any clout that really wants more restraint on the plunder machine?
    Corrupt politicians LOVE the unrestrained power of deception and manipulation. They will return to selling bridges and used cars alone, because groups of corrupt car salesmen do not do well in business.

    The people have the right and capacity with the power (clout) to restrain the plunder machine. Sincere American politicians will gradually at first, then cascade into blocking the plundering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    People might agree on term limits, but that is trivial.
    People will agree on term limits and campaign finance reform, and they are both quite important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    A truly balanced budget will ultimately be opposed by everyone who benefits from the largess. And if it passed it would have loopholes you could drive a truck through.
    They people are not benefiting in the long term and anyone who has seen the national deficit and what it does to our future knows that. America will have to "tighten the belt" so to speak. But, ending the corruption which has abducted American productivity with GATT and NAFTA will fairly quickly set the economic course back to where it naturally belongs.

    Loopholes are the tool of collusion between corrupt government and corporations. The capacity to create those will be gone by the time a general convention gathers. The manifestation of the purpose of free speech is going to educate Americans to the point where they will fully accept certain sacrifices needs to secure the needed dynamics for the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The bottom line is that this country is not being screwed over by Congress. The American people are screwing themselves. Congress is just the middleman and a convention would simply be congress writ large.
    Explain how congressional nonfeasance and malfeasance related to not counting applications for article V then citizens united ARE NOT congress "screwing over the people".

    The American people have been slowly forced into ignorance by elites that know human weaknesses, tendencies, frailties and corruptions. All have been exploited since the act of 1871. You neglect the element of time in your statement. With the people use constitutional intent to control the states, congressional corruption will be nullified during the convention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The Constitution is being ignored and liberty is being destroyed because the American people either don't care, are too stupid to know, or WANT it that way. Americans are afraid of freedom and love tyranny. We WANT a king. There is nothing at all inherent in a convention that will suddenly restore in the people a love of liberty and hatred of tyranny. And there is no reason to think that convention delegates will be any better quality of statesmen than are our congressmen. A convention will be just another opportunity to legislate our own chains, as we have been doing at an accelerating pace since the first Constitution was ratified.

    Bad idea.
    I've already said, YOU IGNORE TIME and what it has done to the peoples perceptions. The infiltration has had over 100 years to corrupt people. You do not even know what a king is. No one in our world does. England never knew either. Written history omits that information.

    The convention does not restore a love of liberty, the purpose of freedom of speech does. READ. Tyranny is terrifying and people feel that fear descending upon them. They definitely do not want that.

    With a relatively small number of Americans articulating constitutional intent, delegates will come from those groups, and the people will KNOW that their delegates will not compromise proposals for amendment and WILL keep the people appraised of state fidelity to the intent of the proposed amendments during ratifications.

    The framers did not have the appreciation of the potential for corruption of mass media that the infiltration had and has. Therefore they were not able to guard against it. This is something that is fairly well known now therefore the people can be further educated and reject the manipulations that have corrupted them and instead support the doctrines that will strengthen them while improving their lives.

    Have you ever considered that your world view is the result of a pessimistic media indoctrination and conditioning?

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.
    Do you know what "labeling" is? It is a cognitive distortion which is designed to pre-empt understanding.

    Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

    If not, consider you are mentally and emotionally disabled from understanding your first constitutional right.

  17. #15
    I'm terrified of what Boobus would be convinced to put in the Constitution if given the chance. But I don't see one bit how it changes anything. They can repeal the whole $#@!ing thing and nothing would change. The Constitution doesn't restrain them at all now. The only thing restraining them is the fear of civil unrest.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    He's been listening to Mark Levin and it has warped his brain.
    No doubt Levin works to warp perceptions of things. But I expose him by listening to him.

    What is Mark Levin saying?

    There is one inconsistency, or maybe I'm not hearing him right. Transcribe his basic words when he first addresses state legislators at 9:37 - again at 10:14 ".

    He says at 9:37 - again at 10:14 "Less than 70 of you in the same room."

    Then at 29:30 to 30:30 he describes many more people involved. The latter situation is what I would expect, the former is what I would worry about IF he is talking about ratification.

    I worry because ALEC could easily control a few in 3/4 of the states. Now, because COS invited Levin, it appears that COS is an ALEC financed non profit to try and assemble grassroots support, or deceive it. All efforts to discuss constitutional intent with both ALEC and COS leaders have failed, indicating this speculation may be correct.

    In the former he is speaking directly to state legislators encouraging them, in the latter he is ridiculing those that fear a runaway convention.



    Levin is a hack, and he says two different things about a convention to two different groups in the video, proving his manipulation. In the beginning he says, (this was from someone else's analysis) 2, legislators from 3/4 of the states, 70 people, can get the job done. Then later when dismissing those fearful of a runaway convention he makes it sound like hundreds are involved.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I'm terrified of what Boobus would be convinced to put in the Constitution if given the chance. But I don't see one bit how it changes anything. They can repeal the whole $#@!ing thing and nothing would change. The Constitution doesn't restrain them at all now. The only thing restraining them is the fear of civil unrest.
    Are you speaking of the potus? The president, the congress and the courts will have no say over ratifications when 3/4 of the states are acting.

    However, this could work very much against us if ALEC is planing as I think they may have for 20 years, interacting with states the whole time. Basically writing legislation that state legislatures pass word for word. See my last post.

    Now there is a serious threat. If we are not proactive with Article V, we will see the constitution re written very much against our interests. It will become the United States of Corporate America with the koch bros. as kings.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
    I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

    As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

    The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

    So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

    So my point is - $#@! it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

    Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.
    Hah, I love intelligent realists!

    Staying where we are is NOT a real solution. Good maxim!

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Noob View Post
    Under this The Bill of Rights well be on the chopping block, along with every thing else.
    Only if Americans remain ignorant of constitutional intent.

    Otherwise, Americans get to define it AND, alter or abolish, Yee-haw!

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    What country you living in buddy?
    Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?

    Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right. Better shut off the TV brother.

    No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?
    Are you implying that they are "fighting for our freedoms"?

    They are enforcing the dictates of the state, and would enforce against us, in a heartbeat.

    Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right.
    Families? Possibly not. Friends and neighbors? By all means. "Support the Troops" means sending them off to get maimed and killed.

    No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.
    We're looking at a different set of people I guess.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol
    Concepts will become modified and permanently made comprehensive to preservation of the principles of the republic. Your words are an effort to minimize what proper amendment can do.

    Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.
    How would a convention of states controlled by the people of the states WITH the peopes awareness and developed capacity to define constitutional intent constitute "another layer of false legitimacy"?

    Having the high ground and making demands means little. Defining the high ground with proper constitutional intent as it is rooted in natural law THEN using law to enforce the law of the land means everything.

    THEY? Only if we let them by neglecting our right to do so and be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.
    There is no way to LEGITIMATELY enforce compliance without the states acting. If they are going to act with full authority and permanence it needs to be through Article V.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 03-27-2015 at 01:07 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Are you speaking of the potus?
    No, I'm talking about the people. The illiterate, barely functional human beings you want to entrust with this rewriting of the Constitution. The people that raise money for defense funds for murderous cops after they sleigh unarmed mundanes. The people that think health care is a right. The people that think the evil Muslims are going to come here and institute Sharia law. The people that call the police because their neighbor is doing something that seems suspicious. These miserable, brain dead slime will flock to the conventions when Barack Obama or Jeb Bush or Police Chief Joe Friendly tells them to go support putting universal health care or mandatory disarming of the public in the new Constitution.

    You think you are going to educate the likes of this on "constitutional intent"? How? Buy commercials during Dancing with the Stars or whatever the $#@! people watch these days? The way to freedom is by education. By getting a large enough minority, that is too large to kill with police, to buy into the message and create the freedom for themselves. Educating a majority of illiterates about constitutional intent? Good luck with that.
    Last edited by The Gold Standard; 03-27-2015 at 05:06 PM.

  27. #24
    1) Any proposals from an Article V Convention must be approved by 3/4 of states before they can be enacted. Good luck getting 3/4th of states to agree on anything.
    2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.
    3) A "balanced budget amendment" is the publicized reason to have a convention. But no balanced budgets have been submitted (only Ron and Rand Paul have proposed one) so a balanced budget is not a serious issue. There are other "hidden" reasons for a convention.

    One of the things supporters of a ConCon have suggested is making a state's call for a convention "permenant and irrevocable" to try to force a convention. There would be no time limit and a state cannot ever change their mind.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-27-2015 at 01:26 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    No, I'm talking about the people. The illiterate, barely functional human beings you want to entrust with this rewriting of the Constitution. The people that raise money for defense funds for murderous cops after they sleigh unarmed mundanes. .
    I would have to say you are a victim of cognitive distortions. Using a term like "boobus" is labeling. AND, you are guilty of "thinking that others thik like you think" in this realm of activism. That is a socialized acceptance of conditioning from cognitive distortions leaking out.

    But, you definitely can think, and think well, just wrongly. Particularly about the capacity of your fellow Americans.

    Most likely you have been induced to conduct "emotional reasoning". Firstly, you assert everyone raises money for murderous cops. They don't. A few mislead confused fearful people do and that makes you THINK all Americans do.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    The people that think health care is a right. The people that think the evil Muslims are going to come here and institute Sharia law. The people that call the police because their neighbor is doing seems suspicious. These miserable, brain dead slime will flock to the conventions when Barack Obama or Jeb Bush or Police Chief Joe Friendly tells them to go support putting universal health care or mandatory disarming of the public in the new Constitution..
    The people you refer to are those mislead by mass media. I won't deny there are a lot of them, however, not so many that they equal those that are silent through the whole debacle you describe. This that are silent know something is wrong, just not "what" it is. What is wrong is that the purpose of free speech is abridged so all of they types of thinking you think are dominant, exist in the first place.

    Your words, "miserable, brain dead slime" reek of emotional reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    You think you are going to educate the likes of this on "constitutional intent"? How? Buy commercials during Dancing with the Stars or whatever the $#@! people watch these days? The way to freedom is by education. By getting a large enough minority, that is too large to kill with police, to buy into the message and create the freedom for themselves. Educating a majority of illiterates about constitutional intent? Good luck with that.
    Are you going to say that the people you dispise are going to abandon their right to alter or abolish government destructive to their vital rights because they are confused? Perhaps, if there were not intelligent and informed Americans to help them to understand.

    Your anger and conditioning extends to thinking that somehow Americans can prevail over "police" with violence. They cannot. However, they can educate effectively the people you have contempt for and convert them into people you respect. At that point we are nearing a majority.

    You are correct about a large minority, but they do not depend on violence, they depend on history and law along with peoples awareness of what the constitution stands for, then educate the people.

    I will be posting about HOW this is done shortly.

    The purpose of free speech is to educate The Americans you describe are dependent upon the system the police protect. The police can and will be controlled by their superiors. Remember, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". The congress and the courts can control the police, but wil with have to control the congress and the courts through our states.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.
    How?

    Seriously, show me how it could be worse.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol

    An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.

    Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    How?

    Seriously, show me how it could be worse.
    Perhaps you can show us better Constitutions than the one we have. What in your opinion would make it better and how likely would you judge the chances of those changes occurring?

  33. #29
    I'm afraid of it. Lepage, my governor is pushing for it. I think he is well intentioned. But once the genie is out of the bottle, who knows what else could get changed besides a balanced budget. It could end very badly.

  34. #30
    With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2, Google would have never acquired enough capital to build their search engine, and consumers would still be shopping at Walmart rather than ordering products at Amazon.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. House Passes Girls Count Act (National ID cards)
    By Lindsey in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2015, 04:52 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 07:13 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 06:38 AM
  4. House passes Patriot Act rule, clears way for passage
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 09:49 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-12-2010, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •