Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I think a good many of the remnants here understand that it was a CONstitution. The only redeeming factor was the anti-feds inclusion of the "Bill of Rights." Fer Christ's sake, the Feds wanted a Constitutional Monarchy and invited the gay debauched prince of Austria to be our monarch. That's how $#@!ing desperate the Federalists were.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
False choice, I support nullification.
Look at who's supporting an article V convention. And explain to me your plan for how the Liberty Movement can take over something bigger than the 2012 RNC where we failed to nominate Ron Paul, even when we were at our high water mark point.Who said anything about letting them write the changes?
And the reason for that is 95% of the CC people are at best TeoCons. They support changing the constitution because they consider secession and nullification to be treason. In their minds a BBA will automatically stop reckless spending, they are delusional and poorly informed.
Well, there are ways to test the waters and see how state legislators would act without conventions. Raimondo has an interesting article up on the Bricker Amendment:
This thing is written. We could lobby state legislators to enact it just like it stands.Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Much less likely the federal Congress would do so. Thus the strategy of going through the states.
I, for one, have had enough of the federal government. It will never police itself. State governments are much more directly accountable to voters, and it's much more expensive to buy state legislative elections just because there are so many of them.
There's more than one way to amend the Constitution, and I believe it's time to take the road less traveled. It's more likely to work, and there's a lot to be said for reminding people that it's possible. Why would anyone want to have anything to do with the "normal" process at all? When was the last time it produced an amendment worthy of the Constitution? The eighteenth century?
I support the convention if only I , most sincere of all Americans , get to vote .
I can't seriously expect a new CC to produce more freedom, instead of less, not in today's political climate.
Having said that, the current Constitution isn't the law of the land any more any way, but rather is US Inc. corporation bylaws that are to be honored when possible. In that light, it seems to me that A CC today would be a redrafting of new corporation bylaws (as is done after a corporation emerges from bankruptcy and reorganizes), not re-establishing the common law rights of the Republic.
The CFL opposes a new CC. Curious why Rand is supporting it. Probably because Rand, as Senator, is aware of the bigger picture situation regarding the bankruptcy of US Inc while CFL staff probably isn't.
Last edited by devil21; 03-28-2018 at 11:15 AM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
A Constitutional reorganization could be beneficial, but rewriting the Bill of Rights with bold-faced type won't accomplish anything.
You need to understand why this system failed in the first place.
It had little or nothing to do with the language or style of the document.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 03-28-2018 at 07:38 PM.
Connect With Us