Texas 11th state to sign CoS

[Pauls' Revere]

FYI.

https://lanterns.buzz/page_blog_post...e-v-convention

On Thursday the Texas House adopted a resolution calling for a convention of the states. As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, a convention of the states may be held after 34 states have applied to hold such a meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Should any amendments be proposed at such a convention, they are sent to the states for a vote on ratification.

The Lone Star state’s resolution, along with the 10 states before it, calls for a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments specifically pertaining to the following three areas: limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government, imposing term limits on members of Congress and/or Supreme Court justices, and a balanced federal budget requirement.

[69360]

Bad idea. You don't get to pick and choose what stays and what goes. If it was to happen everything is on the table.

[Zippyjuan]

You can submit amendments without calling for a convention. Either way you still need two thirds of Congress to agree and three fourths of states to agree to you amendment proposals.

for the purpose of proposing amendments specifically pertaining to the following three areas: limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government, imposing term limits on members of Congress and/or Supreme Court justices, and a balanced federal budget requirement.

[Stanleybolten]

You can submit amendments without calling for a convention. Either way you still need two thirds of Congress to agree and three fourths of states to agree to you amendment proposals.

Congress is so corrupt and some Federal Judges have become so corrupt, they will never go for term limits, no matter how many petitions are done. The career politicians, career prosecutors, and career judges are all ruining America.

[Zippyjuan]

Congress is so corrupt and some Federal Judges have become so corrupt, they will never go for term limits, no matter how many petitions are done. The career politicians, career prosecutors, and career judges are all ruining America.

They won't vote for a mandatory balanced budget either. They talk about it but they don't really want it. If they wanted a balanced budget they should submit one. Only Ron and Rand Paul have tried.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You can submit amendments without calling for a convention. Either way you still need two thirds of Congress to agree and three fourths of states to agree to you amendment proposals.

Article never said you could not do that. But, then again, it's Zip with his usual contrary and discouraging posts. Posting 3rd in the thread for maximum visibility.

[Stanleybolten]

They won't vote for a mandatory balanced budget either. They talk about it but they don't really want it. If they wanted a balanced budget they should submit one. Only Ron and Rand Paul have tried.

Our Congress is no different than our Federal Public Defenders.

"Take the Guilty Plea!!!!!! OR ELSE you may face a lot of time in Federal Prison, maybe even a Penitentiary. You need to accept responsibility for what you have been accused of. Just give up convincing a Jury that you are innocent. Give up your right to vote, your right to hold public office, your right to own a firearm. Your Probation Officer may or may not allow you have free speech."

You try telling the Judge

"My Defender aren't representing me, they refuse to listen to the best interests of the client. I have evidence your honor,"

Then the Judge says:

"You shouldn't bring those issues to me. Only speak with your Attorney. The Attorney is the best that has ever practiced before my courtroom. He is representing you and no evidence you have will ever convince me of any different."

Then you say

"This is a kangaroo Court, your honor!"

Public Defender says:

"Be careful, you may be in contempt."

Then you give up your rights and be misrepresented.

If Congress isn't representing the tax paying people then why will Federal Public Defender represent their clients?

[Keith and stuff]

Article never said you could not do that. But, then again, it's Zip with his usual contrary and discouraging posts. Posting 3rd in the thread for maximum visibility.

Why is the 3rd post the best for maximum visibility?

[Anti Federalist]

With this current crop of AmeriKunts running around, this would be a horrible idea.

Kiss the last of your freedom good bye.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why is the 3rd post the best for maximum visibility?

I guess I should saying posting earlier helps to maximize visibility. One's opinion gets the most exposure when you actually make the thread. You might, for example, have 100 people read your 1st post in your created thread. Out of those 100, maybe 70 people go on to read the second post. Out of those 70, maybe 60 go on to read the 3rd post. And so on. The further you get into a thread, the fewer viewers and participants. By the time you get to page 15 of that thread, you might have 5 people left: 2 people vehemently arguing, and 3 curious onlookers. And how many times do you hear people say, "I didn't read the whole thread, but..."

It works the same way with time. A thread created today is going to be more interesting than one created 10 days ago. Posting early and posting often.

I think the whole point is being active instead of passive. If you want to get a liberty message out, then actually make a Youtube video instead of having your post buried in the Youtube comments section that the majority of people don't bother to read. Instead of commenting on a thread in a liberal/feminist/whatever forum, make threads to get more readership. Instead of commenting on what someone writes, write something yourself. Instead of reacting, have others react to you. Instead of commenting on a news story, BE the news story.

[Pauls' Revere]

For reference:

Article Five:
https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...article-v.html


Article V, U.S. Constitution

* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

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.


CoS FB page

https://www.facebook.com/conventionofstates


Well, wtf, its in the constitution so if its doable it can get done. I suppose this means that the LP should push harder and organize more? think midterms?

[Pauls' Revere]

Bad idea. You don't get to pick and choose what stays and what goes. If it was to happen everything is on the table.

Cool, people will lose their $#@!.

[William Tell]

Well, wtf, its in the constitution so if its doable it can get done. I suppose this means that the LP should push harder and organize more? think midterms?

Yeah it can get done. But why do you want to change the Constitution? Do you really think the RINO's in the legislatures who vote for this and will be delegates will make a better Constitution than the one we have now?

They aren't following this one. That's the problem. That's not to say the Constitution is perfect, just that these clowns are going to screw it up. The majority of the delegates to the convention will be NeoCons and misguided TeoCons, not Tom Woods and Ron Paul.

Cool, people will lose their $#@!.

We'll lose our bill of rights. All the issues the COS people want addressed are either

A: Already covered by the 9th and 10th amendments and therefor should not be delegated to the Feds.
B: Would not be an issue if our elected officials followed the existing Constitution which they are voting to change (I wonder why???)
C: Garbage that will make things worse such as the Multi Year Lame Duck Amendment (term limits).

[phill4paul]

With this current crop of AmeriKunts running around, this would be a horrible idea.

Kiss the last of your freedom good bye.

Might be the spark that is needed. For the time being I'm just a passive viewer as America spirals downwards. Laying in stores and awaiting the inevitable.

[69360]

Cool, people will lose their $#@!.

I don't think you get it.

They could vote to drop the 1st and 2nd ammendments for example.

[pcosmar]

I don't think you get it.

They could vote to drop the 1st and 2nd ammendments for example.

Like they are actually protected now?

Or the 4th,?, long dead at present.

Perhaps,, they could be strengthened in such a rewrite,, as well as Consequences for any violation.

pftt.
not holding my breath either way

[pao]

Our local talk radio station has had state representatives on many times as this process progresses... They claim that these three issues are the only ones that can be brought to the table and that if any other issue is brought forward it would have to be approved by each of the state congresses that are among those bringing the convention forward. They say to be among those states that participate in this effort they had to agree to the language that specifically states that the 3 issues are the only ones they are going to vote on at the convention (again if any other issue comes forward the entire thing has to be agreed upon by each of those state governments, and supposedly many if not all are said to reject any effort to change the original intent of the convention, which are the 3 issues mention. Not saying all that is totally accurate, but it is what the state reps have been presenting on my local station. Will be interesting to see how things progress from this point on.

[Pauls' Revere]

Might be the spark that is needed. For the time being I'm just a passive viewer as America spirals downwards. Laying in stores and awaiting the inevitable.

^^this^^

Its more of the same unless something big happens that poses a serious threat to people's rights/constitution/etc. If this gets on the table imagine the discussion about individual rights and liberties that would take place. More so than what is happening now.

[Occam's Banana]

Our local talk radio station has had state representatives on many times as this process progresses... They claim that these three issues are the only ones that can be brought to the table and that if any other issue is brought forward it would have to be approved by each of the state congresses that are among those bringing the convention forward. They say to be among those states that participate in this effort they had to agree to the language that specifically states that the 3 issues are the only ones they are going to vote on at the convention (again if any other issue comes forward the entire thing has to be agreed upon by each of those state governments, and supposedly many if not all are said to reject any effort to change the original intent of the convention, which are the 3 issues mention. Not saying all that is totally accurate, but it is what the state reps have been presenting on my local station. Will be interesting to see how things progress from this point on.

They had a convention back in 1787.

The delegates were only authorized to consider and propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

They were not supposed to do anything other than that.

But it didn't quite play out that way ...

[Keith and stuff]

They had a convention back in 1787.

The delegates were only authorized to consider and propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

They were not supposed to do anything other than that.

But it didn't quite play out that way ...

Lol. That is correct. They decided to overthrow the sovereign governments by taking them all over and putting them into one new nation where the low population states like NH and RI had a lot less power, and the high population states like VA and NY had a lot more power. That's what governments do. They ignore their rules. Rules are only for people that are unpopular.

[TheTexan]

Thiết kế web theo yêu cầu tr�n gói CHỈ 1.990.000 VND 0902.742.111 (VIBER,ZALO) – 0986.184.211 (Mr. Ng�c)

• Tặng 1 tên miá»�n quốc tế 280.000 VNÄ�, miá»…n phÃ* sá»* dụng năm đầu tiên.
• Tặng 1 năm sá»* dụng gói hosting dung lượng 5000MB
• Chi phÃ* chỉ 1 lần khi thiết kế
• Thiết kế website theo chuẩn SEO Google.
• Website tÆ°Æ¡ng thÃ*ch vá»›i tất cả các trình duyệt trên PC, laptop, di Ä‘á»™ng, máy tÃ*nh bảng...
• Bảo hÃ*nh website vÄ©nh viá»…n.
• Há»— trợ chi phÃ* thiết kế logo, banner.
• Há»— trợ đăng bÃ*i, hÆ°á»›ng dẫn quản trị.

Website của bạn được tạo nhanh chóng, hoạt Ä‘á»™ng ổn định, dá»… dÃ*ng tÆ°Æ¡ng tác & chia sẻ, tối Æ°u hóa trên các công cụ tìm kiếm (SEO) Google, dá»… quản trị.

LIÊN HỆ:

Phone: 0902.742.111 (VIBER,ZALO) (Mr. Ng�c) - 0986.184.211
Website: Thiet Ke Web Chuyen . Com
�ịa Chỉ: 134/15 Huỳnh Văn Nghệ, P.5, Tân Bình, TPHCM

Welcome to the forums

+rep

[PAF]

https://vimeo.com/213791923

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/...-v-convention/


Chief Justice Warren Burger’s June 22, 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly:

“…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention * * * After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda * * * A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Justice Scalia said on April 17, 2014

“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?”

[pao]

They had a convention back in 1787.

The delegates were only authorized to consider and propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

They were not supposed to do anything other than that.

But it didn't quite play out that way ...

Good point.

[shakey1]

They just want to change the Constitution to something they could actually adhere to.

[pao]

They just want to change the Constitution to something they could actually adhere to.

Lol, true.

[Superfluous Man]

You can submit amendments without calling for a convention. Either way you still need two thirds of Congress to agree and three fourths of states to agree to you amendment proposals.

Let's hope.

Unless they do what happened the last time they did this, and make up a new rule for how the new Constitution is to be ratified at the convention itself and just decide to go with that one.