It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disgruntled Democrats Want A Constitutional Convention To Leave The Union

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Here is the problem with the past election and the current political system:

This country can not survive on a 1 party system, but requires 2 parties to represent the people. However, with 40% of the eligible population not voting, combined with a government where the reps in one house of the government are severely divided down a political divide, is what is causing this problem right now. Add into it where those seeking the positions are coveting those seats, kind of makes it where we the people are not getting the best, but the middle to the bottom of the barrel.

This past presidential election, we saw the worst come out in the candidates, with both having baggage that went with them, along with one of the estates failing to do their job.

Every time the one of the political parties lose, they go and cry about the loss, and then there is talk about doing something that by law and/or legal precedent can not be done or achieved. There has always been stalk about leaving the union, but it never goes anywhere, and it ends when a person who is favored gets into office.

Now as far as who won the election, yes Clinton did win the popular vote. However where the majority of the voters who supported her was in the bigger cities, not out in the rural areas of the country, who overwhelmingly supported Trump.

Was there some evidence of vote rigging, yes, and currently they are investigating such, but we need to be patient and let the process go through as it should. We should not discourage this, but be supportive of such, as it will end all questions as to did or did not win in those states doing such. It is also showing some of the problems in the election process, thus allowing for there to be changes and a tweaking of the system.

As far as the electoral college, I do not advocate the removal of such. To remove the college from the system, would mean that candidates would not have to build coalitions of voters, and would be able to ignore some of the smaller populations and states in favor of the bigger cities. Would one thus advocate ignoring of one state or another, not allowing them to have a voice in the choosing of the President?

But there are ways to change this system, the first would be to either make the election day a federal holiday, where it would encourage people to vote, giving them the time for such, or making it mandatory, where if they don’t and do not have a valid reason, they could be fined.
Another would to be to enact term limits on the congress. Thus allowing for new people and ideas to get into office and keeping the country moving forward, who are more in touch with the population.

And when it comes to the presidential election, instead of doing away with the electoral college, make it where the votes are proportionate to what the candidate got in each state. It would end the winner take all system in many states and still make voting very important, and may even start to reverse some of the policies that were enacted to suppress votes in various states.




posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Based on this thread, www.abovetopsecret.com... and the image put forth,

,

It might behoove the US to grant the request with the condition that those wishing for exemption from the union also migrate to specific designated states. Particularly, CA. In fact, give them WA, OR, CA and let them sink or swim. Let them have their own country independent from the United States of America.


No and we don't want them anyway. The whole of OR and WA doesn't support California politics, just the Western Metro areas.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Just a quick observation. Notice how a whole lot of things the left used to point out as "bad things", "bad ideas", "stupid suggestions" supported by the right...are now being adopted by the left as "logical solutions"?

Hypocrites.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Didn't read all the posts so if this is a repeat, my apologies...

Democrats want to "leave the Union"?

GOOD!!! Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out! HOWEVER, just remember this...

1. Leave all your government given stuff behind
2. No more federal funding for free stuff
3. YOU are responsible for your own infrastructure and resources (including WATER and OIL!)
4. YOU are responsible for your own DEFENSE!

SEE YA!!!

ETA...Any folks of the Democrat persuasion who would like to remain are welcome to do so, but realize we will be keeping the Constitution and Electoral college intact.

Sincerely,

America



edit on 12/7/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen

Taxation without representation. Good enough reason. Conservative southerners have threatened leaving the same in the last 8 years. And hmm...they actually tried to and caused a war at one time. Which, we all know, they lost.



Correction it was LINCOLN who caused the war with his manipulations of Taxes and industry. Id dare say America Died that day because the bad guys won.(bad guys being those who broke 11 constitutional laws named Lincoln)

It was never about slavery to lincoln.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.


Well the new Supreme court could Overturn that decision rendering that Amendment null.


Correct, though this is highly unlikely. This would only lead to the complete dismantlement of the United States and there are too many interests at stake to allow this.

It is a fact of history, the United States was born out of force. Sure the first colonies came together and brought about the constitution, but the continued expansion of the US to what it is today.... through the Mexican American war where Mexican territories were ceded by force, Texas joined, the war of 1812, the annexation of Hawaii, the removal of many native americans, the civil war, all of that brought about these United States. The US would not be where it is today if this Union was 'voluntary'.


I disagree. I think the States becoming countries again would be great. why? BEcause States would realize themselves its better to agree on some things and have a common goal. Which the COnstitution stipulates it was made to ensure the common defense of all states on this continent. All we want it the freedom to do as we wish under the rights and laws of the constitution without federal intervention.

The Feds need to revert back to their original intent. Only for defense and international issues. thats it.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.

The difference being when Republicans do it then it's Fringe thinking and crazy and backwards, and when Democrats do it it's suddenly progressive and forward thinking.

The democrats are what they despise.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


I disagree.


You disagree with History? That's fine.

Any idea of the Union being voluntary ended with the Mexican American and Civil wars. The US today was brought about by force, not by peaceful annexation. This is a fact of history. Once the supreme court allows one state to go, so does the Union. Texas V. White of 1869 ensured this does not happen. It's certainly possible this new supreme court could overturn that but as I've stated, it's highly unlikely.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
We should start a foundation to collect donations so we can relocate them to another country. All expenses paid and citizenship and visa revoked as soon as you leave.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Natas0114

Sweet. I'll take a home in New Zealand. Thanks


This day just got a lot better!



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The Electoral College cannot be eliminated without the repeal of the 14th amendment of the constitution which will not happen. However it can be adjusted to properly and correctly reflect the votes of the American public.

Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes with a population of 584,000 people or 1 per 194,000 citizens.
California has 55 with a population of 38.8 million or 1 per 784,000 citizens. As a matter of equality and using Wyoming as a baseline, California should have 200 electoral votes.

Texas has 38 with a population of 27 million or 1 per 710,000. Again, equality would give Texas 139.
New York has 58 with a population of 19.7 million or 1 per 339,000. Equality = 101

Mississippi has 6 with a population of 3 million or 1 per 500,000. Equality = 15
Florida has 29 with a population of 19.9 million or 1 per 686,000. Equality = 102

If the Electoral College was readjusted by granting more (or less, depending) after each census it would more accurately reflect the actual will of the voter vs. the will of a few select states. No one could intelligently argue that Wyoming should have more say in electing a POTUS than any other state. The 538 electors should be updated and made equatable by adding more or balancing them properly.

The only other way would be to eliminate the "winner take all" in the 49 states (Maine is the exception) so that the electors are based on the popular vote percentages. It is really a case of simple mathematics.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: yuppa


I disagree.


You disagree with History? That's fine.

Any idea of the Union being voluntary ended with the Mexican American and Civil wars. The US today was brought about by force, not by peaceful annexation. This is a fact of history. Once the supreme court allows one state to go, so does the Union. Texas V. White of 1869 ensured this does not happen. It's certainly possible this new supreme court could overturn that but as I've stated, it's highly unlikely.


A union illegally held together. Sure wed lose a few states but so what? did we need them to begin with?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Beaux


As a matter of equality and using Wyoming as a baseline, California should have 200 electoral votes.

Oh that's interesting information! Likely not something well received in this thread though lol
edit on 7-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Beaux


As a matter of equality and using Wyoming as a baseline, California should have 200 electoral votes.

Oh that's interesting information! Likely not something well received in this thread though lol


Actually it's well received.

The EC formula prevents total mob rule.




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Diisenchanted


So no Hillary didn't receive more than 50% of the popular vote!


That is a true statement. Hillary Clinton apparently received 48% of the popular vote which is more than the 46.1% that Donald Trump received.


Hillary wasn't popular at all!


She was more popular than Donald Trump.


Only if you include CA.

The other 49 states *combined* have Donald Trump the winner of the popular vote.

Let me say it again - Donald Trump is the winner of the popular vote in 49 out of 50 states combined.

Why do folks like you keep forgetting that?

I know, I know - those inconvenient pesky facts.

Deal with it.

All the whining Dems need to grow the hell up. And I am a Dem so I can absolutely say it with authority.

Stop the deluded childish tantrums and go out and help make this a better country for all of us for god's sake.

We're sick of your whining...



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

One way would be to grant 1 Electoral vote per million; the U.S. population is approx. 319 million. However 7 have fewer citizens than that and each have 3 votes: Wyoming, Vermont, DC, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota and Delaware. Combined they have about 5-6 million residents for 21 votes. New Jersey has 9 million and 14 Electoral votes. Illinois has 13 million and 20 votes.

The smaller states simply have more power in the decision making process than the larger ones. The Electoral College made sense before the days of electronic tabulations nationwide when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. 150 years later it makes little sense but it can be improved by each state. They all make adjustments to voting districts based on the US Census and the same logic could be applied to the only national election for an office that we have.

Wyoming may not be the best baseline but it starkly illustrates the disparity in the process and a better one can be developed so that every vote is equal in a country that praises equality.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.


Well the new Supreme court could Overturn that decision rendering that Amendment null.


Absolutely false.

SCOTUS *cannot* amend or overturn any amendments of the United States Constitution. Period.

Neither can the POTUS and neither can the legislature.

All SCOTUS can do is rule on the legal basis and/or what the intent of said article or amendment was.

And they have *never* ruled to repeal an amendment.

Read Article V of the United States Constitution. The framers made it very difficult to change or amend the constitution for a reason. God bless their foresight and intelligence!

Article V - United States 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.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Actually it's well received.

Based on ATS threads the majority of familiar faces in this thread and other relevant ones are very opposed to California; going so far as to wishing the State to no longer be a State.

So I assumed the idea their electoral vote would boost from 55 to 200 would be the very last thing you all would endorse.

...but okay, happy to hear it's well received
My mistake.

a reply to: beaux

Thanks for the response. I think you make good points. It's something to think about, for sure.

edit on 7-12-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Article says ONE Democrat who used to be opposed to the idea now says he'd be open to the idea.

One guy. That isn't "Democrats" as many/more than one.

And Need To Know network? The site looks like a re-posting/clickbait site with sensationalized headlines. No thanks.

That site has a ton of tracking cookies btw...



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah, Russia's been very supportive of the Calexit initiative to help California leave. Not surprising that pro-Trump fans would also be supporting it.

The leader of the Calexit campaign lived in Russia for a few years and seriously considered denouncing his US citizenship before returning to the US and creating his own political party and SuperPACs. He was recently in Moscow setting up an "embassy" for the Calexit movement.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join