Danger - 2 States From Constitutional Convention

I'm all for a Constitutional Convention. Hell, we can't get much worse than our current, sanitized, approved House and Senate have done!

We're going broke. Fast!

Congress can't do its job. Every member up in Washington with two terms in any office is in somebody's pocket. Anyone can buy a Representative. Anyone can buy a Senator. If we can believe the charges against the Illinois Governor, you can actually buy the office of a Senator.

This is the most out-of-touch, out-of-control, spend-crazy group I've ever seen. I was already writing my state leaders - to re-establish state's rights to protect the citizens of the state from this spend-crazy Federal Government.

We need a balanced budget, we need term limits, and we need some drastic action right now. If we don't, we'll rue the day we gave Pelosi, Reid, and Obama control of our government.

Call the convention! Let's get something done for a change!

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by solarstorm

 

Lets be honest, how many people know what a constitutional convention is? A majority of people wont take issue with a constitutional convention taking place either. They would say "oh, its for the good of our country". I dont depend on the common man to know well enough anymore. These are the same people who refuse to vote for third parties because it "won't make a difference", you think they are going to care about a constitutional convention?

Either way, its not like we would have a real say in it. Its a matter of congress coming together to create new amendments. You really think we will have a say in the matter when one of these things takes place? The rich and the greedy will have a field day should any of these take place.

The politicians that don't care will show their true faces, and you nor anyone else aside from that select group of congress members will be able to stop them.

Im sorry...there are some of us that wont just tuck tail and run. Or say nothing. Looking at world events with all the govt BS...the little man is past boiling point.

The crux of it all would depend on the type of convention called

A general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

Wiki

And then, who would designate the delegates that participate?

reply to post by dooper


So wait, let me get this straight. You want the same group that you call "out of touch" to revise the constitution of the united states?

You don't get a say during the constitutional convention. It is a meeting of DELEGATES who decide what parts of the constitution to revise, as they see fit. The same people doing all these bailouts.

Tuck and run? From what? We don't have ANY say during a constitutional convention. We can go "we will vote you out if you change this or don't do that!" but it won't matter. They could extend their term for an extra 4 years if they wanted to.

A constitutional convention is essentially a recarving of our rules as they see fit, and honestly, I don't have much faith in the idea that a majority of the politican will recarve it in the peoples favor.

Ohio Bill did not go to vote

After seeing how many of us came, Committee Chairman Blessing changed his mind and decided not to vote on it today. In fact, he acted like it was a mistake that the paper said “possible vote.” Teri (OFA, JBS, CPO) thinks it’ll probably be voted on at the next committee meeting (which will also probably not include further testimony) so we’ll need to keep watching. The Senate version was introduced yesterday as well, but last I heard it hasn’t yet been assigned to a committee. Still another thing to keep an eye on.

The committee had some questions and a couple repeatedly voiced concerns, enough so that I definitely think we have a good shot at getting this defeated.

See the link for transcripts of the testimonies

Any Ron Paul supporter is already aware that the bill did not get voted on and thats a good thing.

If a con con happens it opens up the entire constitution for destruction. They could reword the second amendment, the 1st or any part they want.

A con con equals the end of the USA.

reply to post by redhatty


Good article. Generally explains why I am glad this will likely get tossed. No constitutional convention, I say.

Yep.....I do think this straw will break the camels back. If you recall they called congress behind closed doors and told them if they did not pass the bailout bill that marshal law would be called,Who is controlling whom. I have a BAD feeling about this con con.

Lets not forget what our forefathers has said........

Youtube

reply to post by redhatty


from your source

First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war.

war on terror, war on drugs, etc...
that alone about voids the attempt to rope in this debt feeding frenzy.

Maybe it's time to recind these invisible and ongoing wars.

Originally posted by titorite
After doing a little digging I found that in Ohios 127 legislative gathering the did indeed pass the motion to call for a constitutional convention.

They maybe calling it for the wrong reasons but this is our chance to take advantage of their greed.

The president should be elected by popular vote.

The house of representatives should be replaced by you and me. We should be allowed to represent ourselves on a federal level in order to prevent things like the Iraq war or these massive bail outs. We should of some control over how we are taxed and what our taxes are spent on.

One more state. Thats all we need. Then it is on us to show up and make our constitutional demands known.

GrimReaper has it right. You'll have no say in what happens should a ConCon happen. In fact, you probably will not even be allowed to know what is being change, when, and for what reasons. Congress chooses delegates from each state to discuss and make changes. Rest assured that these delegates will be bought and paid for by lobbyist scum. Any changes to the Constitution will be in the interests of the ruling elite, and only the ruling elite. A ConCon is a BAD thing. If I remember correctly, a ConCon allows states to change their state constitutions as well. I know that in Illinois if a ConCon happens, they are going to take pensions away from State Police officers and alot of other state employees.
Trust me, nothing good will come out of a ConCon.

O.K. I found some more Info on this. I read somewhere that one of the objectives of his One World order was to not have any boundaries or states.


Main page

States that have NOT requested con con

reply to post by tiso_us


Thank you

Should Ohio ultimately pass their call for the Con Con, then only 1 state would be left. Not a pleasant thought

Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a presidential election and still win that election. This occurred in 1876, 1888 and 2000.

The appointment of electoral voters is decided upon by state legislatures that require the electors to pledge to vote a certain way. The state legislatures look for those with party loyalty to appoint as electors. In this system the content of a candidates character less important than the party he or she belongs too.

1. I would move to dissolve the electoral election system and move to elect the president and vice president via popular vote.

The supreme court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by senate. This appointment is for life. If their is an impeachment hearing the chief justice would preside over it in the senate. A fair and impartial impeachment trial would not be possible if the justice presiding were nominated by the president being tried. The supreme court also rules on cases of a constitutional nature such as warrantless wire taping or detention with out due process.

2. I would move to elect supreme court justices on a 12 year term cycle or every third presidential election.

The house of congress is made up of the senate and the house of representatives. Congress apportions our taxes, establishes the rules of naturalization, declares war amongst its numerous duties. Both houses introduce bills on various matters however congress is not required to read the bills they pass. They are allowed to take bribes in the form of gifts for their votes. The majority of congressional seats are not held by educated statesmen but a plutocrats capable and willing to buy their way into congress if they can get away with it (as evidenced in Illinois recently).

3. I would move to maintain the senate as it is and dissolves the house of representatives in favor of a house of the people. This most radical change would require debate and concession and through deliberation a new house could be created a house that allows people to speak for themselves as a body of congress rather than to continue to rely on representatives that are under no obligation to act in their constituents best interests . This is an element of direct democracy that, when incorporated into our representative structure , would that the laws we govern ourselves by would truly be OUR laws passed in OUR best interests and not the interest of plutocrats.

Term limits do nothing to protect us from tyranny. If anything, term limits encourage tyranny. When we elect a federal official into office who serves the office well, prohibiting said official from running again based on their prior service does nothing to promote our welfare. Instead it give opportunity for a less qualified candidate to occupy an office that may of been better served by the incumbent of our original choosing.

4. I would move to eliminate term limits on the trust that the people are more than capable of electing whomever they deem fit for federal office.

Four amendments that when passed would make severely limit the possibility federal corruption and protect the union from ever devolving into a tyranny.

I will present these ideas at the next constitutional convention, when it is called, for the delegates consideration.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by titorite]

Run! Here comes reason!!!!!!

If this were a convention called to "address" the Bill of Rights, and not just a balanced budget amendment, then yes, it would be time to get scared. If anything titorite said had the possibility of coming true, then yes, it would be even scarier. Fortunately for us, the states are calling for a limited constitution, which as the name suggests, narrows the focus to only the topic suggested, which would be the management of federal funds in this case.

While I don't put it past them entirely, how do you propose to deceive 300 million people that banning the sale and possession of firearms is related to passing a balanced budget?

Truth is, we need this amendment. We NEED to cripple the federal government, not strengthen it.

In fact, if there were any shot at it, I'd say the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments should all be purged.

These amendments all grew out of this progressive sensationalism that strikes about every 30-35 years, and look what it's brought us.

Now, you have people trying to tell you that more of this tripe is a good thing. Abolishing the electoral college, removing term limits, dismantling the House of Reps, adding direct election of JUSTICES now...

Where's the accountability? There is none at all! If anything, this would lead to more socialization, more corruption, and more injustice! Don't let anyone try to convince you of the contrary.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

Originally posted by SpencerJ
If anything titorite said had the possibility of coming true, then yes, it would be even scarier.

Oh nice. No counter argument. No critical examination of the ideas presented just trite banter meant to debase some constitutional thoughts I posted at the request of another.

Tell me SpencerJ, what has shaped your political views? The federalist papers? The biography of Franklin? Rousseaus' Social Contract? A box of Cracker Jax?

Please ,do share where you get your political wisdom from.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by titorite]

I was just thinking a little bit ago, about the crap with the newly elected Arab to POTUS, and I thought 'what are the PTB trying to distract us from? What bigger is happening that they want us to miss?' Perhaps this is it.

reply to post by titorite

Oh nice. No counter argument. No critical examination of the ideas presented just trite banter meant to debase some constitutional thoughts I posted at the request of another.

Hardly constitutional. The very nature of this topic is changing what we define as constitutional per amendment, so you cannot argue what is and is not a "constitutional thought" except that which is currently accepted as such. Otherwise, it's ex-post facto. But of course, logical fallacies don't occur to you, do they?

Also, if you paid attention, I went on to disseminate why your ideas are so terrible in - what was it - oh yes, a sentence. (The accountability part) Oh, so you're telling me that it wasn't long enough for you cause you weren't reading closely! Thanks, I'll know better next time.

Tell me SpencerJ, what has shaped your political views? The federalist papers? The biography of Franklin? Rousseaus' Social Contract? A box of Cracker Jax?

Cracker Jax, how original. Do you get yours from Kool Aid?

Please, do share where you get your political wisdom from.

I draw from numerous empirical sources- historical failures of "democracy", their tendencies to degenerate into totalitarian empires, as well as numerous other experiments in majority rule.

And no, I'm not a big fan of the Federalist Papers, or Rousseau's social contract. I'm more of an Anti-Federalist and Spooner fan myself.
You want a rebuttal? Here's one:

How is it you can still argue for popular electoral representation but allow the Senate to stand? The Senate was created to strike a balance and preserve interests of the smaller states. Read up on the Virginia Plan and the Great Compromise, yeah? You know the Senate would mean nothing by abolishing the other House anyway, and "replacing" it with the people.
There's a flaw in your argument.

Also, how is catering to 3-4 population centers not a substantial grounds for abuse versus electoral voting. If people from New York get a bigger say than people from Wyoming, what are the implications of that? Screw rural voters?

There is simply no accountability- the same lie that people bought on the "progressive" bandwagon in the late 1910's. Direct election of senators. Doublethink express!!!!

When in reality, the previous system was much better and more prestigious. Whereas before you would have to buy out entire state legislatures to appoint a corrupt senator, now all you do is lobby him directly. Zero accountability.

Same thing with popular votes. No accountability to every viewpoint. We are NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic. As such, there are certain things that were never meant to occur and we've since distorted the fabric of this nation, and keep insisting if we take the progressive sugar pill, it will all clear up and get better. Well, next time you're about to swallow that lie, take a minute and think about how's it worked so far.


[edit on 11-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

I know that some states are calling for constitutional conventions, but to write a new constitution for their own states. For example, in Michigan (which considers a constitutional convention every 10 years) there was talk about either heavily amending the Michigan Constitution or calling for a convention.

Could that be all Ohio is actually considering--a convention regarding the Ohio Constitution?

Well hate to have to tell you this but they are way to late. Bush and co have already turned over complete oversite of ALL of our financial institutions to the EU. The EU now makes the calls just as they always have. Now its just public.

Well, what's more dangerous, the president allegedly (and doubtfully) calling the existing Constitution a "Goddamned piece of paper" or a group of special interest driven vampires actually turning it into nothing more than a "Goddamned piece of paper" by actually altering or rewriting the document? Forget a second Great Depression, forget WWIII, this right here could very easily cause a second revolutionary war or civil war within this country.