Protecting the Constitution from Career Politicians

Our Founders, in their wisdom, foresaw the possibility of a day when Congress has become corrupt and too powerful for the people to have their will heard. This is why they included a way in which the Constitutional amendment process can be initiated outside of Washington DC, brought closer to the local communities, and debated by representatives nominated by the very people who we elect locally to represent our communities in the state governments.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/20/2017 11:15 PM

To drum up fears for the Constitution is ridiculous on its face, as the Convention of States is a process outlined in the Constitution.

Do you believe that our US Congress will ever pass laws to voluntarily limit their own powers? Of course not.

Do you trust the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who risked everything--EVERYTHING--including life, limb, property, family, and "their sacred honor" in order to preserve for their progeny (us!) the ability and freedom to be our own masters? How many on Capitol Hill today would selflessly risk theirs for us?

When I pray, I first thank God, and I next thank oufounding fathers for giving us the gift that we have, to be the envy of the world, and the destination of choice for any who desire freedom.

I think our founders knew what they were doing when they included Article 5 in the Constitution, and I am sure that all of this resistance to Article 5 is a well-funded campaign being waged by men who see their power slipping from their hands--and see the wages of their sins being exposed. There is no way for them to stop a Convention of States, legally, and they are scared.

The Founding Fathers intended that the power of the people reside in the States, not the federal government, and that is why Article 5 is there--to ensure a way to get us back to that principle.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 08/12/2018 09:01 PM

wow thank you so much for this information.I know they were great from reading about them as individuals

Your welcome. I wish more about people knew about this effort.

[link to www.conventionofstates.com (secure)]

There are a number of states who have already signed on to a commitment to attend. Texas, I believe, is the latest.

[link to www.breitbart.com]

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 12:17 AM

This has been brought up several times on GLP.

The main issue seems to be can a ConCon be limited to a set number of issues?

People say yes but what's to prevent it from being hijacked?

And then it's good bye to the BOR? Particularly the second, fourth, fifth and 1st.

Along with other things.

It will look like the UN charter after it's over.

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 06/21/2017 12:24 AM

I just haven't seen discussion for a while, so want to go "bump" the issue.

And it is not a ConCon. They are not writing a new Constitution. They are proposing only separate individual amendment proposals.

On the Convention of States website, there should be links to a dry run convention that took place last year to give a real-world example of how the actual event may play out.

There is voting on issues to discuss, limiting the scope. But the real point to remember, is that anything decided at the convention only results in a proposal. The ratification process is the same as any Constitutional amendment ever passed. That is a super-majority of State legislators. There is no way for a "runaway convention." Each state legislature will debate each amendment proposal separately, with a super-majority required to become law.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 12:31 AM

I don't get it.

5*!

Well, something has to be done that's for sure. I'd rather try this than the way it's going.

I'd actually prefer a breakup, the libtards/sjws/progs/communists/socialists can have their areas and the rest of the country can be a free republic.

There is no way that you could get more than 3 or 4 states to ever even consider any changes to the Bill of Rights. That's not even a realistic fear given the ratification process.

Some potential amendments being discussed include:
* term limits for Congress
* states review for Supreme Court decisions
* term limits for SCOTUS
* balanced Federal budget

Thanks, Revo.

You sir or ma"am are a true Patriot! Keep the knowledge coming,!

You know too much and must be eliminated. It's a joke. Well, to me at least. Carry on please.

Last Edited by UnipartySchmuck on 06/21/2017 12:46 AM

I tend to agree, Smedley. What gives me pause, though, are a couple of things.

Much of what makes us strong would be lost in any breakup. Also, once you understand how the dims have used election fraud, and how it works, you realize that even many of the commie hard-core blue states actually are probably majority conservative once you eliminate the fraud.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 12:56 AM

All for those amendments.

I also remember some credible arguments about a runaway convention. I don't trust government at all or politicians so it seemed reasonable.

I take your point about the process though.

And I do understand that the real career politicians won't be involved.

Thanks, man. That is the best compliment you could give me. :)

Sir, by the way. LOL

term limits.

trump promised to work on them.

i'll give him some time though.

but he better not forget.

a cure to the maxine waters and pelosi's of the world.

solve a lot of problems.

LOL. Now I get it.

I just read a lot, and never watch movies. Just news and sports, so I may be more attuned to happenings than some.

At least now I know we're on the same side.

I still don't understand the milk gallons, though. :/ that was what had me stumped.

ban lawyers* from running for senate and congress

remove the immunity from insider-trading laws which makes a seat a licence to print money

ban lobbying

* too many lawyers already without it also being the defacto career path to the gravy train on the hill

* if the judicial system isn't the worst part of .gov hit with corruption, bribery, blackmail, lobbying and special interests, it must be near the top

The Bill of Rights being changed would get me off my couch, Marine. Semper Fi.

He has the right idea. I just don't believe that term limits can ever be passed by the men who would be limited by it.

I'm 48 years old, and for as long as I remember, Congressional candidates have been promising to balance the budget and pass term limits.

I tend to agree. You know, the single biggest factor that influences medical costs is liability insurance. Our lying representatives have been promising tort reform for decades, but since most of them are ambulance chasers, it never happens. I don't even hear them considering it now, when the number one issue on the Hill is supposed to be repealing Obama Care.

He'd have a better chance at a lobbying ban, probably. Maybe not. :( never thought of that as a COS issue, but it could be!

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 04:46 AM

You know, it must take several years to even learn all of the ins-and-outs on Capitol Hill, and meet all the people who you would need to know in order to organize and facilitate all of the corruption and payoffs that we are learning are taking place.

Right now, there are people who go to Washington DC because they know the possibilities and intend to exploit America.

If we can get term limits, there won't be time for someone to go to DC, learn, meet, network, and then abuse the system to the point of hundreds of millions in personal wealth. In fact, if one knows ahead of time that they were only going to be in Congress for a limited few years, the crooks intending to go there just to be corrupt won't even bother. We will get a new kind of American in Congress. An American who is running for office with the only intention of SERVING instead of taking.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 01:31 AM

So, California would come up with articles banning guns and opening the border with Mexico, declaring foreign invaders, citizens.

Delaware would come up with an amendment to legalize abortion through the third trimester of a pregnancy for any reason at all, making infanticide legal.

Utah would come up with an amendment to make smoking and drinking alcohol felonies punishable by death.

Idaho would come up with an amendment making rape of five year old girls by foreign males of any age, ok.

Several states would come up with an amendment to allow free entry to any and all terrorists, criminals, and other riff raff of any nation, legal.

New York would have an amendment to ban home school and federally mandate vaccines loaded with nagalace to all infants.

Florida would insist on an amendment protecting the LGBT community from censure.

Hollywood would have an amendment for protecting pedophiles,
in addition to open border and gun bans.

Illinois would want an amendment that any state with a balanced budget should pay them a percentage.

Texas would succeed.

Sorry. We are 100 years too late, and fifty shades too evil
to even consider this threat to the Constitution.

I think the US should rewrite the constitution, but that is only possible if gets so bad that at least 70% of the conservatives and liberals agree on that, and set their differences aside to make the best of it.

The US has the worst political system money can buy. Look only at Switzerland to see how much better things can be. Politicians can only be held in check if citizens can overrule them if needed via referendums.

That requires a mature attitude. A two party political system only fosters division. If the people in the middle work together in coalition governments, things will probably improve over time.

Last Edited by niphtrique on 06/21/2017 04:22 AM

Each one of those proposals would have to be considered separately by each state's legislature. Each state counts as one vote. If you think that 38 states would actually pass any of this pretend drivel, then you are weird.

The word is secede. Shill.

Last Edited by BadProgBad on 06/21/2017 04:55 AM

How about passing a law that says if they don't balance the budget, they won't get paid until they do?