• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congressional Conspiracy

It may also depend on what the States want to accomplish. Is there any existing method to accomplish something similar?

In 2010, during the 110th Congress, the Tea Party Congress read the Constitution first day from the floor of the House. Before reading, sponsor Goodlatte from Virginia noted that because the Constitution had been amended, members would be reading what the Congressional Research Service deemed valid. They skipped over the convention clause of Article V, did not read it. Then in 2012 the CRS issued a two-part white paper all about the Article V Convention. So how is it that the CRS is at once telling members of Congress not to read the convention clause, and two years later writing a paper all about it?

That paper has been updated multiple times, most recently 2017: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

That paper spawned a rule which has the House now officially counting state applications and posting them as PDFs, Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives: Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

But most importantly, over the past five years, in the comment section to blogs and op-eds focused on the Article V Convention, it has gone from roughly 75% against a convention, to today where it's roughly 75% for a convention. I believe the above is evidence that indeed, if enough people want it, we will get the call.

Seems to me, anyone who genuinely reveres and cares for what was won with the Americans Revolution would be out on the internet talking up Article V, assuring people there's virtually no danger in a non-binding deliberative assembly, when anything discussed must still be ratified by 75%+ (a political principle that mathematically precludes partisan nonsense from becoming high law: any idea must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history).

For fun, maybe post a poll about it. There are still many folks on this site who are not operatives, that still believe a federal convention is dangerous.

This site has tons of info: Page One
 
In 2010, during the 110th Congress, the Tea Party Congress read the Constitution first day from the floor of the House. Before reading, sponsor Goodlatte from Virginia noted that because the Constitution had been amended, members would be reading what the Congressional Research Service deemed valid. They skipped over the convention clause of Article V, did not read it. Then in 2012 the CRS issued a two-part white paper all about the Article V Convention. So how is it that the CRS is at once telling members of Congress not to read the convention clause, and two years later writing a paper all about it?

That paper has been updated multiple times, most recently 2017: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

That paper spawned a rule which has the House now officially counting state applications and posting them as PDFs, Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives: Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

But most importantly, over the past five years, in the comment section to blogs and op-eds focused on the Article V Convention, it has gone from roughly 75% against a convention, to today where it's roughly 75% for a convention. I believe the above is evidence that indeed, if enough people want it, we will get the call.

Seems to me, anyone who genuinely reveres and cares for what was won with the Americans Revolution would be out on the internet talking up Article V, assuring people there's virtually no danger in a non-binding deliberative assembly, when anything discussed must still be ratified by 75%+ (a political principle that mathematically precludes partisan nonsense from becoming high law: any idea must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history).

For fun, maybe post a poll about it. There are still many folks on this site who are not operatives, that still believe a federal convention is dangerous.

This site has tons of info: Page One

I find it difficult to believe Congress would ignore a plurality of State Governors.
 
I find it difficult to believe Congress would ignore a plurality of State Governors.

I don't.

Congress has overtly attacked the Constitution by way of USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the numerous annual NDAA Amendments sliming Habeas Corpus.

Though I am skeptical of the results of an Article V convention, I have no doubt at all that the majority of the crooks in congress prefers the status quo over such a convention.
 
I don't.

Congress has overtly attacked the Constitution by way of USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the numerous annual NDAA Amendments sliming Habeas Corpus.

Though I am skeptical of the results of an Article V convention, I have no doubt at all that the majority of the crooks in congress prefers the status quo over such a convention.

Should State Governors get more political and "take it to the People" who vote for their representatives and representation?
 
Should State Governors get more political and "take it to the People" who vote for their representatives and representation?

I'm not sure of the answer, and one reason I'm not sure is because our new governor in Florida, DeSantis, held his first cabinet meeting in Israel. That strongly suggests he cares more about Israel than he cares about Florida residents.
 
I'm not sure of the answer, and one reason I'm not sure is because our new governor in Florida, DeSantis, held his first cabinet meeting in Israel. That strongly suggests he cares more about Israel than he cares about Florida residents.

Fifty people won't always agree on every single issue.

Better solutions at lower cost!
 
Congress has overtly attacked the Constitution.... Though I am skeptical of the results of an Article V convention....

The Article V Convention is a proper noun. There is no other convention clause of a fifth article.

Your skeptical of the convention process in light of the fact Congress should have called one in 1913 and has successfully denied one since?

They've attacked the Constitution, they ignore the Constitution, and yet it mandates one and you're skeptical?
 
So if a person requests the military for design specs on any new weapons being worked on you would want the Feds to just hand them over.
How about requesting information on any planned covert operations by special forces?
How about names of CIA operatives working undercover?

We will disagree. The public does not need to know "everything" that is currently going on. Our enemies would like to see your position enacted. It would make things easier for them. :lamo

Or you could just have the president of the united states invite the russians into the oval office for a discussion where not a soul knew what was discussed. Much more direct and effective.
 
The Article V Convention is a proper noun. There is no other convention clause of a fifth article.

Your skeptical of the convention process in light of the fact Congress should have called one in 1913 and has successfully denied one since?

They've attacked the Constitution, they ignore the Constitution, and yet it mandates one and you're skeptical?

I say again sir, I am skeptical that the good men will prevail over the bad men, should such a convention ACTUALLY be held. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Considering that, as you say, there is a conspiracy to prevent such a convention being held over a number of years, my skepticism is well founded.
 
I say again sir, I am skeptical that the good men will prevail over the bad men, should such a convention ACTUALLY be held. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Considering that, as you say, there is a conspiracy to prevent such a convention being held over a number of years, my skepticism is well founded.

It has nothing to do with good or bad men, but good or bad ideas.

75%+ approval mathematically precludes bad ideas from becoming law.

If the conspiracy is to prevent a convention, and it's been denied, skepticism would logically be placed with the fear-mongering that a convention can be taken over by bad men.

If your skepticism that a convention can be taken over is set aside due to the 75%+ approval requirement, then your skepticism is that humans alive today could not arrive at consensus for a good idea.

On both counts you make no sense.
 
It has nothing to do with good or bad men, but good or bad ideas.

75%+ approval mathematically precludes bad ideas from becoming law.

If the conspiracy is to prevent a convention, and it's been denied, skepticism would logically be placed with the fear-mongering that a convention can be taken over by bad men.

If your skepticism that a convention can be taken over is set aside due to the 75%+ approval requirement, then your skepticism is that humans alive today could not arrive at consensus for a good idea.

On both counts you make no sense.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but in life, very much depends upon good men or bad men. Franklin alluded to that simple fact: "A republic, if you can keep it."
 
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but in life, very much depends upon good men or bad men. Franklin alluded to that simple fact: "A republic, if you can keep it."

I'll assume Koch, Adelstein, and Soros as the boogeymen whose existence is cause for your skepticism of the convention process. Even if they aren't, you're talking about bad men paid to do bad things, or maybe Putin and Russia decide they want a piece of the action at America's first Article V Convention.

What could any of the above propose as constitutional amendment language that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree on? Your skepticism has no basis in reality for the fact that a convention is non-binding, i.e. all the bad men propose their bad amendments and sit down; all the good men propose their good amendments and sit down. Now they adjourn, now the bad men need 38 state legislatures to agree with their bogus amendments. In other words, there is literally nothing that bad men can control in a non-binding assembly of state delegates. In fact the event exposes them for who and what they are by what they say (or don't say). If they pay to vote down all good ideas, then at least we will have openly forced the hand of those who at present do everything at expensive restaurant tables in DC.

You can hide behind the idea of bad men, and confuse Franklin's quote to fit your intellectual dishonesty, but what he was really saying, as did Jefferson, is that every generation ought to formally review their high law. Ours has been unamended for over quarter century, and you cite numerous legislative acts and high court rulings that run counter to the spirit of the Constitution, and then somehow you're skeptical of a process that allows the living to formally discuss their government--the very thing that makes us American--the right to alter/abolish if things become corrupt, let alone thoroughly corrupt.
 
Back
Top Bottom