• 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

JD1965

JD1965

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
293
Reaction score
17
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here is a PDF from a page of Congressional Records which proves a conspiracy via public record. Members of Congress are carrying out a conspiracy to deny Americans their right to formally discuss how government operates.

In short, the Framers put a convention clause into the Constitution for the inevitable moment when Congress stopped working in the interests of the states and the people. The link shows that Congress has had, and presently still does have, a constitutional obligation to issue the call for the Article V Convention.

Not only are all three branches of government in on it, so are media and corporate interests. You won't hear any of them mention it, which means they are all squirming in their seats, hoping Americans never catch on to what the real game is all about.

http://foa5c.org/01page/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG
 
The government, including Congress, conspires to keep all sorts of knowledge secret from the American people. Not just this matter as you have shown, but knowledge of climate change (Juliana v. U.S., recently thrown out of court), knowledge of alien visitation and influence, knowledge of the failures of our undeclared wars, and more.

Many people prefer ignorance of such things over knowledge of the truth.
 
Should the government tell its citizens everything? For example during the time of war should the citizens know troop movement, size of force and attack plans. How about the development of a new weapon. Should the details be shared with the public. For example when the atomic bomb was being developed.

The big question is what sources are used for the "knowledge of the truth"?
 
JD1965 said:
Maybe they shouldn't "tell" everything, but everything should be available upon request.
Click to expand...

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
 
JD1965 said:
Yes, but this secret is the one which enables all the others.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Some might argue that all the secrecy regarding the Federal Reserve situation might be more enabling. Or the secrecy regarding aliens and Project Blue Book. Even POTUS Clinton could not overcome the secrecy.

Or, the government secrecy that shrouds 911. US Attorney Berman has refused to convene a Grand Jury in that matter, even though the law demands it, even though the Lawyer's Committee provided piles of facts and evidence.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Perhaps. Some might argue that all the secrecy regarding the Federal Reserve situation might be more enabling. Or the secrecy regarding aliens and Project Blue Book. Even POTUS Clinton could not overcome the secrecy.

Or, the government secrecy that shrouds 911. US Attorney Berman has refused to convene a Grand Jury in that matter, even though the law demands it, even though the Lawyer's Committee provided piles of facts and evidence.
Click to expand...

If a convention were held the Federal Reserve Banking Act and the National Security Act would not be formally discussed? In other words, not perhaps, but indeed, the Article V Convention conspiracy is the one that keeps all the others in place. A convention transforms those discussions into a formal discussions. Most people piss their pants at the thought. They can only handle informal discussion.
 
JD1965 said:
If a convention were held the Federal Reserve Banking Act and the National Security Act would not be formally discussed? In other words, not perhaps, but indeed, the Article V Convention conspiracy is the one that keeps all the others in place. A convention transforms those discussions into a formal discussions. Most people piss their pants at the thought. They can only handle informal discussion.
Click to expand...

Some cannot handle even informal discussion.

In US politics, probably all politics, behind the scenes is where deals are cut. That is what frightens me about such a convention. The forces that work behind the scenes in US politics are special interest groups and individuals. As Jimmy Carter and others have pointed out, what we have here is an oligarchy. The same forces that killed JFK and others are the ones who actually run the government.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Some cannot handle even informal discussion.

In US politics, probably all politics, behind the scenes is where deals are cut. That is what frightens me about such a convention. The forces that work behind the scenes in US politics are special interest groups and individuals. As Jimmy Carter and others have pointed out, what we have here is an oligarchy. The same forces that killed JFK and others are the ones who actually run the government.
Click to expand...

The oligarchy could manufacture consent for a convention tomorrow, and could have done it at any time over the past hundred years. Instead they have tarred and feathered the Article V Convention with mischaracterization and fear-mongering decade after decade. If they could control it, why not destroy the Constitution with it once and for all?

It's because they can't control it and a non-binding deliberative assembly tasked with constructing amendment language cannot be secretive in any way because the actual process does not allow it. A convention makes the bad guys formally propose as law, what they get away with now anyway. If you're getting away with murder do you want to enter a discussion on how to make murder legal? The process itself casts everyone and every issue in the sunlight and exposes any operatives for who and what they are based on what they propose.
 
JD1965 said:
The oligarchy could manufacture consent for a convention tomorrow, and could have done it at any time over the past hundred years. Instead they have tarred and feathered the Article V Convention with mischaracterization and fear-mongering decade after decade. If they could control it, why not destroy the Constitution with it once and for all?

It's because they can't control it and a non-binding deliberative assembly tasked with constructing amendment language cannot be secretive in any way because the actual process does not allow it. A convention makes the bad guys formally propose as law, what they get away with now anyway. If you're getting away with murder do you want to enter a discussion on how to make murder legal? The process itself casts everyone and every issue in the sunlight and exposes any operatives for who and what they are based on what they propose.
Click to expand...

I do hope you're right.

I recently watched (am still watching) Oliver Stone's documentary on Netflix, "The Untold History of the United States", and one segment dealt with the 1944 Democratic Convention. It showed how popular FDR's VP Henry Wallace had been during the first three terms (Wallace was a pacifist and advocate for the common man), and how at the last minute in that convention power brokers behind the scenes got Wallace thrown out in favor of Harry Truman. The vast and obvious support for Wallace by all the delegates at the convention was over ruled by the power brokers behind the scenes.

I hope you're right, but your view seems overly idealistic to me.
 
Am I the only one who actually read the link and discovered it doesn't do any of that "conspiracy" stuff the OP claims it does?
 
JD1965 said:
The oligarchy could manufacture consent for a convention tomorrow, and could have done it at any time over the past hundred years. Instead they have tarred and feathered the Article V Convention with mischaracterization and fear-mongering decade after decade. If they could control it, why not destroy the Constitution with it once and for all?

It's because they can't control it and a non-binding deliberative assembly tasked with constructing amendment language cannot be secretive in any way because the actual process does not allow it. A convention makes the bad guys formally propose as law, what they get away with now anyway. If you're getting away with murder do you want to enter a discussion on how to make murder legal? The process itself casts everyone and every issue in the sunlight and exposes any operatives for who and what they are based on what they propose.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? All that resolution does is notify Congress that the requisite two-thirds of states had signed a petition, and that a constitutional convention was now requested.

Except there weren't actually 35 active petitions at that point. Wisconsin was trying to count petitions to amend the constitution for direct election of senators... an amendment that had already been added to the constitution. Those petitions were clearly no longer valid.
 
Deuce said:
What on earth are you talking about? All that resolution does is notify Congress that the requisite two-thirds of states had signed a petition, and that a constitutional convention was now requested.

Except there weren't actually 35 active petitions at that point. Wisconsin was trying to count petitions to amend the constitution for direct election of senators... an amendment that had already been added to the constitution. Those petitions were clearly no longer valid.
Click to expand...

They didn't sign a petition, they cast an application. Two totally different legal meanings.

There are no terms or conditions in the Constitution or any subsequent amendment/USSC rulings regarding state applications. The call is based on an objective numeric count based on logic that politicians will attempt to make up reasons not to call a convention. Every application ever cast is active up until a convention is called.

The states have legally satisfied the clause and the federal government, the politicians in the 116th Congress, is/are pretending it's not happening. That's the conspiracy. Not to mention all the celebrities and talking heads that could be advocating for a convention but are somehow too stupid to recognize it.
 
JD1965 said:
They didn't sign a petition, they cast an application. Two totally different legal meanings.

There are no terms or conditions in the Constitution or any subsequent amendment/USSC rulings regarding state applications. The call is based on an objective numeric count based on logic that politicians will attempt to make up reasons not to call a convention. Every application ever cast is active up until a convention is called.

The states have legally satisfied the clause and the federal government, the politicians in the 116th Congress, is/are pretending it's not happening. That's the conspiracy. Not to mention all the celebrities and talking heads that could be advocating for a convention but are somehow too stupid to recognize it.
Click to expand...

Congress is and has been pretending for decades that we are alone in the universe, that AQ attacked us in 2001, and that democracy thrives in this country.

Congress is very good at pretending all sorts of things. So you're right about that.

But that doesn't mean that an Article V convention would not be hijacked by the same group of liars.
 
JD1965 said:
They didn't sign a petition, they cast an application. Two totally different legal meanings.

There are no terms or conditions in the Constitution or any subsequent amendment/USSC rulings regarding state applications. The call is based on an objective numeric count based on logic that politicians will attempt to make up reasons not to call a convention. Every application ever cast is active up until a convention is called.

The states have legally satisfied the clause and the federal government, the politicians in the 116th Congress, is/are pretending it's not happening. That's the conspiracy. Not to mention all the celebrities and talking heads that could be advocating for a convention but are somehow too stupid to recognize it.
Click to expand...

Says you.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Congress is and has been pretending for decades that we are alone in the universe, that AQ attacked us in 2001, and that democracy thrives in this country.

Congress is very good at pretending all sorts of things. So you're right about that.

But that doesn't mean that an Article V convention would not be hijacked by the same group of liars.
Click to expand...

So a convention is convened and all these liars you presume will be there are assembled. What next? What could "liars" propose that roughly 7 out of 10 Americans would say Yes to?

There is nothing to high-jack at a non-binding deliberative assembly. You either got a good idea for amendment or you don't. Regardless, it still has to be put before the people.

You want it to be true that a convention could be hijacked because then you don't have to fight for it. As mentioned, you are part of the problem and endanger everything won with the American Revolution. Not because I say so, but because fact and law say so.
 
JD1965 said:
Here is a PDF from a page of Congressional Records which proves a conspiracy via public record. Members of Congress are carrying out a conspiracy to deny Americans their right to formally discuss how government operates.

In short, the Framers put a convention clause into the Constitution for the inevitable moment when Congress stopped working in the interests of the states and the people. The link shows that Congress has had, and presently still does have, a constitutional obligation to issue the call for the Article V Convention.

Not only are all three branches of government in on it, so are media and corporate interests. You won't hear any of them mention it, which means they are all squirming in their seats, hoping Americans never catch on to what the real game is all about.

http://foa5c.org/01page/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG
Click to expand...

What are you referring to? Our Constitution provides a mechanism for amending it.
 
danielpalos said:
What are you referring to? Our Constitution provides a mechanism for amending it.
Click to expand...

The Constitution provides two modes for proposing amendments, and one way to amend.

1) Congress, or if the states apply in sufficient number, it "shall call" the 2) Article V Convention.

The link shows that as a matter of public record the states have legally satisfied the clause, and we're in the midsts of a congressional conspiracy to deny the states and the people the right to formally discuss the politicians in Congress.
 
JD1965 said:
The Constitution provides two modes for proposing amendments, and one way to amend.

1) Congress, or if the states apply in sufficient number, it "shall call" the 2) Article V Convention.

The link shows that as a matter of public record the states have legally satisfied the clause, and we're in the midsts of a congressional conspiracy to deny the states and the people the right to formally discuss the politicians in Congress.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you reached that conclusion from the right to amend our Constitution.
 
danielpalos said:
Not sure how you reached that conclusion from the right to amend our Constitution.
Click to expand...

The critical distinction is that there are two ways to propose an amendment, but only one way to ratify it.

The states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V and everyone in Congress pretends the mandate doesn't exist. That's the conspiracy--to deny the American people of the several states to their right to formally discuss and propose things that politicians never will.
 
JD1965 said:
So a convention is convened and all these liars you presume will be there are assembled. What next? What could "liars" propose that roughly 7 out of 10 Americans would say Yes to?

There is nothing to high-jack at a non-binding deliberative assembly. You either got a good idea for amendment or you don't. Regardless, it still has to be put before the people.

You want it to be true that a convention could be hijacked because then you don't have to fight for it. As mentioned, you are part of the problem and endanger everything won with the American Revolution. Not because I say so, but because fact and law say so.
Click to expand...

Did you ever find some evidence of previous CC held here? Or would you like to walk that claim back?
 
JD1965 said:
The critical distinction is that there are two ways to propose an amendment, but only one way to ratify it.

The states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V and everyone in Congress pretends the mandate doesn't exist. That's the conspiracy--to deny the American people of the several states to their right to formally discuss and propose things that politicians never will.
Click to expand...

Any specific example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom