Article 5 Convention of the States

[countryboy]

there isn't enough support for a constitutional convention, nor would i support one. in a theoretical situation in which that happens, my guess is that everyone (meaning regular, non-powerful people) would come out disappointed. your new constitution would reflect the desires of the insanely rich, as well as corporate interests. it's possible that they might write a clearer version of the second amendment with fewer commas. it's also possible that they'll slip in something to nullify it, probably relating to terrorism. either side want to gamble on that one?

as for thinly veiled threats of rebellion, let's think about that one for a minute. in the most likely scenario, the rebellion is crushed almost instantly due to a massive difference in troop strength and firepower, and the participants would go directly to jail. however, let's consider a theoretical second civil war which isn't resolved quickly, however unlikely that scenario is. here's what i think would happen :

1. due to extreme instability, the dollar is now worth exactly jack ****. the dollar is currently the global reserve currency. it would be dumped globally, and another currency would take its place. hope that you are keen on hyperinflation and all of the wondrous benefits that come along with it. we might currently be the "only superpower," whatever the hell that means. i'm sure that there are several other nations which wouldn't mind claiming that title, though

2. our global influence in commerce / trade is toast. again, this means that you're probably ****ed. this isn't the nineteenth century. their economy wasn't even as national as ours is global.

3. if we're really unlucky, a coalition organizes and comes in to stabilize our nation, as we would be ****ing their **** up pretty effectively, too. so who do you fire at first : the unionist, or the coalition soldier? same question to unionists. we got pretty lucky the first time around that Europe didn't swoop back in and put enough firepower in place to reclaim the colonies. and remember, we're not just talking boots on the ground invasion this time around. we aren't the only nuclear power, and that's not even the most effective strategy that they could employ.

in both scenarios, anyone who isn't currently winning loses big time. our best bet is to un-gerrymander the entire country and participate in the voting process. the modern rebellion fantasy is nonsense.

We're not talking about a Constitutional Convention, we're talking about an Article 5 Convention of States.

 

[Helix]

We're not talking about a Constitutional Convention, we're talking about an Article 5 Convention of States.

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

so, in your opinion, what does that look like?

 

[MTAtech]

We're not talking about a Constitutional Convention, we're talking about an Article 5 Convention of States.

That's the same thing. C.B.

Let's read the pertinent portion of the constitution:

Article V
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.

 

[countryboy]

The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787. The words "Constitutional Convention" appear nowhere in Article 5. This term is used to strike fear into the hearts of men. And it works like a charm.

 

[jet57]

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

All the yelling about a convention, mostly by Mark Levin, leaves out the most important part: the reasons for one. What changes need to be made? The US has over 300 million people, so a federal government that must serve the population must be large enough to meet that need. I think that the question, going unanswered by the neo-confederates: the ones calling for the convention... is what they as a federal government that is too powerful, too centralized and over stepping its bounds. In order to address such issues, they first must be proven to be true, not just a part of of a radical agenda to destroy the federal government, and therein lies the problem: none of that will ever be proven to the satisfaction of 33 states of this union.

So the first order to is to determine exactly what's wrong with the current system and prove that it harms the people and violates constitutional controls.

 

[ChrisABrown]

there isn't enough support for a constitutional convention, nor would i support one. in a theoretical situation in which that happens, my guess is that everyone (meaning regular, non-powerful people) would come out disappointed. your new constitution would reflect the desires of the insanely rich, as well as corporate interests. it's possible that they might write a clearer version of the second amendment with fewer commas. it's also possible that they'll slip in something to nullify it, probably relating to terrorism. either side want to gamble on that one?

as for thinly veiled threats of rebellion, let's think about that one for a minute. in the most likely scenario, the rebellion is crushed almost instantly due to a massive difference in troop strength and firepower, and the participants would go directly to jail. however, let's consider a theoretical second civil war which isn't resolved quickly, however unlikely that scenario is. here's what i think would happen :

1. due to extreme instability, the dollar is now worth exactly jack ****. the dollar is currently the global reserve currency. it would be dumped globally, and another currency would take its place. hope that you are keen on hyperinflation and all of the wondrous benefits that come along with it. we might currently be the "only superpower," whatever the hell that means. i'm sure that there are several other nations which wouldn't mind claiming that title, though

2. our global influence in commerce / trade is toast. again, this means that you're probably ****ed. this isn't the nineteenth century. their economy wasn't even as national as ours is global.

3. if we're really unlucky, a coalition organizes and comes in to stabilize our nation, as we would be ****ing their **** up pretty effectively, too.

in both scenarios, anyone who isn't currently winning loses big time. our best bet is to un-gerrymander the entire country and participate in the voting process. the modern rebellion fantasy is nonsense.

Fairly realistic scenarios. Number 3. is pretty unlikely.

There is a way, but smart people like yourself need to get off your a** and use your brain then ACT, and that is as difficult as telling everyone you can about the koch bros, ALEC scam to hijack Article 5 AND the way to counter it.

It uses the basic strategy that Lincoln proposed, (hidden from history) that made "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the court."

It invokes the 9th amendment through state Citizens majority petition upon state legislators. Yea, big order, but there really is no choice. I've been looking at the situation for 20 years and this is it. This might not be a quick fix, but that depends on the people who can understand it and HOW hard they work to share it.

The basic problem is disunity. The infiltration that did the act of 1871 has worked hard with media to divide the people. Quite successful, but, not as deep as some think. Sure, crowds get riled and hate, but that is emotional and not really how most of the participants feel. It's a an outlet.

The solution lies in an agreement that American state Citizens have that is basically unconscious. Something they learn growing up. It's almost invisible to them, but if the principles are challenged, and they are not total wimps, they stand up.

Number 1) below is written in the Declaration of Independence. It's a no brainer. BUT, we have agents here (https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html
) that will not even recognize that Article V manifests the right to alter or abolish. Number 2) must exist or number 1) is an empty right.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

This is something that is completely under our control. It has nothing to do with government. It has only to do with the people. By the time government is involved, they will know that their scam is OVER.

Here is the legal strategy that uses our agreement.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

If we fail to do this now, the koch bros have been working to hijack article 5 for 25 years at least so the "corporate interests" you mention will control.

The threat of hijacking to Article V - ALEC

 

[Helix]

Fairly realistic scenarios. Number 3. is pretty unlikely.

There is a way, but smart people like yourself need to get off your a** and use your brain then ACT, and that is as difficult as telling everyone you can about the koch bros, ALEC scam to hijack Article 5 AND the way to counter it.

It uses the basic strategy that Lincoln proposed, (hidden from history) that made "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the court."

It invokes the 9th amendment through state Citizens majority petition upon state legislators. Yea, big order, but there really is no choice. I've been looking at the situation for 20 years and this is it. This might not be a quick fix, but that depends on the people who can understand it and HOW hard they work to share it.

The basic problem is disunity. The infiltration that did the act of 1871 has worked hard with media to divide the people. Quite successful, but, not as deep as some think. Sure, crowds get riled and hate, but that is emotional and not really how most of the participants feel. It's a an outlet.

The solution lies in an agreement that American state Citizens have that is basically unconscious. Something they learn growing up. It's almost invisible to them, but if the principles are challenged, and they are not total wimps, they stand up.

Number 1) below is written in the Declaration of Independence. It's a no brainer. BUT, we have agents here (https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html
) that will not even recognize that Article V manifests the right to alter or abolish. Number 2) must exist or number 1) is an empty right.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

This is something that is completely under our control. It has nothing to do with government. It has only to do with the people. By the time government is involved, they will know that their scam is OVER.

Here is the legal strategy that uses our agreement.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

If we fail to do this now, the koch bros have been working to hijack article 5 for 25 years at least so the "corporate interests" you mention will control.

The threat of hijacking to Article V - ALEC

i doubt that many on either side are going to do much other than vote and complain or not vote and complain. those with the means to buy preferential legislation will continue to do so. i have some hope that the SCOTUS will toss out political gerrymandering, but i wouldn't bet on it. as i said, i think that ending gerrymandering and forcing politicians to compete is the best chance that we have to increase the power of the vote.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

It is not your Fedgov that has become too powerful, but rather corporate power of extracted/concentrated societal wealth that has become too powerful and has overtaken the Fedgov, away from we the people. And with the electoral college your percentages are reversed. I won't get into quibbling about 51% vs. 49% in terms of relative values, but a minority has utterly sodomized any semblance of representative rule in the US. As for division as a tactic of rule by an aristocracy, goes all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion, the masses must be kept quibbling amongst themselves.

 

[ChrisABrown]

i doubt that many on either side are going to do much other than vote and complain or not vote and complain. those with the means to buy preferential legislation will continue to do so. i have some hope that the SCOTUS will toss out political gerrymandering, but i wouldn't bet on it. as i said, i think that ending gerrymandering and forcing politicians to compete is the best chance that we have to increase the power of the vote.

Within the existing structure, yes, I agree. But our constitution affords other ways to control government besides politics. Article V is designed for that, but in order for the people to use it to satisfy their right to alter or abolish, there will need to be preparation. AND, the 9th Amendment can accommodate that as a right retained IF all amendments are to have constitutional intent as Article V requires.

BTW, have you seen these threads?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/299932-peoples-use-their-right-9th-amd.html

Hmm, notice you are a Mod here. I'm VERY experienced at exposing cognitive infiltration designed to prevent Americans from defending the constitution. There are three members there that fit the profile classically. Trying to get accountability form them that should be easy to get from real people.

 

[Helix]

Within the existing structure, yes, I agree. But our constitution affords other ways to control government besides politics. Article V is designed for that, but in order for the people to use it to satisfy their right to alter or abolish, there will need to be preparation. AND, the 9th Amendment can accommodate that as a right retained IF all amendments are to have constitutional intent as Article V requires.

BTW, have you seen these threads?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...ee-speech-re-established-through-9th-amd.html

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-constitution/299932-peoples-use-their-right-9th-amd.html

Hmm, notice you are a Mod here. I'm VERY experienced at exposing cognitive infiltration designed to prevent Americans from defending the constitution. There are three members there that fit the profile classically. Trying to get accountability form them that should be easy to get from real people.

an article five convention isn't going to happen. a gerrymandering backlash might be possible, though. however, we'll have to get past the ingroup / outgroup BS, and more than sixty percent of voters will have to consider it a priority.

 

[apdst]

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

What would be the specific objectives?

 

[joG]

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

Given the levels of intolerance, statism and overreach of liberalist disregard for constitutional protection of individuals, I shudder to yhink of the possible consequences of such an undertaking. It could cost us our society.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Does that mean you're ok with the 51% dictating to the 49%, using the bloated and overbearing power of the Fedgov, regardless of the wishes of the 49%? Do you think that because you feel sure you'll be in the 51% consistently from now forward?


I'd prefer people were free to choose, by voting with their feet, what kind of State they want to live in, without having to leave the entire country to do it.

Those 49% gave us Donald Trump. And you think they should rewrite the constitution? lol

What you're really asking for a second Civil War.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Those 49% gave us Donald Trump. And you think they should rewrite the constitution? lol

What you're really asking for a second Civil War.

At this point, one has to wonder if a second civil war is inevitable?

 

[Goshin]

At this point, one has to wonder if a second civil war is inevitable?

Frankly I keep coming back to that, bizarre and ridiculous as the idea seems, and as disasterous as such a thing would be.


The alternative to compromise is force. No one seems keen on any reasonable compromise anymore.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

At this point, one has to wonder if a second civil war is inevitable?

I don't really think it's inevitable, or even likely, but something like this could certainly lead to a bitter divorce, or even a Balkanized continent.

 

[holbritter]

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

Wasn't aware of this. Thank you.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Frankly I keep coming back to that, bizarre and ridiculous as the idea seems, and as disasterous as such a thing would be.


The alternative to compromise is force. No one seems keen on any reasonable compromise anymore.

I used to disagree with conservatives but still fundamentally respect them. Trump's election has damaged that respect. It's difficult to compromise without at least some level of trust.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Frankly I keep coming back to that, bizarre and ridiculous as the idea seems, and as disasterous as such a thing would be.


The alternative to compromise is force. No one seems keen on any reasonable compromise anymore.

Compromise becomes impossible when opposing goals and ideology’s conflict each other on a fundamental level.

The origins of the civil war can be traced to the founding of this nation, the issue of slaves being not included in the population totals that determined political representation nearly caused the southern colonies to oppose the signing of constitution, so the Northern states had to include the three-fifths compromise.

The fundamental issue at the heart of the civil war was what kind of nation the United States was: a nation of free men or a nation that protected the institution of slavary. Prior to the civil war, our nation was divided in two: one half slave, one half free. In the end the free states defeated the slave states.


Today we are facing a similar divide, this time over the issue of defining the role of federal government.

 

[ChrisABrown]

an article five convention isn't going to happen. a gerrymandering backlash might be possible, though. however, we'll have to get past the ingroup / outgroup BS, and more than sixty percent of voters will have to consider it a priority.

One reason I'm pushing a solution, is the problem is looming, and people are too distracted with 45 to realize an A5 is probably going to happen as a hijacking.

A Billionaire-Backed 'Movement' Is Dangerously Close to Calling a Constitutional Convention | Alternet

Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution | PR Watch

Liberals and conservatives are teaming up to call a new constitutional convention.


The solution is for 51% of 38 state Citizens to accept this definition of the most prime constitutional intent and right,---

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

-- then demand under law that state legislators accept the right that they have defined under the 9th Amendment because this is ALSO a petition to the state to have a convention proposing amendments to the constitution to revise the 1st Amendment, and, secure the vote with states amending their constitutions to make consistency.

That is IT, and it is all lawful, in fact, it is hyper-constitutional.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

 

[Goshin]

Compromise becomes impossible when opposing goals and ideology’s conflict each other on a fundamental level.

The origins of the civil war can be traced to the founding of this nation, the issue of slaves being not included in the population totals that determined political representation nearly caused the southern colonies to oppose the signing of constitution, so the Northern states had to include the three-fifths compromise.

The fundamental issue at the heart of the civil war was what kind of nation the United States was: a nation of free men or a nation that protected the institution of slavary. Prior to the civil war, our nation was divided in two: one half slave, one half free. In the end the free states defeated the slave states.


Today we are facing a similar divide, this time over the issue of defining the role of federal government.

Is there no solution short of coercion or bloodshed? I'm trying to find one.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Is there no solution short of coercion or bloodshed? I'm trying to find one.

Just a question before I answer: are you familiar with the play/film fiddler on the roof? The reason I am asking because it directly relates to my response to your question.

 

[Goshin]

Just a question before I answer: are you familiar with the play/film fiddler on the roof? The reason I am asking because it directly relates to my response to your question.

I've seen it. Been a while.

 

[countryboy]

Given the levels of intolerance, statism and overreach of liberalist disregard for constitutional protection of individuals, I shudder to yhink of the possible consequences of such an undertaking. It could cost us our society.

The current state of affairs in this country is already costing us our society, and eroding our freedoms at an unprecedented rate. Will you wait until it's too late to act?

 

[countryboy]

Those 49% gave us Donald Trump. And you think they should rewrite the constitution? lol

What you're really asking for a second Civil War.

Actually, he's trying to find a way to avoid one.