Article 5 Convention of the States

[GhostlyJoe]

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

Trying to take self-governance away from half the nation (largely the younger half to boot) is a poor way to go about that.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I've seen it. Been a while.

Well then are you familiar with the scene were the main character, tevye, is faced with a quandary involving his third daughter’s choice of husband?

Tevye’s third daughter had fallen in love with a Russian farmer, someone who was outside the Jewish faith. By marrying this Russian, tevye’s daughter was committing a major Taboo of Orthodox Judaism, and tevye’s daughter wanted her father’s blessing and for him to acknowledge the marriage.

For tevye, this was a major dilemma that forced him to choose between upholding the tradition’s he lives by and the happiness of his family. Tevye has faced this dilemma twice before in the earlier acts of fiddler of the roof. previously, tevye had twice decided to forsake tradition and allowed his two elder daughters to marry people that they loved, but when tevye faced this dilemma a third time, he found that he could not go againist tradition.

This was the dilemma tevye faced :

Accept them?
How can I accept them?
Can I deny everything I believe in?
On the other hand,
Can I deny my own daughter?
On the other hand,
How can I turn my back on my faith,
My people?
If I try and bend that far
I will break.
On the other hand....
No, There is no other hand

Tevye rejected his own daughter rather than betray what he believed in.

I think that the ideological divide between Americans is similar to the one tevye faced.

 

[Goshin]

Well then are you familiar with the scene were the main character, tevye, is faced with a quandary involving his third daughter’s choice of husband?

Tevye’s third daughter had fallen in love with a Russian farmer, someone who was outside the Jewish faith. By marrying this Russian, tevye’s daughter was committing a major Taboo of Orthodox Judaism, and tevye’s daughter wanted her father’s blessing and for him to acknowledge the marriage.

For tevye, this was a major dilemma that forced him to choose between upholding the tradition’s he lives by and the happiness of his family. Tevye has faced this dilemma twice before in the earlier acts of fiddler of the roof. previously, tevye had twice decided to forsake tradition and allowed his two elder daughters to marry people that they loved, but when tevye faced this dilemma a third time, he found that he could not go againist tradition.

This was the dilemma tevye faced :



Tevye rejected his own daughter rather than betray what he believed in.

I think that the ideological divide between Americans is similar to the one tevye faced.

I get what you're saying. I find it rather disheartening though.


I lean libertarian more than anything else really. Not capital-L as in the party, but inclined that way in principle. I prefer gov not use coercion except where absolutely necessary, and since Gov is primary force, threat of force and coercion anyway, I prefer no more government that is actually necessary.

The other side of the coin is those who want to force others to do things their way, because they think "their way" is virtuous.


Do you know what CS Lewis said about this?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)



Where do you stand in light of that quote?

 

[Goshin]

And this...

Daniel Webster (American revolutionary) said, In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Been waiting for someone to go there.

Does anyone seriously believe any state, in this modern age, would re-institute slavery or segregation? Or get away with it if they tried?

Now that is a laugh...

Slavery? no of course not

increased discrimination against and less than equal protection for genders, races, religions and sexual orentation . . absolutely.

Now with that side, I'm not saying Im against reducing the fed, Im all for it! The problem is I have little to no faith the cooks would not try to use it for a platform of what I just described and be successful.

 

[Goshin]

Slavery? no of course not

increased discrimination against and less than equal protection for genders, races, religions and sexual orentation . . absolutely.

Now with that side, I'm not saying Im against reducing the fed, Im all for it! The problem is I have little to no faith the cooks would not try to use it for a platform of what I just described and be successful.

I really don't see it happening, at least not in a widespread or major manner.... and when States differ you can always vote with your feet.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I really don't see it happening, at least not in a widespread or major manner.... and when States differ you can always vote with your feet.

I most certainly see it happening and how couldn't it be widespread or major if its a whole state? Also voting with your feet is NOT sufficient. Some people can't do that and that stuff should not take place anywhere in our country. Allowing it makes the whole country part of the problem. If things like that were off the table from the start then I'd be all for it but they never will be because those are things some politicians probably have huge eyes for right now and cant wait to try it.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I get what you're saying. I find it rather disheartening though.


I lean libertarian more than anything else really. Not capital-L as in the party, but inclined that way in principle. I prefer gov not use coercion except where absolutely necessary, and since Gov is primary force, threat of force and coercion anyway, I prefer no more government that is actually necessary.

The other side of the coin is those who want to force others to do things their way, because they think "their way" is virtuous.


Do you know what CS Lewis said about this?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)



Where do you stand in light of that quote?

I fundamentally disagree with C.S Lewis because my View of government and the role that it plays. The American people will never be slaves to the government because the government is fundamentally the instrument of the people’s will: we vote for who represents us and our nation. The national government has a duty, an obligation, to serve, protect, represent all Americans and their interests. Those elected officials we send to Washington have a duty to serve our interests.

To me, the worst kind of government and governing philosophy is exemplified by the one we had in 1929-1932. The Great Depression was a crisis that affected all Americans, but the Hoover administration did not do enough to address the crisis of unemployment and the lack of work. The lasiae-Fair economic and governing philosophy of the republican administration under Herbert Hoover is what I consider worse than any tyranny: it had the power to act and help American economy recover from the Great Depression, but it chose not to interfere with the economic crisis. I am a supporter of liberalism and FDR, because I truly believe government has the power to act on behalf on the people.

But I suppose some people find my ideas are somehow worse.

 

[countryboy]

Trying to take self-governance away from half the nation (largely the younger half to boot) is a poor way to go about that.

Virtually no way for that to happen. Do you realize that's what the other side fears as well?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Virtually no way for that to happen. Do you realize that's what the other side fears as well?

I do, actually. Mutual distrust is one of our biggest political problems these days.

 

[Helix]

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

i don't believe that a billionaire backed movement is going to successfully push a constitutional convention. they are doing just fine buying preferential legislation a la carte.

 

[Goshin]

I fundamentally disagree with C.S Lewis because my View of government and the role that it plays. The American people will never be slaves to the government because the government is fundamentally the instrument of the people’s will: we vote for who represents us and our nation. The national government has a duty, an obligation, to serve, protect, represent all Americans and their interests. Those elected officials we send to Washington have a duty to serve our interests.

To me, the worst kind of government and governing philosophy is exemplified by the one we had in 1929-1932. The Great Depression was a crisis that affected all Americans, but the Hoover administration did not do enough to address the crisis of unemployment and the lack of work. The lasiae-Fair economic and governing philosophy of the republican administration under Herbert Hoover is what I consider worse than any tyranny: it had the power to act and help American economy recover from the Great Depression, but it chose not to interfere with the economic crisis. I am a supporter of liberalism and FDR, because I truly believe government has the power to act on behalf on the people.

But I suppose some people find my ideas are somehow worse.

I fundamentally disagree with your side's ideology, because that side doesn't seem content to allow me to live my life my way, even if I abide by the NAP. I've had liberals/progressives tell me plainly they won't leave me alone, as long as they think some social injustice is being done somewhere to someone, even if it isn't my fault and there's frack-all I can do about it.

I have problems with that.


I guess I'd better buy that extra crate of ammo this year after all, if compromise is dead as it seems.

 

[ludin]

I wasn't aware there was an actual movement to do it before you brought it up, so yeah.

This has been discussed before but is a very dangerous process.
3/4ths of the states have to agree.

Once convene the amendment process is open. Any amendment can be presented.
All it takes is a simple majority vote to ratify it.

Which means you might get a ton of amendments you don't like.
that is one reason it hasn't been called. There is not a filibuster etc ...

 

[ludin]

I fundamentally disagree with C.S Lewis because my View of government and the role that it plays. The American people will never be slaves to the government because the government is fundamentally the instrument of the people’s will: we vote for who represents us and our nation. The national government has a duty, an obligation, to serve, protect, represent all Americans and their interests. Those elected officials we send to Washington have a duty to serve our interests.

This is where you are wrong. The only reason that our government has lasted like this is because people still feel some sort of bond to that tradition. That tradition is breaking. The government constantly finds new ways to take away our rights and freedoms.

To me, the worst kind of government and governing philosophy is exemplified by the one we had in 1929-1932. The Great Depression was a crisis that affected all Americans, but the Hoover administration did not do enough to address the crisis of unemployment and the lack of work. The lasiae-Fair economic and governing philosophy of the republican administration under Herbert Hoover is what I consider worse than any tyranny: it had the power to act and help American economy recover from the Great Depression, but it chose not to interfere with the economic crisis. I am a supporter of liberalism and FDR, because I truly believe government has the power to act on behalf on the people.

But I suppose some people find my ideas are somehow worse.

FDR's policies extended the depression by years and years.
Work does not create wealth you should have learned that under fdr 2.0.
Hoover's Economic Policies: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Hoovers policies were right in line with everything you agree with and it failed.

 

[ChrisABrown]

i don't believe that a billionaire backed movement is going to successfully push a constitutional convention. they are doing just fine buying preferential legislation a la carte.

Developments indicate that if is near to happening. Only 6 states short.

Corporate America Is Just 6 States Short of a Constitutional Convention - In These Times

What if the proper opposition is also a great thing for America? Should we not prepare based on your belief?

 

[blarg]

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/

so you want to weaken the supreme court arnt you just going to end up with some states violating peoples rights with no legal way to challenge it

and this voting with your feet thing you mentioned i cant afford to move to another state

 

[Helix]

Developments indicate that if is near to happening. Only 6 states short.

Corporate America Is Just 6 States Short of a Constitutional Convention - In These Times

What if the proper opposition is also a great thing for America? Should we not prepare based on your belief?

i'm preparing to vote in 2018, . what sort of preparation are you advocating?

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

For all practical purposes, the Article V remedy is the functional equivalent of a CC. It is there for desperate situations, and it has never been used.

One could argue that we are in a desperate situation now, as regards constitutional governance, which we do not have. I tend to agree with Helix.

 

[ChrisABrown]

i'm preparing to vote in 2018, . what sort of preparation are you advocating?

Because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, effective preparation to vote cannot be done. As Thoureu72 states, this is a constitutional emergency, so focus on the constitution by a significant portion of the public is a primary need to try and orient a candidate towards the public interest. After that portion has made a statement large enough for politicians to observe, then, any who agree with the public can easily make their intent to support the constitution in the way the public thinks is most important.

The people I would like to vote for have no campaign voice. I don't know who they are. They don't know what I think is important.

I advocate what I'm doing. Trying to create a focus on the aspects of the constitution that can serve best to end this stalemate of information deprivation/manipulation that creates apathy, division and confusion or dysfunctional polarization. There is immense secrecy and coercion present with all candidates who might want to act in the people's interest rather than deep state, NWO or corporate cartel.

 

[Harshaw]

That's exactly what the Southern slave-holding states said prior to the Civil War. It became necessary not to accept the immorality of slavery. The same is true for marriage and other individual rights. We can't leave them up to the states.

There are just certain policies that work better when we apply them to the country as a whole. We have a Uniform Commercial Code because it facilitates commerce when there is just one rule that all firms, regardless of originating state, must follow, instead of 50 rules. We have an EPA that regulates pollution standards because local authorities are too easily influenced by local businesses who can threaten to leave if not appeased. We have national drug and food testing because it's far more efficient.

The hard-right thinking that everyone was just fine and happy until the big bad government decided to feed the poor; regulate food and drugs; provide federal insurance on bank deposits; institute auto safety standards and mileage standards, to name a few.

The reality, of course, is that federal involvement is a REACTION to unwanted conditions. Government officials didn't wake up one day and decide to regulate drugs. We saw that certain drugs were hitting the market and harming people. Likewise with food regulations.

Anti-poverty measures were created because of recognition that the market does fail certain people. John Kennedy was amazed that when he campaigned in West Virginia, there were starving Americans.

The right-wing likes to mask all of this under the label of "freedom." Federal government policies give Americans, freedom of starvation; freedom from illness caused by pollution; freedom from birth defects from untested drugs; freedom from economic disaster, etc.

Blah blah blah. A policy of live and let live is not equivalent to being OK with slavery. Whatever stupidity followed your odious opening, I didn't bother to read.

 

[MTAtech]

Blah blah blah. A policy of live and let live is not equivalent to being OK with slavery. Whatever stupidity followed your odious opening, I didn't bother to read.

I read that as you are fine if the North had a no slave policy and in the South people were allowed to own slaves. I find that a morally reprehensible and indefensible position. Since you take the position that slavery can be accepted under the premise of "live and let live," perhaps you can convince right-to-lifers to accept abortion under that same tenet.

It says a lot that you "didn't bother to read" the rest of my post, which wasn't that lengthy.

 

[ChrisABrown]

For all practical purposes, the Article V remedy is the functional equivalent of a CC. It is there for desperate situations, and it has never been used.

One could argue that we are in a desperate situation now, as regards constitutional governance, which we do not have. I tend to agree with Helix.

Your assessment of a desperate situation is correct.

I'm quite sure that the reason A5 has not been used is because the people have no way to be informed, unified or functionally involved, (free speech has this ultimate purpose) AND, by the 9th Amendment the people are the only entity that can define constitutional right of intent that is not listed. A5 requires all Amendments have constitutional intent while its presence to begin with indicates that it is a tool to facilitate adaptations which were not originally foreseen. Therein is why the 9th Amendment will be invoked.

This is logically why preparation for A5 is an unlisted right, and that preparation is to enable the people's unity or capacity to unify in agreement upon exactly what new right or intent time makes clear to the people which also bears the intent of the originally enumerated, general intents of the constitution or those expressed by the DOI.

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.

I agree with this mostly, and would point out that because of the fact that the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, the fear exists.

 

[blarg]

this seems like an attempt to weaken the country to let businesses have their way or at lest its the only thing they want that their bold enough to come out and say it directly here

https://www.conventionofstates.com/problem

 

[ChrisABrown]

this seems like an attempt to weaken the country to let businesses have their way or at lest its the only thing they want that their bold enough to come out and say it directly here

https://www.conventionofstates.com/problem

Weaken the constitution as something that stands for the longest term interests of the people, and therefore the country.

 

[blarg]

this seems like an attempt to weaken the country to let businesses have their way or at lest its the only thing they want that their bold enough to come out and say it directly here

https://www.conventionofstates.com/problem

ok their links offer some more insights

https://wallbuilders.com/about-us/

https://selfgovern.com/