Author Topic: Article 5  (Read 6962 times)

Offline fraggle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Article 5
« on: August 08, 2015, 09:13:38 PM »
On a radio talk show I heard that they only need a few more states to hold a constitutional convention.  What are the odds?  Who is in favor?  I know it is unlikely and it is limited in what could be accomplished  I believe all 34 states need to call it with a single intent, BUT I think that is the only way we will ever get term limits on congress, which in itself would be a huge accomplishment.  Anyone who thinks congress will vote them selves time limits is deluded.  I've only recently started to analyze what is involved and what it can accomplish...it is complex, I need more study.



Offline redbeard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Gender: Male
  • All liberals lie
Re: Article 5
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2015, 09:44:07 PM »
I am totally against it! A constitutional convention once formed could re-write the whole document! Better to pass each change and have them ratified by the states separately! A constitutional convention is a lousy idea unless you want some one like Pelosi or Obama writing it in their image! :blink: :blink: :blink:

Online tac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Gender: Male
Re: Article 5
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2015, 06:18:44 AM »
I am totally against it! A constitutional convention once formed could re-write the whole document! Better to pass each change and have them ratified by the states separately! A constitutional convention is a lousy idea unless you want some one like Pelosi or Obama writing it in their image! :blink: :blink: :blink:

Agreed. Be careful what you ask for you might not like what you get. Imagine a convention populated with nutcases from the left coast, NY, NJ,MA! Conservatives would be in prison camps!

Offline fraggle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Article 5
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2015, 03:29:36 PM »
I am totally against it! A constitutional convention once formed could re-write the whole document! Better to pass each change and have them ratified by the states separately! A constitutional convention is a lousy idea unless you want some one like Pelosi or Obama writing it in their image! :blink: :blink: :blink:

I don;t think that is true based on my limited research...I think it has to be specific as to what is to be changed or added.  Of course I am still researching and was hoping someone with more knowledge might comment with an explanation.

Offline Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55038
  • Gender: Male
Re: Article 5
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 04:17:45 PM »
I don;t think that is true based on my limited research...I think it has to be specific as to what is to be changed or added.  Of course I am still researching and was hoping someone with more knowledge might comment with an explanation.
I think his point is, but I could be wrong, is it's akin to editing the Bill of Rights, once you open that Pandora's Box, there's no fixing it, they'll just claim the other side did it first, we're just repairing the damage they inflicted, and eventually the entire document has been bastardized beyond recognition.

I like the concept, but the left is notorious for building on the foundations started by the GOP.
Patriot Act no longer resembles what it started out as, and I could go on and on. I know the Founders created this for good reason, but under the current circumstances with the nation divided as planned by the Marxists, I don't think it's a good idea to make an incision on a healthy patient while opperating in a septic tank, all kinds of infectioons are possible.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline zewazir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
  • TANSTAAFL!
Re: Article 5
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 06:30:13 PM »
There is no practical difference between an amendment being proposed via 2/3 of both houses of congress, or being proposed via a convention called by 2/3 of the states.  In both cases the process proposes a specific amendment.  For instance, the current proposal is to add a balanced budget amendment. The idea that the state convention could devolve into a total rewrite of the simply does not compute because the states are equal in such a convention, and conservative states out number the nanny states by a significant margin.

Also, in both cases 3/4 of the states must ratify it before it can become part of the Constitution. Again, there are more states which lean conservative than those dedicated to the advancement of the humanist progressive agenda. And unlike the electoral college, the high population of socialist states do not give them more votes. One state, one vote.  If the result of an article 5 convention is not acceptable to conservatives, we have enough power to make absolutely certain nothing counter finishes the ratification process.

With the pendulum of politics currently swinging away from the humanist progressive agenda, we may not have a better chance to reel in our runaway federal government with new restrictions. If nothing else, we could stay away from tweeking the BOR, and concentrate on defanging the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses which the socialist factions have been abusing since the New Hampshire legislature signed on the dotted line.

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Article 5
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2015, 08:21:10 AM »
Our forefathers purposely made he amendment process difficult. They were wise enough to understand that there would be times when convenience could outweigh sanity. Like others I am also opposed to a constitutional convention as it could more easily be hijacked than the regular amendment process. It would be very difficult for bunch of leftists to overcome 3/4 of the state legislatures, especially with the current makeup of those institutions around the country.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline zewazir

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
  • TANSTAAFL!
Re: Article 5
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2015, 05:07:07 PM »
Our forefathers purposely made he amendment process difficult. They were wise enough to understand that there would be times when convenience could outweigh sanity. Like others I am also opposed to a constitutional convention as it could more easily be hijacked than the regular amendment process. It would be very difficult for bunch of leftists to overcome 3/4 of the state legislatures, especially with the current makeup of those institutions around the country.
Any amendment proposed via a state-called convention still needs 3/4 of the states to ratify, making that method every bit as secure against radical changes as any amendment initiated through congress.  THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, except who initiates the process.

This is why I have no problem with a state convention.  IF they manage to pass anything (which is a big IF, considering 2/3 of the state delegations have to agree to the final bill), then it STILL goes through the ratification process in which 3/4 of state legislatures have to sign off on it.

I personally prefer the state convention method because, as we have seen time and again in the last couple decades, the federal congress is (almost) hopelessly corrupted by Marxist socialist influences.

Offline kroz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
  • Gender: Female
  • Conservative to the core!
Re: Article 5
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2015, 06:48:20 PM »
I believe Mark Levin is a big proponent of the State Convention.  He wrote an entire book about how it would work.

I personally think it is the only way possible for us to get some things fixed in this day and age.  It would be strictly controlled on content and nothing outside of the previously agree agenda would be allowed to enter the Convention.  So, the idea that things could get out of control is not accurate.  Strict guidelines!

Offline walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22515
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Article 5
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2015, 07:29:31 PM »
I believe Mark Levin is a big proponent of the State Convention.  He wrote an entire book about how it would work.

I personally think it is the only way possible for us to get some things fixed in this day and age.  It would be strictly controlled on content and nothing outside of the previously agree agenda would be allowed to enter the Convention.  So, the idea that things could get out of control is not accurate.  Strict guidelines!

Hmm...  As long as you have people in power you will not have control.   Just look at the courts, they have very strict guidelines and look at what there doing. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline zefronzack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Article 5
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2016, 12:15:00 AM »
I agree with the second comment about that ....
Graduated from Soran University with First Class Degree with Honours in Computer Science.

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: Article 5
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2016, 05:56:07 PM »
On a radio talk show I heard that they only need a few more states to hold a constitutional convention.  What are the odds?  Who is in favor?  I know it is unlikely and it is limited in what could be accomplished  I believe all 34 states need to call it with a single intent, BUT I think that is the only way we will ever get term limits on congress, which in itself would be a huge accomplishment.  Anyone who thinks congress will vote them selves time limits is deluded.  I've only recently started to analyze what is involved and what it can accomplish...it is complex, I need more study.
Yes, they only need a couple more, two I think.

As for who's in favor?

I am personally torn about it.

On the one hand, yes doing away with the current federal government we have, to institute an entirely new on in it's place might be a good idea.

And frankly if things keep proceeding as they have, I foresee that coming in one of two ways. Either by Article Five Convention.

Or another and may God forbid it, another civil war. In which some if not all of the states rebel.

But, then on the flip side, you have to also consider, all the kinds of liberal b.s. States like California will insist on being in the new Constitution.

I can just see them insisting that Abortion be spelled out as a right. Not a federal court ruling that could in the future change etc...

Not only that, but, IF such a convention is held, there goes the bill of rights as we know them today also.

There's no guarantee when they finish, that we'd have a first amendment, or second or third and so on.

Don't know about anyone else, but I for one, like having my right of free speech. Particularly if it's religious or political speech. I like, having the right to tell the po po get a friggin warrant if you want to search me.

So I would def not be in favor of that idea.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: Article 5
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2016, 06:01:15 PM »
I think his point is, but I could be wrong, is it's akin to editing the Bill of Rights, once you open that Pandora's Box, there's no fixing it, they'll just claim the other side did it first, we're just repairing the damage they inflicted, and eventually the entire document has been bastardized beyond recognition.

I like the concept, but the left is notorious for building on the foundations started by the GOP.
Patriot Act no longer resembles what it started out as, and I could go on and on. I know the Founders created this for good reason, but under the current circumstances with the nation divided as planned by the Marxists, I don't think it's a good idea to make an incision on a healthy patient while opperating in a septic tank, all kinds of infectioons are possible.
Yeah, the Patriot act as it exists today, is a blatant violation of Constitutional protections as found in the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments. It's what allows the Federal Government, to jail American Citizens, for the horrible, horrible crime, of speaking out in support of ISIS or Al-Queda or anyone else Obama gets a wild hair up his arse and decides is a terrorist organization.

It's what allows the Federal Gummamint to jail American Citizens for gasp the horrible horrible crime of traveling too and visiting certain M.E. nations.

Whether they actually did, anything that is "terroristic" or not. It's also what allows them to harass citizen's at "border checkpoints" 350 miles inside the U.S. proper.

But so long as the sheeple sit idly by, so afraid of mooslimes lurking around every corner they wet themselves everytime they see a man with a beard or a turban.

It's going to continue.

One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

 

Powered by EzPortal