Posted on 05/13/2014 5:52:30 AM PDT by JOHN W K
What a weirdo.
You pinged me on this thread, nutbag,
someone replying to your comments to them is hardly stalking
Those voices are obviously calling you again, the ones no-one hears but you.
No, this is intentional dis-information.
-PJ
I fear this will be a playground for subterfuge.
It’s NOT risky? Please think again.
Few people understand our Constitution, and sure as hell, our government does not follow it. So what the heck makes you think that changing the constitution will result in any change of behavior?
So here we go.
An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention. An Article 5 convention is not a constitutional convention.
Comprende?
I didn’t ping you.
Ok. So you have NO faith in our national governance any longer. You don't trust them at all. Then we believe we are past the point of self governance and are now solidly helpless without political recourse. Then it is indeed time for war. Are we ready to take up arms and sacrifice our lives by the thousands to first destroy, then restore this nation? Or might there still be another step or two before we all march into rebellion?
I understand where you and others on FR are coming from. I share most of those sentiments myself. How can we trust the tyrants that we (as voters) have elected to rule over us in this endeavor when they have so shortsightedly betrayed us in the past? I personally believe we are running out of options and opportunities. I myself have believed that we have breached the voting dependence threshold for presidential elections. Unless we can affect the turnout, I don't believe another republican will ever win a "popular" vote (that is be elected "for" something as apposed to "against" something or someone else). I'm not sure Republicans can win POTUS elections any more. Add the illegals to the voting roles and we are surely done. Voters will not vote to have their goodies reduced.
As I have said before, we need to do something and "just winning elections" will get us nowhere with the current GOP. What we do have in this nation right now is a seemingly unusually large representation of conservatives at the state government levels. I don't know if we could get 3/4 of the states to ratify amendments anyway. But I think we should aggressively head down that road and get some passed, starting with term limits on all congress. If it goes bad, we always do still have the second amendment. But that war seems to be several decades away yet as the government can still send checks.
Does Article 5 not also open the existing Amendments to... well, amendment?
You can try to repeal existing amendments, like the 16th and 17th, but any amendments passed or repealed would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years.
"Fair Tax" does not equal "Flat Tax". They are completely different. One taxes earnings the other taxes spending. The spending would be more fair and harder to manipulate and avoid. Both would get molested, abused and raped by government. But a single consumption tax would be more visible and obvious to the voters, hence harder to hide via corporate regulation and taxation.
Heads are exploding in the FReeper World.
It's not a "Constitutional Convention". That would be what the founders had to write/debate/establish the text that was to be ratified by the states. This would be a convention led by the states (excluding congress) to "amend" the existing constitution. To add amendments. And all amendments have to be agreed to and ratified by 3/4 of the states (per Article V).
PLEASE go and research this topic.
WE ARE SMARTER THAN THIS, FREEPERS. We have a reputation for knowing the issues. This thread is getting embarrassing.
No offense intended to you, Chuckles. But folks are spouting about things they apparently think they understand based on what they learned in 4th grade.
I am quite familiar with the process. But someone has to be living on a different planet to think that the left will follow any rules or allow any process to function normally if disruption is to their advantage. Apart from that, why should anyone be reassured that Governors will allegedly drive the process? When push comes to shove many R govs will just be surrender monkeys, and there will be big money pushing them to “be reasonable”. Moreover, any changes to the Constitution would just become more fodder for a lawless judiciary. The language we currently have is better than Levin’s, but the courts don’t feel bound by the Constitution or anything else.
The only effective course of action for the short term is 1. remove children from government schools, 2. cut the cable/satellite, but keep your broadband, and 3. elect Constitutional conservatives to city and county governments, and especially to the positions that control the guns and courts. This is something that can actually be done, unlike fanciful plans for fixing DC. Nothing is going to stop the coming civil unrest because there is no prospect at all of doing what needs to be done on spending, etc. at the national level. SS and Medicare/Medicaid alone will consume the budget and cause a collapse of the dollar.
People would be far better off starting locally to get control and then moving higher into state government than pursuing Levin’s idea.When the unrest comes, controlling local and state governments will be paramount.
No argument here. We are in violent agreement. What can we amend to combat this? Term Limits, taxation and spending. Since our federal government won't reign itself in, before we take up arms, let's try and use our constitution from the state's level to wrestle back some control of our governance.
Undoubtedly, there will ALWAYS be corruption. We can make it harder and less desirable by limiting the terms and getting rid of career politicians (at least in certain offices). What if the Speaker of the House was not based on tenure? What if they didn't have to campaign for 85% of their elected position's term? We might actually get some public servants to represent us.
Do you understand what 3/4 means? It means that nothing will come out of Levin’s proposals, assuming they get to that stage, which they won’t.
What part of “opportunity costs” DO you understand? BTW, “the left can’t just rewrite the Bill of Rights”? They have been doing it for decades through the courts - flatly rewriting it so that phrases such as “no” and “shall not” have no real meaning. The courts do that with everything, and nothing Levin proposes will change that. Even if Levin’s fantasy were enacted, it would suffer the same fate. There is no fix by rewriting parts of the Constitution, and Levin’s proposals, most of which I like, won’t happen anyway.
SEE:
Articles of Confederation
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
There are many unanswered questions concerning an Article V convention, and which would be answered by our existing tyrannical Supreme Court, and yet, Mark Levin has decided to jump on the Article V bandwagon which Madison warned us against!
“You wish to know my sentiments on the project of another general Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness …….3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundationsof the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. ….I am Dr. Sir, Yours Js. Madison Jr” ___See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville
Here is what Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
The simple truth is, there are too many unanswered questions regarding an Article V convention and in the end our existing Supreme Court and Congress would be in charge of answering these questions.
JWK
The consumption tax is the least abhorant. A lot of the founders agreed on that point. I believe it was Hamilton-and I am not a fan of Hamilton, that had to admit that a tax on consumption would in fact regulate the power of taxation by itself. Higher the tax, the less consumption, the less consumption, the less revenue for the treasury.
And he was correct. They raise the tax to increase revenues, and the result would be less consumption.
To tax earnings, is a tax of unlimited and unregulated power. They simply raise the tax and increase the power to collect it. We see that with the Lerner scandal.
To be more specific, “to make regular”. This present system is unregulated.
Please put down the bong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.