# We need a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution.  What amendments do you support?



## kyzr (Aug 26, 2021)

The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.






						Constitutional Amendment Process
					

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for...




					www.archives.gov
				



The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.  None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.  The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution.   Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.  The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication.  The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format.  The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b. 

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).  When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.  This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed. 

So what new amendments would you support?  I'll start the ball rolling with a few in a poll.






						Some Proposed Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
					

A list of amendments actually proposed in the U.S. Congress



					usconstitution.net


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 26, 2021)

I feel very strongly that there should be an Amendment that says that Congress' power is limited to exactly what is set forth in Article One, and all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.

I think that would be very helpful.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 26, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> I feel very strongly that there should be an Amendment that says that Congress' power is limited to exactly what is set forth in Article One, and all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> I think that would be very helpful.


thats the 9th and 10th amendments,,


----------



## kyzr (Aug 26, 2021)

Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.


----------



## Esdraelon (Aug 26, 2021)

kyzr said:


> So what new amendments would you support? I'll start the ball rolling with a few in a poll.


Sorry to be a downer buf do you really still believe this process can be employed successfully after watching the DC Cartel in action since 2016?  THESE people will not be constrained by any rules and they have the money and criminal bona fides to stop anyone from raining on their party.
The only real solution is a DC epicenter for about a 100KT device.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Aug 26, 2021)




----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 26, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.


wouldnt work,, the parties would just have someone waiting in the hallway for the next election,,

we need to ban political action groups from federal politics.. that includes political parties,,,

no more D or R on the ballots,,


----------



## Esdraelon (Aug 26, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.


Did you see how the bureaucracy was used to stymie an elected president?  Term limits, unless we had something very similar in our "civil service" code, wouldn't help and could make things worse.


----------



## Flash (Aug 26, 2021)

I would like to see something that would limit the ability of the filthy government to take the money that you earn.  Like setting a percentage of your income limit on what the government can require you to pay in taxes.  Like 8% total for the combined Federal, state and local.  That includes direct and indirect.

That would defund the bastards.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 26, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> Sorry to be a downer buf do you really still believe this process can be employed successfully after watching the DC Cartel in action since 2016?  THESE people will not be constrained by any rules and they have the money and criminal bona fides to stop anyone from raining on their party.
> The only real solution is a DC epicenter for about a 100KT device.


The really good news is that the DC coxuckers don't do away games.  That's the beauty part of a Convention of States.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 26, 2021)

My preferred amendment recommendation remains a work in progress.

Last time it was proposed for consideration was 2011 to the 112th Congress in the form of House Joint Resolution No. 50 (_"proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens"_)

The Liberty Amendment

Being about it is > talking about it.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 26, 2021)

I support a Constitutional Amendment to bring back Joss Whedon's "Firefly".


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 26, 2021)

I would support 2 amendments.

1. Politicians get the same exact medical benefits the rest of the country gets.  No separate system for them.

2. Politicians lose the right to plead the 5th when involved in any scandal.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Aug 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> wouldnt work,, the parties would just have someone waiting in the hallway for the next election,,
> 
> we need to ban political action groups from federal politics.. that includes political parties,,,
> 
> no more D or R on the ballots,,


So then, what are you going to do when they claim that they are religious organizations, instead of political activities???


----------



## whitehall (Aug 26, 2021)

Don't we have enough problems to address without changing the game plan? Let's deal with the Biden situation before we go trolling for constitutional issues.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 26, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> So then, what are you going to do when they claim that they are religious organizations, instead of political activities???


when that happens lets talk about the details and specifics of their case,,

until then youre just another raving lunatic,,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Aug 26, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.


We all know that stuff. What you do not understand is that Mark Meckler (leader of the Convention of States organization) has no intention of organizing a convention to actually do the work - he just wants to threaten a convention, because then the Congress will make the amendments. That is what has happened in the past. But Meckler cannot get anywhere, because times are different and what he, or you, have to do is organize the convention and compose the amendment system, and then that will convince the state legisltures to appoint the people from their respective states that participated in the private convention, appoint them to an official convention to officially validate the amendments for state ratification.

But the Congress will beat you to the end, anyway. They will find out what amendments a convention composes and validates, and the Congress will just take it and pass it and send it to the states before you can do it all.

The senior members of the Congress and smart lawyers know, that if anyone can actually organize a national convention to compose amendments, then the rules that inspire people to participate and process legislation that impresses the state legislatures is an organization that succeeds the federal legislature.

And the composers of Article V. knew that, just as senior congress members and smart lawyers know.

You mediocre political novices cannot figure that out on your own, and probably send money to Meckler.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Aug 26, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> when that happens lets talk about the details and specifics of their case,,
> 
> until then youre just another raving lunatic,,


I am not the lunatic - I figured out the inadequacy of your argument years ago.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 26, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> I am not the lunatic - I figured out the inadequacy of your argument years ago.
> 
> View attachment 531157


whatever you say buttercup,,,


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Aug 26, 2021)

Repeal the 14th and 19th Amendments.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 26, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Repeal the 14th and 19th Amendments.



16th is the one that really needs repealed. The Keynesians are destroying the country.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Don't we have enough problems to address without changing the game plan? Let's deal with the Biden situation before we go trolling for constitutional issues.


How do you propose to deal with "the Biden situation"?  I'm all ears.  The only cure for Xiden is 2022 and 2024.
We can walk and chew gum.  Got any amendments to consider?


----------



## the watcher (Aug 27, 2021)

The corrupt 3 branches (4 if you count the media) won't honor the Constitution we have now, what makes anyone think they would observe a new one? It would just be used to provide a false feeling that something works, like the vote and the federal reserve.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> We all know that stuff. What you do not understand is that Mark Meckler (leader of the Convention of States organization) has no intention of organizing a convention to actually do the work - he just wants to threaten a convention, because then the Congress will make the amendments. That is what has happened in the past. But Meckler cannot get anywhere, because times are different and what he, or you, have to do is organize the convention and compose the amendment system, and then that will convince the state legisltures to appoint the people from their respective states that participated in the private convention, appoint them to an official convention to officially validate the amendments for state ratification.
> 
> But the Congress will beat you to the end, anyway. They will find out what amendments a convention composes and validates, and the Congress will just take it and pass it and send it to the states before you can do it all.
> 
> ...


The amendments in the OP will never be agreed to by the democrats.  That's why I'm suggesting that we need a convention of states.  


Gabe Lackmann said:


> Repeal the 14th and 19th Amendments.


I agree with the repeal of the 14th amendment, which is the basis for "anchor babies" from Russia and China.
Only US citizens should be able to make a US citizen.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

the watcher said:


> The corrupt 3 branches (4 if you count the media) won't honor the Constitution we have now, what makes anyone think they would observe a new one? It would just be used to provide a false feeling that something works, like the vote and the federal reserve.


Same as now, the courts would need to enforce the laws as written.
So far no one has said any of the proposed amendments are "unconstitutional".  That's good.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> 16th is the one that really needs repealed. The Keynesians are destroying the country.


So you want a VAT so that no one can afford to buy anything?  How do you fund the $4T Budget?


----------



## skews13 (Aug 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...



Voting is a guaranteed right that no state can deny any citizen for any reason.

Any state can pass and enforce restrictions on firearms possession.

No filibuster shall be allowed on an legislation, and all laws can only be passed through regular order.

The congress or any state shall pass any law based upon any religious belief whatsoever, and any state legislator that attempts to pass such a law shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by a minimum of 5 years imprisonment, $100,000 or both.

The congress or any state shall pass any laws denying the right of a woman to induce medial abortion, and any state legislator that attempts to pass such a law shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 yrars imprisonment, $1,000,000 or both.

Congress or any state shall pass any law denying the rights of its cutizens to form organized labor parties.

Bribery or any political donation above $10   Shall be deemed a felony punishable by a minimum of 10 yeats imprisonment. And anyone recieving any such donation shall be guilty of the sane


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

skews13 said:


> Voting is a guaranteed right that no state can deny any citizen for any reason.
> 
> Any state can pass and enforce restrictions on firearms possession.
> 
> ...


1. True, voting is a right for *citizens*, no one is denying citizens the right to vote *ONCE*.
2. True, if the courts agree the 2nd Amendment isn't violated
3. The filibuster keeps laws from wild swings left or right, 60 votes is a necessity for all non-budget legislation
4. No religious test in ever needed, nor any penalty (free speech)
5. Any state has the right to protect the unborn.



6. I support "right to work" states.  Unions are just a pain in the ass, which is why so many factories were moved overseas.
7. The USSC said political donations are "free speech".  We need complete visibility, no more "dark money"


----------



## fncceo (Aug 27, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Politicians get the same exact medical benefits the rest of the country gets.



Not everyone in the country have the same exact medical benefits.  Most people's medical benefits are dependent on what they have negotiated with the company that provides those benefits.


----------



## fncceo (Aug 27, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> Politicians lose the right to plead the 5th when involved in any scandal.



We extend Constitutional Rights even to illegal non-citizens.  We can't very well revoke them for our elected officials.


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 27, 2021)

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner’s observation is instructive. No amendment will change much of anything.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Aug 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The amendments in the OP will never be agreed to by the democrats.  That's why I'm suggesting that we need a convention of states.
> 
> I agree with the repeal of the 14th amendment, which is the basis for "anchor babies" from Russia and China.
> Only US citizens should be able to make a US citizen.


Russia and China??! LOL! 

How about 30M illegal aliens from Latin America?

The fuck?


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Russia and China??! LOL!
> 
> How about 30M illegal aliens from Latin America?
> 
> The fuck?


Those 30m shouldn't be allowed to vote, unless the DC coxuckers push "amnesty" thru again.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...


You missed all the important stuff.  Congress needs an enforcement arm, and we need strong penalties for elected officials who lie to the American people.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Aug 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Those 30m shouldn't be allowed to vote, unless the DC coxuckers push "amnesty" thru again.


Anchor babies. You talk about Chinese and Russian anchor babies...what about the 30M squatemalan orcs that hop the border and shit out a roach egg that immediately becomes a new American citizen?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...



Proportional Representation for the House, changing the Senate to something useful, changing the presidency, either getting rid of it so it's like the German system, or changing it so it's a multi elected body like Congress. Switzerland has a good system with 7 people on the executive and one is chosen to be head of state for a bit. There are plenty of possibilities, like electing heads of departments who deal with their own part and interact with Congress, like foreign affairs, education, etc etc.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 27, 2021)

I would like to make people pay their income and FICA taxes quarterly and stop forcing businesses to be unpaid tax collectors.

I would also like to change tax day to the day before election day so people can go to the polls while the big wet bite the government just took out of their asses still hurts.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 27, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You missed all the important stuff.  Congress needs an enforcement arm, and we need strong penalties for elected officials who lie to the American people.


Not understanding what you are saying.  Why an enforcement arm?  
Congress passes laws, the executive branch enforces them, except the Xiden admin at the border.
Pols lie, there is no way to stop that.  Congress would just enforce fake news or their own lies.  
Just look at Nancy's kangaroo court for her 1/6 "insurrection" lie.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 27, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Not everyone in the country have the same exact medical benefits.  Most people's medical benefits are dependent on what they have negotiated with the company that provides those benefits.


I should have been more specific. I'm talking about medicare.


----------



## Asclepias (Aug 27, 2021)

fncceo said:


> We can't very well revoke them for our elected officials.


Why not? They are not regular citizens because they are entrusted with our tax money due to their position.


----------



## kyzr (Aug 28, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Anchor babies. You talk about Chinese and Russian anchor babies...what about the 30M squatemalan orcs that hop the border and shit out a roach egg that immediately becomes a new American citizen?


Exactly.  IMHO illegals should not be able to make an American.  Then they have a legal ticket themselves.


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.



This will encourage members of Congress and the Senate to get it while they can as quickly as they can. It will encourage corruption not end it.


----------



## 22lcidw (Sep 16, 2021)

Howa about an Amendment that allows States to leave the Union? It may not end up what they like, but it may also.


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 16, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> Howa about an Amendment that allows States to leave the Union? It may not end up what they like, but it may also.



Amazing how many of you focus on all the wrong things. 

Instead of improving the Constitution to bring it into the 21st Century, you’re focusing on stupid shit birthright citizenship and voter ID. 

Your obsession with illegal voting is the biggest waste of time and energy in the world. 

People are not coming to your country to vote against Republicans. Every other nation in the world is making it easier for their citizens to vote not more difficult.

The American republican party is afraid of Americans voting. Perhaps they should consider getting a platform that doesn’t impoverish their voters.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> This will encourage members of Congress and the Senate to get it while they can as quickly as they can. It will encourage corruption not end it.


Another lie.  Prove what you say.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Thought of another one:  *The Supreme Court shall not have more than nine justices.*
That should end any discussion of "court packing".


----------



## SHOWME (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...


*I support a new amendment that states ALL men are created equal, with no racial exceptions: as in the current provision that says Blacks will be considered 3/5ths human.  (make sense?)*


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Another lie.  Prove what you say.



Just stop with accusing everyone you disagree of "lying".  It makes you look stupid, which at this point is almost a given with Trumpists.

Your problem with corruption has nothing to do with term limits and everything to do with election financing.  Your system is set up to require politicians to fund raise right from day one to win re-election.  Those with money, like PAC's and lobbyists, are a requirement to the system.

It doesn't matter how long people are in office, if being in office is a setup to corrupt them.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> I feel very strongly that there should be an Amendment that says that Congress' power is limited to exactly what is set forth in Article One, and all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> I think that would be very helpful.


I suppose you have never read the 10th Amendment?  Everyone ignores it, which is why we have so much BS in our federal government.

Another Amendment s NOT required.


----------



## Likkmee (Sep 16, 2021)

States are states. They can handle themselves...or not ?
The US corp need to be eliminated completely... except for a few folks with DA CODE, In case some scumbags want to dance.
The other meatheads can quit fucking whores and doing drugs all over the world and come home to build shit with YOUR tax dollars, each group controlled by the states directors


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

SHOWME said:


> *I support a new amendment that states ALL men are created equal, with no racial exceptions: as in the current provision that says Blacks will be considered 3/5ths human.  (make sense?)*


Failed high school civics, did you?  The 3/5th representation requirement went away with ratification of the 14th Amendment.  Perhaps you should go back to high school and learn what you missed by sleeping in class.





__





						Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The amendments in the OP will never be agreed to by the democrats.  That's why I'm suggesting that we need a convention of states.
> 
> I agree with the repeal of the 14th amendment, which is the basis for "anchor babies" from Russia and China.
> Only US citizens should be able to make a US citizen.


Those same type of libtards run the state legislatures, so you will never accomplish any of your goals.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Same as now, the courts would need to enforce the laws as written.
> So far no one has said any of the proposed amendments are "unconstitutional".  That's good.


I just haven't gotten around to it yet.  Many are already in the Constitution also.  I suggest you read it.

As an example,

To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto​
Is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, regarding freedom of religion.  What you have in that proposal is an infringement of the establishment clause.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

skews13 said:


> Voting is a guaranteed right that no state can deny any citizen for any reason.
> 
> Any state can pass and enforce restrictions on firearms possession.
> 
> ...


That's a nice collection of proposals that almost all violate the current Constitution.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> I would support 2 amendments.
> 
> 1. Politicians get the same exact medical benefits the rest of the country gets.  No separate system for them.
> 
> 2. Politicians lose the right to plead the 5th when involved in any scandal.


The members of the House and Senate have the same benefits as all members of the federal government.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Repeal the 14th and 19th Amendments.


Go right ahead if you can get it done.  No convention is required, dumbass!

You want to take away equal protection and the right to vote?  You are a moron!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> *Proportional Representation for the House*, changing the Senate to something useful, changing the presidency, either getting rid of it so it's like the German system, or changing it so it's a multi elected body like Congress. Switzerland has a good system with 7 people on the executive and one is chosen to be head of state for a bit. There are plenty of possibilities, like electing heads of departments who deal with their own part and interact with Congress, like foreign affairs, education, etc etc.



The House already has proportional representation, moron!

Nice collection of idiocy you have there!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

Asclepias said:


> I should have been more specific. I'm talking about medicare.


Who doesn't have the same Medicare benefits if you are eligible?


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Go right ahead if you can get it done.  No convention is required, dumbass!
> 
> You want to take away equal protection and the right to vote?  You are a moron!


Slow your roll poop deck before I have you peelin potatoes for the whole fleet!

The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either.

If we went back to such a system the interests of this nation would be PRIMARY in the minds of voters.


----------



## my2¢ (Sep 16, 2021)

Perhaps I missed it glancing through the replies here but from what I see from the lack of its mention in the thread is that all the pissing and moaning about the Congress' ability to set the number of Sumpreme Court justices was rather insincere.


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Thought of another one:  *The Supreme Court shall not have more than nine justices.*
> That should end any discussion of "court packing".



The Court is already "packed".  How do you propose "unpacking" it when Democrats hold the 6-3 majority?

Do you seriously think that Brett Kavanaugh won't do something stupid to get himself impeached?  He doesn't seem to be that bright.  He's already been admonished for his partisanship by the Chief Justice.


----------



## Likkmee (Sep 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Slow your roll poop deck before I have you peelin potatoes for the whole fleet!
> 
> The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either.
> 
> If we went back to such a system the interests of this nation would be PRIMARY in the minds of voters.


But lets make sure they're all billionaires. Better class of voters !


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Sep 16, 2021)

Likkmee said:


> But lets make sure they're all billionaires. Better class of voters !


No...just people with 'skin' in the game. It really doesn't take much.

You have a mortgage? You own a stake in a business, or a business? 

Now, I don't know if that should apply to females. 

I find women are completely destructive when either placed into positions of power, or given the power to vote.


----------



## Dragonlady (Sep 16, 2021)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> Slow your roll poop deck before I have you peelin potatoes for the whole fleet!
> 
> The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either.
> 
> If we went back to such a system the interests of this nation would be PRIMARY in the minds of voters.



That's not a Republic, that's an oligarchy.  That's pretty much the system you have now, and it's been a disaster for working and middle class Americans.

The most successful economies, are the most democratic economies - Norway, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Finland, Great Britain.  

The least successful economies - Russia, any of the South American economies, Turkey, are all Oligarchies - where the wealthy control the nation, and the poor and middle class are left to fend for themselves.  The USA is already at Second World status with your unstable government, and your crashed economy.

You can rejoin the first world, or continue to descend into chaos.  Either ALL of the people vote, and ALL of their votes are counted, or your nation is doomed to become a fascist dictatorship.  Choose wisely.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Sep 16, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> That's not a Republic, that's an oligarchy.  That's pretty much the system you have now, and it's been a disaster for working and middle class Americans.
> 
> The most successful economies, are the most democratic economies - Norway, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Finland, Great Britain.
> 
> ...


I am talking about citizenship, and voting rights. Now you may be able to tacitly tie those to economic factors but they are not economic in nature.

Now, do I feel we would be stronger if the weaker portions of our society had less of a 'say'? Of course I do.

Men, who came from poor backgrounds would be encouraged to build themselves up by their 'bootstraps', achieve, and grow.

Women, would be encouraged to select a nice man who could provide for her, have children, and contribute in her own way.

The only thing that our current system has done is see those inept, incapable elements vote more for themselves.

 While at the same time permitting corporations and business interests to completely sell our nation out to foreign powers.

No individual 'common man' has any say because none have a true stake in this nation anymore. We should create that.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

SHOWME said:


> *I support a new amendment that states ALL men are created equal, with no racial exceptions: as in the current provision that says Blacks will be considered 3/5ths human.  (make sense?)*


I'm fine with cleaning up old non-applicable verbiage.  Just erase the 3/5 garbage.  The "All men are created equal..." is already covered.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I just haven't gotten around to it yet.  Many are already in the Constitution also.  I suggest you read it.
> 
> As an example,
> 
> ...


OK, that was already proposed as an amendment.  I'm fine dropping that one, but:
But "In God We Trust" seems fine as a motto to me.  
Also, "One nation under God..." seems fine in the Pledge.
Are you saying they should be revised?


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Those same type of libtards run the state legislatures, so you will never accomplish any of your goals.


We'll see after 2022 and 2024, we should be close.  
You on-board with a COS?  
Got any wish-list Amendments?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> I'm fine with cleaning up old non-applicable verbiage.  Just erase the 3/5 garbage.  The "All men are created equal..." is already covered.


I see you flunked civics too!  It was deleted by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> We'll see after 2022 and 2024, we should be close.
> You on-board with a COS?
> Got any wish-list Amendments?


I oppose a convention of states, because it would be a complete waste of time as long as libtards are represented.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I oppose a convention of states, because it would be a complete waste of time as long as libtards are represented.


 Please comment on my Post-67

The COS would be a gathering of conservative legislatures.
Maybe you didn't see my proposed amendment list?  Here it is again

*Election Reform, only US citizens, ID required, signature matching, mail-in by excuse only, etc*
*Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war*
*To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens*
*To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution*
*To allow the President a "line item veto"*
*To set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices.*
*Social Security and Medicare must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits*
*Set term limits in the House and Senate*
*Politicians get the same healthcare benefits as the rest of us*
*Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen, otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico.*
*The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices.*


----------



## Votto (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...


You need to start where most support you.

#1.  Term limits for Congress









						The Return of Term Limits | National Review
					

The gulf between incumbent officeholders and the American people is never bigger than on the issue of term limits.




					www.nationalreview.com
				




75% of Americans support term limits


#2.  Some sort of restraint on spending.









						Poll: Large majority support balanced budget amendment to Constitution
					

According to a recent Mason-Dixon poll obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate.




					news.yahoo.com
				




65% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some sort.


You need to keep in simple and only pursue these two.  Get the ball rolling and maybe more can be done later.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 16, 2021)

Votto said:


> You need to start where most support you.
> 
> #1.  Term limits for Congress
> 
> ...


You can prioritize the amendments any way you like.
1. Term Limits is on the list
2. A Balanced Budget Amendment covers your "spending restraint" priority


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The House already has proportional representation, moron!
> 
> Nice collection of idiocy you have there!



Ah insults. Bye.

(The last thing I ever tell you is that Congress has First Past The Post, not Proportional Representation). Enjoy.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Please comment on my Post-67
> 
> The COS would be a gathering of conservative legislatures.
> Maybe you didn't see my proposed amendment list?  Here it is again
> ...


No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass!

Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections.  

Balanced budget amendment - Flunked economics did we?

Filibuster - is a Senate rule and cannot be part of the Constitution.

Line Item veto - This I would support.

Mandatory retirements - I oppose.  Many older people are still fully functioning and do not deserve discrimination by ageism.

Term limits - We already have term limits.  They are called elections.

Politicians medical care - They do get the same medical coverage as everyone else who is a government employee.  My wife's coverage from the private sector was better than mine when I worked for the federal government and cheaper.

Clarify the 14th Amendment - I would support.

The Supreme Court - I would support limiting it to 9 justices.

So there are three on your laundry list that make sense.  That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

Votto said:


> You need to start where most support you.
> 
> #1.  Term limits for Congress
> 
> ...


How would you enforce a balanced budget amendment?  Hadn't though of that, did you?

A balanced budget amendment would like result in more economy-crippling taxes!


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 16, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Same as now, the courts would need to enforce the laws as written.
> So far no one has said any of the proposed amendments are "unconstitutional".  That's good.


If they become amendments they cannot be unconstitutional.

I support repealing individual income taxes. 

I would propose an amendment that require clean bills only. Nothing outside the intended purpose of the bill at hand.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 16, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> If they become amendments they cannot be unconstitutional.
> 
> I support repealing individual income taxes.
> 
> I would propose an amendment that require clean bills only. Nothing outside the intended purpose of the bill at hand.


They can if they conflict with other parts of the Constitution left standing.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 16, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> They can if they conflict with other parts of the Constitution left standing.


Don't see how. Once it becomes an amendment it is part of the Constitution. By definition it could not be unconstitutional. Any conflicts would have to be reconciled by separate amendments.


----------



## westwall (Sep 17, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...






How about we just go back to following the COTUS as it was written.


----------



## Osiris-ODS (Sep 17, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.



That alone should be numbers 1 through 5. It's that important.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Not everyone in the country have the same exact medical benefits.  Most people's medical benefits are dependent on what they have negotiated with the company that provides those benefits.


Fair enough, while they serve in Congress let them receive the same care as our veterans.


----------



## Votto (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> How would you enforce a balanced budget amendment?  Hadn't though of that, did you?
> 
> A balanced budget amendment would like result in more economy-crippling taxes!


They would ignore it, of course, like they do the laws on illegal immigration or just like they do the "budget ceiling" they always talk about having to raise

Well guess what, it's no ceiling, it's just the never ending sky.

But at least it would be a start.  Something needs to be done, or at least try to be done to contain the largest debt in human history.  Those in Congress are like crack addicts, always wanting another hit with a stimulus package.  They are out of control and need an intervention, and the states are the only ones that can do it.  It is either that or let them destroy the Republic.

Had it ever occurred to you that the reason they have the gonads to spend so much is because they know they can do it and not raise taxes to pay for it?


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 17, 2021)

All microbreweries should be allowed to operate without taxes, of any kind, in perpetuity.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass!
> 
> Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections.
> 
> ...


It takes 34 states to call a COS and 38 to pass a new Amendment:




__





						Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



A *convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution*, also called an *Article V Convention* or *amendatory convention*, applied 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 United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2021, the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a constitutional amendment.

*Responding to your comments:*
No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass!  *True, but after 2022 the GOP should have at least 38 (to 12 for dems)*
Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections. *Ever heard of HR-1?*
Balanced budget amendment - Flunked economics did we?   *Would it be legal or not?  $30T in DEBT is flunking economics. *
Filibuster - is a Senate rule and cannot be part of the Constitution.  *Why not?*
Line Item veto - This I would support.  *OK*
Mandatory retirements - I oppose.  Many older people are still fully functioning and do not deserve discrimination by ageism.  *Many are not, look at Biden and the old folks home we have in the Senate and House.*
Term limits - We already have term limits.  They are called elections.  *Yeah, that's why 99% of incumbents get re-elected, we disagree.*
Politicians medical care - They do get the same medical coverage as everyone else who is a government employee.  My wife's coverage from the private sector was better than mine when I worked for the federal government and cheaper.  *OK*
Clarify the 14th Amendment - I would support.  *OK*
The Supreme Court - I would support limiting it to 9 justices.  *OK*
So there are three on your laundry list that make sense.  That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want.  *If the GOP has a super-majority a COS would be a great idea.*

You didn't comment on:
To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens​


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Don't see how. Once it becomes an amendment it is part of the Constitution. By definition it could not be unconstitutional. Any conflicts would have to be reconciled by separate amendments.


No.  It would require a repeal of the conflict in the new amendment.  Check out the 18th and 21st Amendments.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

kyzr said:


> It takes 34 states to call a COS and 38 to pass a new Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Calling a convention can be attended by all states. 

You think 99% of incumbents get reelected?  Better check your math and the election results.  In 2020, how many were reelected?  That gave Democrats control of the House and Senate.  If 99% of incumbents were reelected, how did that happen?

HR-1 is unconstitutional.

A balanced budget amendment would be just lip-service and impossible to manage because you have no idea what your tax revenues would be.

The Constitution has a purpose.  Senate rules are NOT part of it.

Voters decide if  someone is too old.  Not you making a rule.

I accidentally skipped that one.  As to counting citizens only, I agree but that is simply a law and doesn't need to be part of the Constitution.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Fair enough, while they serve in Congress let them receive the same care as our veterans.


Many of them do!  If they are not a veteran, they have no business clogging up the system and using resources they are not entitled to use.


----------



## 22lcidw (Sep 17, 2021)

Dragonlady said:


> Amazing how many of you focus on all the wrong things.
> 
> Instead of improving the Constitution to bring it into the 21st Century, you’re focusing on stupid shit birthright citizenship and voter ID.
> 
> ...


This is not the Democratic Party. This is the Progressive Socialist Party that is moving towards Communism when the time comes. They champion massive changes in the Constitution and long standing ways of governing. That means revolution without violence to stop it. And then the results is what we live with. Since there is massive poverty after spending tens of trillions of dollars on eliminating it as one example can you explain why we do? And also explain how people can go to bed hungry after spending this amount of resources. most cities have this massive poverty issue. Many rural areas have theirs. Hunger! In America with a tax system that is abusive and high.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Calling a convention can be attended by all states.
> 
> You think 99% of incumbents get reelected?  Better check your math and the election results.  In 2020, how many were reelected?  That gave Democrats control of the House and Senate.  If 99% of incumbents were reelected, how did that happen?
> 
> ...


1. Re-election rates for members of the House run between 90-98%.  I used 99% as a slight exaggeration.  I want high turnover so they know what its like making a living in the real world, not just living in their pampered DC bubble.








						Do Members of Congress Ever Lose Re-Election?
					

Find out why the re-election rate for Congresspeople is so high, and why incumbent members of the house of representatives almost always win.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




2. HR-1 was passed in the House.  I'm sure an Amendment minimizing voter fraud would be popular.

3. We need to stop spending so much, the interest on the $30T will be a major burden.  An alternative might be long term (50-yr bonds?)  How else can we slow spending except a Balanced Budget Amendment?

4. OK, no filibuster amendment

5. We need more turnover, remember Biden saying to play records for the kids?  Old geezers just can't keep up.
Knowledge doubles every 12-hours.

6. OK, but we need the Amendments because the Senate filibuster would block it otherwise.
Amendments you support:​Clarify the 14th Amendment - (no anchor babies)
Line item veto for the president
The Supreme Court - limiting it to 9 justices.
Ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens

*Amendments I support that you disagree with:*
Election reform
Balanced Budget
Mandatory retirement age(s) & Term Limits


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 17, 2021)

My amendment, if an elected politician lies 10 years in Federal prison.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No.  It would require a repeal of the conflict in the new amendment.  Check out the 18th and 21st Amendments.


The 21st repeals the 18th, there is no conflict. Conflict could only occur if a new amendment was added that touched on existing amendments without actually addressing them directly. The new amendment would be Constitutional regardless if it created conflict or not. 

The 18th and 21st address a single issue, whereas other amendments are much broader and cover multiple issues, such as the 1st. If a convention occurred it is conceivable that unrefined amendments could be added in the rapidity and zeal of the moment. One would hope it wouldn't happen, but certainly it could.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Many of them do!  If they are not a veteran, they have no business clogging up the system and using resources they are not entitled to use.


Merely a suggest that would ensure our veterans received the best care possible. Do you honestly believe the conditions of VA hospitals could have reached the wretched conditions they did if all congresscritters had to use them?  There would be no lack of resources. I concede on the point of entitlement.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

kyzr said:


> 1. Re-election rates for members of the House run between 90-98%.  I used 99% as a slight exaggeration.  I want high turnover so they know what its like making a living in the real world, not just living in their pampered DC bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Election reform is a state function.  The Constitution has zero laws regarding elections.  You do not believe in state's rights?

You cannot tell me how a balanced budget amendment would work.  Therefore, it is a non-starter.

Mandatory retirement ages are discrimination.  You also failed to consider how that turnover would affect the Congress and Courts, plus you failed to mention an age.

I don't want term limits because my Congressman does an excellent job and ran his families auto parts manufacturing plant before getting elected.  My junior Senator was a Doctor and still practices, and the senior Senator is a career politician that is the Minority leader in the Senate. Why would I want to change that?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> Merely a suggest that would ensure our veterans received the best care possible. Do you honestly believe the conditions of VA hospitals could have reached the wretched conditions they did if all congresscritters had to use them?  There would be no lack of resources. I concede on the point of entitlement.


I am a veteran and have visited several facilities as my son is a permanently disabled veteran.  Every one of those facilities are excellent and my son has no complaints about his care.  This is another topic where hyperbole overrides facts.  Are there problems in the VA?  Absolutely, but it is nowhere as bad as when Democrats ran it before Trump.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> The 21st repeals the 18th, there is no conflict. Conflict could only occur if a new amendment was added that touched on existing amendments without actually addressing them directly. The new amendment would be Constitutional regardless if it created conflict or not.
> 
> The 18th and 21st address a single issue, whereas other amendments are much broader and cover multiple issues, such as the 1st. If a convention occurred it is conceivable that unrefined amendments could be added in the rapidity and zeal of the moment. One would hope it wouldn't happen, but certainly it could.


No, you are simply dead wrong.  The Constitution cannot contradict itself.  To do so would be ridiculous and stupid! Are you really that ignorant?


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I am a veteran and have visited several facilities as my son is a permanently disabled veteran.  Every one of those facilities are excellent and my son has no complaints about his care.  This is another topic where hyperbole overrides facts.  Are there problems in the VA?  Absolutely, but it is nowhere as bad as when Democrats ran it before Trump.


The 2014 scandal involving conditions in VA facilities was hardly hyperbole. The only VA facility I've ever used was in fair condition, although through recent construction and upgrades it is now greatly improved.


----------



## BlindBoo (Sep 17, 2021)

Votto said:


> You need to start where most support you.
> 
> #1.  Term limits for Congress
> 
> ...



I can support both of those.


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No, you are simply dead wrong.  The Constitution cannot contradict itself.  To do so would be ridiculous and stupid! Are you really that ignorant?


Of course it can. Would it be foolish? No doubt, yet well within the realm of possibilities given the structure of the amendment process. The possibility exists in any situation in which a reactionary public demands action and weak and compliant representatives bow to their whims. You grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate and the increasing weaknesses of our representatives.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Election reform is a state function.  The Constitution has zero laws regarding elections.  You do not believe in state's rights?
> 
> You cannot tell me how a balanced budget amendment would work.  Therefore, it is a non-starter.
> 
> ...


1. The democrats are pushing their "voter fraud special" Bill, HR-1.  I want to vaccinate elections from HR-1 with an Amendment.  My argument is that the State Legislatures will be the ones approving the Election Law Amendment, so that sounds Constitutional to me.  The Constitution doesn't say that the House and Senate shall make election laws, but that State Legislatures may.








						States and the Election Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

An annotation about Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov
				




2.  A Balanced Budget Amendment means that Federal income and expenditures need to be about equal.  One possible solution, it's a little old, but goes something like:
*Here are recommendations to cut spending and raise revenue to start paying down the $30T Debt*

*Hire another "Grace Commission" to audit and fix the Federal budget deficit*


*B. Cut Spending: [CUT $625b a year]
 1. Cut defense to 2017 levels of $600b until the Debt is reduced, saving $150b
 2. Cut foreign aid $55b (until Debt is paid we can't borrow to give money away)
 3. Cut Welfare $200b & Medicaid $200b (about half)
 4. Cut education $20b (state responsibility)*

US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing
*Current US Defense Spending:
 Year Military Veterans Foreign Aid Total Defense
2017 $598.70 billion $178.00 billion* $46.30 billion $823.00 billion
2018 $631.20 billion $180.40 billion $49.00 billion $860.50 billion
2019 $684.60 billion $202.10 billion $54.30 billion $941.00 billion
2020 $737.90 billion $219.20 billion $53.10 billion $1.00 trillion


*To cover the $1Tb budget deficit the following taxes need to be raised:
 1. Raise the top tax rate about 7% above 2016 levels +$400b
 2. Implement a new 3% Fed sales tax +$400b
 3. Implement a new transaction tax on all stocks & bonds * Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions | Congressional Budget Office *+$100b
 4. Implement a new remittances tax/fee on all money sent out of the US* Taxing Remittances Can Build the Wall *2% of $140b is +$3b a year*


*Reform entitlements, Medicare & Social Security, currently projected to be insolvent:*

3.  Just for argument's sake say USSC Justices (80), Senators (75), and House members (70).  That could be phased in over several years so that only a 5% turnover happens.  I agree that Term Limits is currently unconstitutional, the courts already said that.  But wouldn't a new Constitutional Amendment "Trump" the courts' opinion???


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 17, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> The 2014 scandal involving conditions in VA facilities was hardly hyperbole. The only VA facility I've ever used was in fair condition, although through recent construction and upgrades it is now greatly improved.


7 years ago? Why not go back to the 50s?


----------



## Rogue AI (Sep 17, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> 7 years ago? Why not go back to the 50s?


It didn't get that way in a day. Are they keeping it well maintained? That was the point.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 18, 2021)

One question was not yet resolved.
Can a legally approved Amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the USSC?
I don't see where the USSC can reject the Convention of States amendments, neither does the House, Senate, nor President.
Any new COS Amendment is by definition "constitutional", correct?


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 18, 2021)




----------



## Viktor (Sep 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass.  So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution.  Not an impossible task.
> The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.
> 
> 
> ...


The Pledge of Allegiance is part of the Flag Code which is advisory only. You can say it any way you want.


----------



## Viktor (Sep 27, 2021)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.


I think the constitution should allow for recall of members of Congress by a simple majority vote of his constituents. We can get rid of Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 27, 2021)

Viktor said:


> I think the constitution should allow for recall of members of Congress by a simple majority vote of his constituents. We can get rid of Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.


Like Nancy said, "this democrat glass of water could beat ANY Republican in her (AOC's) district. Those morons sent Amazon's HQ2 from NYC to VA, that's how stupid they are, same with Bernie, Ilhan, Nancy, and Chuckie.


----------



## 22lcidw (Sep 27, 2021)

Get rid of the privately owned Federal Reserve who prints the Fiat Currency. If keeping a Fiat Currency, then give it back to the people. Let the government control the whole process. Change the name of the Federal Reserve Note into a United States Note or so. But that would mean we are a sovereign and free nation. We reduce the middle man.  Jesus spoke about money changers. Those who forgot the teachings at that time. We can forgive a percentage of debt with that and make the interest more palatable for loans in a responsible way. Of course the new people involved will have to be honorable. And laws passed to keep them that way. We won't of course. For there are many corrupted and involved with the globalist movement.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 27, 2021)

The constitution that is currently in effect is held in abeyance daily. Why would anyone be deluded enough to think new changes will be treated differently?


----------



## Resnic (Sep 27, 2021)

What we have work, we have seen it work.

The real problem is not enough politicians pay attention to the constitution and when they do they are fucking with it or ignoring it, or give it unintended meaning.

The country works, we just need to leave it alone and let it work like it's supposed to.


----------



## kyzr (Sep 27, 2021)

JWBooth said:


> The constitution that is currently in effect is held in abeyance daily. Why would anyone be deluded enough to think new changes will be treated differently?


Give a few examples of what is held in abeyance.
The courts generally decide what must be followed or not.  
For example, sanctuary states and sanctuary cities apparently can violate immigration laws.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

As a new member, I haven't yet read all the posts in this thread. But this topic is covered in detail in Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments. It's a good read with 11 essential amendments we need to restore our republic :
1,   Term Limits
2,   Repeal of the 17th Amendment
3,   Term Limits for the Supreme Court
4,   Limits on Federal spending
5,   Limits on Taxation
6,   Limits on the Federal Bureaucracy
7,   Limits on Congress's power to regulate Commerce
8,   Protection of Private Property
9,   Give States the power to check Congress
10, Give States the power to directly Amend the Constitution
11, Protecting the Vote

To these 11 Amendments, I would add one more :
12, An Amendment to provide adequate representation for citizens by limiting the population size of Congressional Districts to 30,000 per District.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

22lcidw said:


> Howa about an Amendment that allows States to leave the Union? It may not end up what they like, but it may also.


Good one I hadn't considered.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Those same type of libtards run the state legislatures, so you will never accomplish any of your goals.


So we shouldn't try to save our Freedom? Congress will never do what is necessary.

With the progress already made toward calling a COS, it is in the realm of possibility that a COS may actually be convened. And I agree it may be difficult to achieve much. But a few amendments, such as term limits for one, could be passed and then actually ratified by the states.

So I disagree that no goals will be accomplished.

Consider America's continued political decline since the Reagan Revolution; and what is your thoughts on where the U.S. will be, politically, in another 30 years?


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Gabe Lackmann said:


> ...The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either...


An interesting idea and one I've considered, and haven't completely dismissed. But if government could be restrained, then broadening the franchise wouldn't be so damaging.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I oppose a convention of states, because it would be a complete waste of time as long as libtards are represented.


So, what solution do you suggest?


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ... So there are three on your laundry list that make sense.  That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want.


Not true. Perhaps you need to review Civics 101. Any amendments coming out of a COS would have to be ratified by 38 states. And if 38 states ratify, then the changes are wanted.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> How would you enforce a balanced budget amendment?  Hadn't though of that, did you?
> 
> A balanced budget amendment would like result in more economy-crippling taxes!


You're nit picking details. Yes these questions have been asked and adequate solutions proposed.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> ...I would propose an amendment that require clean bills only. Nothing outside the intended purpose of the bill at hand.


Another good suggestion for consideration.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

kyzr said:


> 1. The democrats are pushing their "voter fraud special" Bill, HR-1.  I want to vaccinate elections from HR-1 with an Amendment.  My argument is that the State Legislatures will be the ones approving the Election Law Amendment, so that sounds Constitutional to me.  The Constitution doesn't say that the House and Senate shall make election laws, but that State Legislatures may.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Giving you a thumbs up for the thoughtfulness of the post, although I don't agree with everything; and won't take time now to address individual points.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

kyzr said:


> One question was not yet resolved.
> Can a legally approved Amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the USSC?
> I don't see where the USSC can reject the Convention of States amendments, neither does the House, Senate, nor President.
> Any new COS Amendment is by definition "constitutional", correct?


No, amendments to the constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 1, 2022)

Texian1836 said:


> You're nit picking details. Yes these questions have been asked and adequate solutions proposed.


Really?  Where?

Got a


----------



## candycorn (Apr 1, 2022)

Several more I would add, I voted for the two good ones above.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 1, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Really?  Where?
> 
> Got a


The single most comprehensive discussion of amendments we need to pass, that I've found so far, is Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments.

But really, don't you have a brain and an inquiring mind. If you are able to raise the questions, are you not also capable of thinking all this out for yourself?

One of many proposed amendments would place limits on taxation.

I'd have to ask what you mean, "how would you enforce a balanced budget"? Are you suggesting Congress would not follow the law, and would ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court? What you are suggesting is a political coup and what would American do in such an event.

If what you are suggesting is a little less extreme, limits on spending would also be imposed by amendment. Someone also suggested that the ability to recall congressmen be strengthened.

Perhaps enforcement of the Constitution may fall under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. I'd have to look this up if there was ever a serious need to.

If a run-a-way Congress was really a serious issue, perhaps this would need to be addressed with another amendment. It's just I don't see this as a serious issue needing attention.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 2, 2022)

Texian1836 said:


> The single most comprehensive discussion of amendments we need to pass, that I've found so far, is Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments.
> 
> But really, don't you have a brain and an inquiring mind. If you are able to raise the questions, are you not also capable of thinking all this out for yourself?
> 
> ...


OK, so you don't have any answers.  Typical person who knows nothing about the Constitution and the process to amend it.

Have nice day! I will not do a battle of wits with and unarmed foe!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2022)

DGS49 said:


> I feel very strongly that there should be an Amendment that says that Congress' power is limited to exactly what is set forth in Article One, and all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
> 
> I think that would be very helpful.



The problem is that the Constitution already says that, and everyone just ignores it.  You'd have to actually provide some sort of method for enforcing it for it to make any difference.


----------



## Peace (Apr 2, 2022)

Term limits!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2022)

kyzr said:


> Just thought of another one.  TERM LIMITS.  We need more turnover in the House and Senate.



I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would also require weakening the bureaucracy in the executive branch.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 2, 2022)

kyzr said:


> Same as now, the courts would need to enforce the laws as written.
> So far no one has said any of the proposed amendments are "unconstitutional".  That's good.



By definition, an Amendment to the Constitution can't be Unconstitutional.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2022)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would also require weakening the bureaucracy in the executive branch.




The smaller the government, the larger the citizen.


----------



## AsherN (Apr 19, 2022)

Texian1836 said:


> I'd have to ask what you mean, "how would you enforce a balanced budget"? Are you suggesting Congress would not follow the law, and would ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court? What you are suggesting is a political coup and what would American do in such an event.


Forcing a balanced budget is one off those things that sound really cool but is entirely impractical. what happens in a recession? When the tax revenue falls way below it's obligations? Or it does not recognize that government spending can be a way out of a depression. A balanced budget is a laufable goal, and every government should be judged by that standard. but making it impossible to run a deficit is a death sentence.

An amendment that all bills be single purpose is a better goal.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 20, 2022)

AsherN said:


> Forcing a balanced budget is one off those things that sound really cool but is entirely impractical. what happens in a recession? When the tax revenue falls way below it's obligations? Or it does not recognize that government spending can be a way out of a depression. A balanced budget is a laufable goal, and every government should be judged by that standard. but making it impossible to run a deficit is a death sentence.
> 
> An amendment that all bills be single purpose is a better goal.


First, the approach I like is not a single balanced budget amendment, but two amendments, one addressing spending and the second addressing taxation.

Of course this would all be hashed out, but ...
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated receipts for that fiscal year; and total outlays shall not exceed 17.5% of the GDP for the previous year.

The income tax shall be limited to 15% of a person's annual income, from whatever source derived.

To address the concerns you expressed, spending limits could be temporarily suspended by a vote of both Houses of Congress.

I like the idea of single purpose bills.


----------



## AsherN (Apr 20, 2022)

Texian1836 said:


> First, the approach I like is not a single balanced budget amendment, but two amendments, one addressing spending and the second addressing taxation.
> 
> Of course this would all be hashed out, but ...
> Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated receipts for that fiscal year; and total outlays shall not exceed 17.5% of the GDP for the previous year.
> ...


Such a law would be unconstitutional. If the Constitution says you can't spend more than you take in, then a law overriding this is not constitutional.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 20, 2022)

The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices.  Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them.  Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post. 

The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year.  If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President.  That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.


----------



## AsherN (Apr 20, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices.  Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them.  Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post.
> 
> The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year.  If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President.  That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.


Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 21, 2022)

AsherN said:


> Such a law would be unconstitutional. If the Constitution says you can't spend more than you take in, then a law overriding this is not constitutional.


No. Amendments often are divided into Sections. So you would have a following Section, writen into the Amendment, giving Congress authority to temporarily suspend the earlier Section(s), with a 3/5 vote by both Houses.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 21, 2022)

AsherN said:


> Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.


Yeah, let's throw that in the debate, especially the part where each Justice serves the last portion of their term as Chief Justice.  That has merit.


----------



## Texian1836 (Apr 21, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices.  Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them.  Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post.
> 
> The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year.  If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President.  That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.





AsherN said:


> Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.


Both are solid suggestions. I hadn't heard of either. They are going into my file for consideration.

One clarification AsherN, I believe you mean Circuit Courts. There are 12 regional circuits plus 1 federal circuit (the common map shows 11. The 12th is the District of Columbia). Below them are the 94 judicial district courts.

The problem with this is that the number of Circuit Courts is set by Congress and has changed over time. There currently is an ongoing discussion of whether the 9th has grown too large and needs to be divided.


----------



## AsherN (Apr 21, 2022)

Texian1836 said:


> Both are solid suggestions. I hadn't heard of either. They are going into my file for consideration.
> 
> One clarification AsherN, I believe you mean Circuit Courts. There are 12 regional circuits plus 1 federal circuit (the common map shows 11. The 12th is the District of Columbia). Below them are the 94 judicial district courts.
> 
> The problem with this is that the number of Circuit Courts is set by Congress and has changed over time. There currently is an ongoing discussion of whether the 9th has grown too large and needs to be divided.


Thanks for the correction. So you adjust the number of Justices to match the number of circuits. And find a mechanism to have an odd number. Justices serve a term equal to the number of circuits so that a new Justice is appointed every year.


----------

