Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Only commie pukes would like that list. Obamaturd, really? what a idiot would list that fool first. Oh, that is right, it is swallowsbigone.SOLID list!
Yes, it's a solid list of people who would turn this country into a Stalinist dictatorship.
What a child. I know you are but what am I... ROFLOnly commie pukes would like that list. Obamaturd, really? what a idiot would list that fool first. Oh, that is right, it is swallowsbigone.Yes, it's a solid list of people who would turn this country into a Stalinist dictatorship.
Wait what?
You want to swallow my big one?
Sorry AmericanFag, that's reserved for the ladies.
You just have to visit Larry Craig.
Actually I would want God, and Jesus to rewrite the constitution.
I never said that. But we probably do look at the situation differently.
Yep. You think government should be allowed to steal private property and I don't.
actually I think I can agree with Justice Thomas in these quottes from Wikipedia.
This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'
Thomas additionally observed:
Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:
Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.[8]
I got the impression you supported the Kelo decision. Apparently you don't. My position is that government should not have any authority that a private citizen doesn't have. If it wants someone's property, it should have to pay them whatever they want. If they don't want to sell, then tough.actually I think I can agree with Justice Thomas in these quottes from Wikipedia.Yep. You think government should be allowed to steal private property and I don't.
This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'
Thomas additionally observed:
Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:
Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.[8]
I got the impression you supported the Kelo decision. Apparently you don't. My position is that government should not have any authority that a private citizen doesn't have. If it wants someone's property, it should have to pay them whatever they want. If they don't want to sell, then tough.actually I think I can agree with Justice Thomas in these quottes from Wikipedia.
“ This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' ”
Thomas additionally observed:
“ Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:
“ Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.[8]
eminent domain is a dangerous power, and should be restricted, but I do think there are times when it is needed.
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
first i would need a valid reason for rewriting it. I'd rather see us get back to the core values of our constitution and losed all the bastarized recent interpretations of it.
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
first i would need a valid reason for rewriting it. I'd rather see us get back to the core values of our constitution and losed all the bastarized recent interpretations of it.
You want a valid reason? How about because the US has been at war for nearly its whole existence.
first i would need a valid reason for rewriting it. I'd rather see us get back to the core values of our constitution and losed all the bastarized recent interpretations of it.
You want a valid reason? How about because the US has been at war for nearly its whole existence.
1) Not true
2) How do you intend to stop war?
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
)
I wouldn't want anyone re-writing the Constitution. I like it the way it is - mostly. And I wouldn't support changing the Constitution based on 12- or 5-person re-write teams even if they wrote it exactly the way I want.
It takes two-thirds, and I advocate keeping it that way.
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION: AN EMERGENCY SOLUTION, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
by MARK MECKLER 10 Feb 2014
Some people don’t believe it.
In school, we were taught, along with reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic, how the Constitution is amended: an amendment must go before both houses of Congress and pass a two-thirds vote. Before it becomes a permanent part of the Constitution, three fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it.
But there’s another way to change the Constitution, and it’s hidden in plain sight in Article V, one that many of us have never even heard of. Here’s the text of Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…
Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?
In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach.
Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”
The founders paid attention to Mason’s argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way:
Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.
Therein lies the beauty of Article V. It gives us two ways to change things up when times get challenging. Amending the Constitution isn’t too easy (which would throw society into chaos), and it’s not too hard (which would make the Constitution so rigid that the people might rebel against it).
Since the government has tried to reach into our homes, medical care, and pockets, frustrated citizens have talked of rebelling against the government or even secession.
But this extreme reaction ignores the fact that the founders saw this day coming and gave us a Constitutional tool which allows us to restrain the out-of-control federal government.
Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives.
That’s why there’s a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders – such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton – have publicly endorsed it.
As President of Citizens for Self-Governance, I’ve been advocating a convention of states since long before the idea reached the general public. We’ve even created a viable strategy to bring a convention to reality.
Many times, people lament how powerful and abusive our federal government has become, without realizing there’s a way to fight it – right there in Article V of the Constitution. So now you know. Now you see.
But we have to do more than just see it.
This week, the Convention of States resolution is pending in multiple state legislatures. Many state legislators are standing up and calling for an Amending Convention under Article V. These brave legislators are fighting to take the power from the federal leviathan and return it to you, the sovereign citizen. But they can’t do it without your help.
And you can help.
If you’re in Florida, Arizona, or Georgia, your self-governance moment is now. Call, fax, and email your representatives. Go to Convention of States and get the details of who is on the relevant committees so that you can reach out to the right people and tell them to vote for the Convention of States resolution.
Now you know it’s there, and now is the time. Article V of the Constitution: a solution as big as the problem.
It is our moral obligation to use it.
Mark Meckler is the President of Citizens for Self-Governance, which created the Convention of States Project.
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
Sure!
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
George Washington
Roger Sherman
John Jay
Ben Franklin
Alexander Hamilton
John Adams
Robert Morris
John Dickinson
Elbridge Gerry (Refused to sign the Constitution, believing it did not offer enough protection to the rights of individuals and the rights of states)
Gouverneur Morris (A counterbalance to Elbridge Gerry
Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
first i would need a valid reason for rewriting it. I'd rather see us get back to the core values of our constitution and losed all the bastarized recent interpretations of it.
You want a valid reason? How about because the US has been at war for nearly its whole existence.
We dont need it rewritten, we need it followed.
American political history is defined by three great crises. The first crisis was the American Revolution, which was declared on July 4, 1776 but whose roots can be traced back at least to 1763. That period of crisis ended with the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in what has become known as the “Revolution of 1800.”
The second crisis was the crisis over slavery that culminated in the Civil War. While the Founders had opposed slavery in principle, but had been forced to compromise with the institution in practice for the sake of the Union, the rise of the “positive good” school of slavery in the South marked a turn away from the Founders’ principles, and their practice. In response, Abraham Lincoln explained and defended the Founder’s approach.
The third great crisis, which continues today, is the challenge of Progressivism, a movement founded by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and others.
The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.
Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.
In order to understand fully the previous crises, and to be able to respond well to the current crisis, we must understand the causes of America.
America has four causes—a material cause: primarily the land and the people; an efficient cause: the Founding Founders who led the Revolution in the name of the American people; a formal cause: the Constitution, especially the structure of government it establishes; and a final cause: the principles of free government outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
With this background, we can answer the question: Was the American Founding revolutionary or conservative? In fact it was both: It sought to conserve the oldest and highest law, which according to the Declaration of Independence is “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Founders compared the natural law to the conventional law under which they lived, and—as described so eloquently and succinctly in the Declaration of Independence—determined that a revolution was justified in the name of this higher law.
first i would need a valid reason for rewriting it. I'd rather see us get back to the core values of our constitution and losed all the bastarized recent interpretations of it.
You want a valid reason? How about because the US has been at war for nearly its whole existence.
What's that got to do with the Constitution, or rewriting it?
The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. By that standard, we haven't been "at war" since 1945.
If we haven't been obeying that requirement of the Constitution, is that the Constitution's fault? (This question can be asked about a great many Federal activities in the last half century or so.)
More importantly, if we change or rewrite parts of the Constitution, how will that make the people who have been violating it, suddenly start obeying it now?
Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?
In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach.
Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”
The founders paid attention to Mason’s argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way:
Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.
Therein lies the beauty
Sure!Can you name a dozen people you would trust to rewrite the constitution?
ok, simplify: name 5
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
George Washington
Roger Sherman John Jay
Ben Franklin
Alexander Hamilton
John Adams
Robert Morris
John Dickinson
Elbridge Gerry (Refused to sign the Constitution, believing it did not offer enough protection to the rights of individuals and the rights of states)
Gouverneur Morris (A counterbalance to Elbridge Gerry
