Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[Boss]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Good advice. You will have to convince SCOTUS afterwards whatever amendments ratified in convention are constitutional. Good luck with that. Even Scalia said a convention was an unwise idea.

Uhm... No. You don't have to convince SCOTUS that an Amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional. Sorry... you just don't.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

So you would want the staes to go through the huge costs and logistics to do a convention that seats delegates from all 50 states for just a trial run, and the recall all of them back again if the amendment passes?

Nah, I think you need to strike when the iron is hot. If you can get all the delegates seated, you need to consider and pass everything you want, beyond just these 9 ideas, and send them individually to the states for 3/4s approval.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Good advice. You will have to convince SCOTUS afterwards whatever amendments ratified in convention are constitutional. Good luck with that. Even Scalia said a convention was an unwise idea.

Uhm... No. You don't have to convince SCOTUS that an Amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional. Sorry... you just don't.

Thats the genius Jake the Fake Starkey, right on cue being the clown. Between him and Clayton I think they got separated at birth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Good advice. You will have to convince SCOTUS afterwards whatever amendments ratified in convention are constitutional. Good luck with that. Even Scalia said a convention was an unwise idea.

Uhm... No. You don't have to convince SCOTUS that an Amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional. Sorry... you just don't.

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, which is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Scalia thought it a crazy idea. Sorry . . . you just do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[Thats the genius Jake the Fake Starkey, right on cue being the clown. Between him and Clayton I think they got separated at birth.

You have nothing, then. Sorry . . . you just don't.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, who is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Sorry . . . you just do.

Read the fucking Constitution, Jake, lol

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shall" call it means that Congress has no choice and must call the convention if the required number of states call for it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[Thats the genius Jake the Fake Starkey, right on cue being the clown. Between him and Clayton I think they got separated at birth.

You have nothing, then. Sorry . . . you just don't.

I have the Constitution, Jake, which is pretty damned clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uhm... No. You don't have to convince SCOTUS that an Amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional. Sorry... you just don't.

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, who is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Sorry . . . you just do.

Read the fucking Constitution, Jake, lol

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution is clear. The modal is "shall" not "will".

 

[Boss]

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

So you would want the staes to go through the huge costs and logistics to do a convention that seats delegates from all 50 states for just a trial run, and the recall all of them back again if the amendment passes?

Nah, I think you need to strike when the iron is hot. If you can get all the delegates seated, you need to consider and pass everything you want, beyond just these 9 ideas, and send them individually to the states for 3/4s approval.

Not a trial run... a legitimate issue that can get ratified. Make it happen. Once it happens it becomes something different. It becomes something that has happened before. As of now, it has never happened before. It's not that big of a deal in terms of cost. You don't have delegates from all 50 states. That's not how it works. You also can't pass everything you want at the same convention.... each issue will require it's own convention because it will be it's own Amendment.

You need to read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments as he lays out exactly how this works.

 

[Boss]

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, which is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Scalia thought it a crazy idea. Sorry . . . you just do.

Nope, you don't know what you're talking about and Scalia said no such thing. When the required states have called for a convention to amend, the Congress is obliged to sanction it and they operate as observers of the process.

Scalia said he certainly wouldn't want a Constitutional convention but an Article V convention is a convention to amend... not a Constitutional convention... two entirely different things.
Antonin Scalia on the “Minimal Risk” of an Article V Convention « Point of Order

 

[imawhosure]

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, who is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Sorry . . . you just do.

Read the fucking Constitution, Jake, lol

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shall" call it means that Congress has no choice and must call the convention if the required number of states call for it.

LOL, now the left and phony conservatives are trying a NEW tactic............can't do it, lol.

No need to argue the point with them, because either they know their talking point is bull as they attempt to deflect, or are to dumb to understand their "semantics" won't work.

You have to know they are starting to get worried when they start changing horses and talking points for the express purpose of propagandizing everything, and anything when discussing an article 5! With the record turnouts for the GOP primaries showing that the people are ready to unseat the whole lot of their rearends, they just can't allow an article 5 or how could their minority rule the majority-)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except that the Congress does not have to call a V convention.

The modal is "shall" not "will".

Sorry, boss, but you are wrong. I know, but you just are.

Neither Congress nor SCOTUS will ratify any amendments from a convention they don't approve.

 

[Boss]

Except that the Congress does not have to call a V convenction.

The modal is "shall" not "will".

Sorry, boss, but you are wrong. I know, but you just are.

Neither Congress nor SCOTUS will ratify any amendments from a convention they don't approve.

Nope... again... they DO have to... they are REQUIRED to.
It's not up to Congress or SCOTUS. Read the Constitution.

 

[bullwinkle]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

OK, I have bookmarked your post for a leisure read later, but I have read the first 2 pages. Thanks for bringing this forward. Please understand that I do not see the document as some others do, as a bronzed plaque never to be reworked, but rather as a more fluid document. Men no longer wear powdered wigs and button-up drawers, and neither are today's values those of the late 1700s. And my very Pet Peeve is the Patriot Act that struck 4A and gave birth to today's national spying on our own people. We willingly gave up our privacy for convenience. We were in as much danger in the late 30s and early 40's as we are today, but nobody considered an Act countermanding the 4th amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except that the Congress does not have to call a V convenction.

The modal is "shall" not "will".

Sorry, boss, but you are wrong. I know, but you just are.

Neither Congress nor SCOTUS will ratify any amendments from a convention they don't approve.

Nope... again... they DO have to... they are REQUIRED to.
It's not up to Congress or SCOTUS. Read the Constitution.

You have not or you would know the modal is "shall" and not "will". You are wrong, it hurts, but . . . you just are.

Read and learn. An Article V Convention- Keep Dreaming | RedState

 

[Slade3200]

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

So you would want the staes to go through the huge costs and logistics to do a convention that seats delegates from all 50 states for just a trial run, and the recall all of them back again if the amendment passes?

Nah, I think you need to strike when the iron is hot. If you can get all the delegates seated, you need to consider and pass everything you want, beyond just these 9 ideas, and send them individually to the states for 3/4s approval.

Not a trial run... a legitimate issue that can get ratified. Make it happen. Once it happens it becomes something different. It becomes something that has happened before. As of now, it has never happened before. It's not that big of a deal in terms of cost. You don't have delegates from all 50 states. That's not how it works. You also can't pass everything you want at the same convention.... each issue will require it's own convention because it will be it's own Amendment.

You need to read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments as he lays out exactly how this works.

Mark Levin is worst than Trump... Entertaining at times but completely full of shit... I don't understand how anybody can take that guy seriously, he is just another act in the circus.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't have enough time to read this right now, I will do so later but I wanted to comment about Article V conventions...

I think what needs to happen is some states need to actually do one... take some single issue like "balanced budget" or "term limits" and go with just that one thing... get it done through the Article V process and this will pave the way for the future. I think a lot of people are reluctant to try this because they don't think it can work. However, if you go with something most people support and make it happen once... it sets a precedent and other conventions will follow.

If you get too ambitious with it and try to change too much at one time, it will fail and not be tried again for a century or more because everyone will point to the failure and say it can't be done.

Good advice. You will have to convince SCOTUS afterwards whatever amendments ratified in convention are constitutional. Good luck with that. Even Scalia said a convention was an unwise idea.

No dummy, once ratified the court has no choice but to follow the Amendments, as they would be part of the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Case law is frivolous and totally destructive to original intent and changes at the whim of the supreme court.

I'll bet the courts would disagree with you.

Of course they would, how many people do you know that will willingly admit they screwed up?

 

[OKTexas]

Yup, you do, because a convention that is not sanctioned and authorized by Congress, who is tasked with "shall" call it, will not be valid. Sorry . . . you just do.

Read the fucking Constitution, Jake, lol

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shall" call it means that Congress has no choice and must call the convention if the required number of states call for it.

Actually 49 States have already called for one, congress hasn't done their duty yet.

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

OK, I have bookmarked your post for a leisure read later, but I have read the first 2 pages. Thanks for bringing this forward. Please understand that I do not see the document as some others do, as a bronzed plaque never to be reworked, but rather as a more fluid document. Men no longer wear powdered wigs and button-up drawers, and neither are today's values those of the late 1700s. And my very Pet Peeve is the Patriot Act that struck 4A and gave birth to today's national spying on our own people. We willingly gave up our privacy for convenience. We were in as much danger in the late 30s and early 40's as we are today, but nobody considered an Act countermanding the 4th amendment.

Article 5 is the only proper way the alter the Constitution, judges don't have the power to reinterpret or change it on their own, and congress and the executive shouldn't be ignoring it. Only the States have the power to change it.