The Liberty Amendments

[Boss]

So now, instead of quoting from the Harvard study to make a specific point under debate, you revert to more name calling and insulting remarks. I merely stated that I was amazed you would rely upon something concocted at the hot-bed of socialist thought. Now, getting back to what was under debate I wrote: “The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!” You responded with: “And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.” I then responded with:
At this point in time, instead of offering a rebuttal with supportive documentation, you told me how great Harvard was, went on with more of your opinions, and offered nothing of substance to support your notions. The fact is, just like I previously stated, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment.

Yes! Let’s be clear. Post from the Harvard study where our Constitution contains a rule which determines each state’s number of delegates if an Article V convention is called.

You are raising a completely irrelevant point. There doesn't have to be any declaration on the number of delegates a state can send, the states are allowed one vote per state. What part of that is hard for you to grasp? Levin points out this Article V wasn't just pulled out of thin air on a whim, it is rooted and based on regularly-held Federal conventions that had been the practice for a century before, where states and colonies would gather to discuss various issues about once every 40 months on average. NEVER has it been considered the states be represented by apportionment. It's not in the Constitution, it defies the principles of sovereignty of state. When we ratify an amendment, we don't do so by electoral delegates based on apportionment, it's not in the Constitution, it can't happen that way. You are completely off in la-la land, with some kakamamie idea that has no basis in Constitutionality at all, and you are literally arguing that since the Constitution doesn't specifically say it can't be done that way, that some entity is going to come along and claim it can! This is not up to the SCOTUS or Congress, it is spelled out specifically in the Constitution, the convention, the rules for the convention, the subject of the convention, the delegates and how they are appointed, and even the method of ratification, is all determined by the state legislatures. No one else!

You are confusing context here, another liberal tactic. Because they were given authority to go to point C, doesn't mean they were not given authority to go to point A or point B. This is what you are erroneously trying to infer. If I tell you to "go secure the border" and you ask, "how far should I go in doing this" and I tell you, "shoot them if you have to" I have not given you orders to execute people.

The truth is, you are ignoring the historical documents of three states expressing their understanding that the delegates were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” You are also ignoring Mark’s math which does not add up.

But they were not sent with that understanding, or the states they represented would have rejected what they did. There were 13 states, 12 of which, sent delegates to the convention, one abstained. Of the twelve, ten of them were not prohibited in any expressed way of considering an entirely new constitution. Yes, they were sent to amend the AoC, but they were not restricted to SOLELY this purpose, or the states would have completely rejected what they did. What you are claiming, doesn't even make logical or rational sense.

Well, I see you have again decided to revert to personalizing the thread as opposed to sorting out the various dangers of calling an Article V convention. And this is in addition to your posting more insulting remarks and unsubstantiated assertions about me.

What I am doing is dismantling your fear mongering, which you have heard from establishment elite "Neo-Statists" who dislike the fact that States are about to upset their apple cart. I'm sorry that you have been so brainwashed by partisan politicians in Washington, that you can't think straight. I wish there was a way to bring you on board with this idea, because it's going to happen whether you and Karl Rove want it to or not.

Save your ranting and raving about out of control government, you are a bag of hot air. You want to reel off these complaints of how outraged you are that we have slipped so far away from founding intent of the Constitution, but when someone proposes a real-time way of restoring the Constitution, you go into panic-stricken hand-wring mode, whatever will become of our beloved Constitution if we do this? To put it as Mark Levin would: Hey Idiot, look around? Is your beloved Constitution being followed now?

 

[Toro]

We should devolve all power back to the states so we can legally discriminate against Negroes again.

 

[Toro]

We should allow mob rule to override the rule of law.

 

[Toro]

We should allow voters to vote on complex budgetary mechanisms relating to the technical measurements of CPI and funding requirements as constitutional amendments because citizens are fully capable of understanding such intricate issues especially when it is written in dense legalese on the ballot, but we shouldn't allow them to vote directly for Senators once every six years because, well, that's just beyond the average voter.

 

[johnwk]

So now, instead of quoting from the Harvard study to make a specific point under debate, you revert to more name calling and insulting remarks. I merely stated that I was amazed you would rely upon something concocted at the hot-bed of socialist thought. Now, getting back to what was under debate I wrote: “The bottom line is, the wording from Article V which you indicate establishes how many delegates each state would have, and it would be an equal number, is not supported by anything stated during the framing of our Constitution. Quite the contrary. Those words from Article V were specifically added to insure that no state could be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate via the amendment process!” You responded with: “And thus, neither can the state legislatures be deprived of equal suffrage in a state-called convention.” I then responded with:
At this point in time, instead of offering a rebuttal with supportive documentation, you told me how great Harvard was, went on with more of your opinions, and offered nothing of substance to support your notions. The fact is, just like I previously stated, our Constitution is silent as to whether each state would get an equal number of delegates if an Article V convention were called by Congress, or that the number would be determined by the rule of apportionment.

Yes! Let’s be clear. Post from the Harvard study where our Constitution contains a rule which determines each state’s number of delegates if an Article V convention is called.

You are raising a completely irrelevant point. There doesn't have to be any declaration on the number of delegates a state can send, the states are allowed one vote per state. What part of that is hard for you to grasp? Levin points out this Article V wasn't just pulled out of thin air on a whim, it is rooted and based on regularly-held Federal conventions that had been the practice for a century before, where states and colonies would gather to discuss various issues about once every 40 months on average. NEVER has it been considered the states be represented by apportionment. It's not in the Constitution, it defies the principles of sovereignty of state. When we ratify an amendment, we don't do so by electoral delegates based on apportionment, it's not in the Constitution, it can't happen that way. You are completely off in la-la land, with some kakamamie idea that has no basis in Constitutionality at all, and you are literally arguing that since the Constitution doesn't specifically say it can't be done that way, that some entity is going to come along and claim it can! This is not up to the SCOTUS or Congress, it is spelled out specifically in the Constitution, the convention, the rules for the convention, the subject of the convention, the delegates and how they are appointed, and even the method of ratification, is all determined by the state legislatures. No one else!

The truth is, you are ignoring the historical documents of three states expressing their understanding that the delegates were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” You are also ignoring Mark’s math which does not add up.

But they were not sent with that understanding, or the states they represented would have rejected what they did. There were 13 states, 12 of which, sent delegates to the convention, one abstained. Of the twelve, ten of them were not prohibited in any expressed way of considering an entirely new constitution. Yes, they were sent to amend the AoC, but they were not restricted to SOLELY this purpose, or the states would have completely rejected what they did. What you are claiming, doesn't even make logical or rational sense.

Well, I see you have again decided to revert to personalizing the thread as opposed to sorting out the various dangers of calling an Article V convention. And this is in addition to your posting more insulting remarks and unsubstantiated assertions about me.

What I am doing is dismantling your fear mongering, which you have heard from establishment elite "Neo-Statists" who dislike the fact that States are about to upset their apple cart. I'm sorry that you have been so brainwashed by partisan politicians in Washington, that you can't think straight. I wish there was a way to bring you on board with this idea, because it's going to happen whether you and Karl Rove want it to or not.

Save your ranting and raving about out of control government, you are a bag of hot air. You want to reel off these complaints of how outraged you are that we have slipped so far away from founding intent of the Constitution, but when someone proposes a real-time way of restoring the Constitution, you go into panic-stricken hand-wring mode, whatever will become of our beloved Constitution if we do this? To put it as Mark Levin would: Hey Idiot, look around? Is your beloved Constitution being followed now?

I’m still waiting for you to post from the Harvard study where our Constitution contains a rule which determines each state’s number of delegates if an Article V convention is called. You made the claim now provide the quotations.

I also see you have chosen to ignore the historical documents of three states expressing their understanding that the delegates were to meet in “Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” The notion that a convention called under Article V can be limited not only defies what took place during the convention of 1787, but ignores what a number of respected authorities have stated on the issue:



"At a minimum...the Federal Judiciary, including The Supreme Court, will have to resolve the inevitable disputes over which branch and level of government may be entrusted to decide each of the many questions left open by Article V." - Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School


"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger

Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote:

A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"

... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.


And the one quote I will never forget because I was on the University of Maryland's campus at the time it was made was that of Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, who wrote in 1991 in response to the call for a constitutional convention to write a balanced budget amendment: "After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."

You also ignore the fact that the Convention of 1787 disregarded the requirement contained in the Articles of Confederation which forbid them to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the delegates arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did. And so, Mark’s claim that an approval of ¾ of the states would be necessary to adopt the conventions doings is pure speculation considering what the convention of 1787 did.


Finally, instead of acknowledging and accepting historical facts and documentation when presented to you, you have once again resorted to adolescent name calling and personal insults.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

NEVER has it been considered the states be represented by apportionment. It's not in the Constitution, it defies the principles of sovereignty of state. When we ratify an amendment, we don't do so by electoral delegates based on apportionment, it's not in the Constitution, it can't happen that way. You are completely off in la-la land, with some kakamamie idea that has no basis in Constitutionality at all,

Last time I checked, when Congress is convened in Washington to do business, each state is represented in the House with a number of representatives based upon the rule of apportionment. This is part of the great compromise of 1787 which is written into our Constitution. Did you miss reading that part of our Constitution? Why shouldn’t each state be represented by the rule of apportionment to do business in an Article V convention?

JWK

 

[thanatos144]

NEVER has it been considered the states be represented by apportionment. It's not in the Constitution, it defies the principles of sovereignty of state. When we ratify an amendment, we don't do so by electoral delegates based on apportionment, it's not in the Constitution, it can't happen that way. You are completely off in la-la land, with some kakamamie idea that has no basis in Constitutionality at all,

Last time I checked, when Congress is convened in Washington to do business, each state is represented in the House with a number of representatives based upon the rule of apportionment. This is part of the great compromise of 1787 which is written into our Constitution. Did you miss reading that part of our Constitution? Why shouldn’t each state be represented by the rule of apportionment to do business in an Article V convention?

JWK

Wow you really fear losing your big government.

 

[Boss]

John, you are raising the same defeated points all over again, so there is no need for me to address them again. Go back and read my response to the first time you raised them, it hasn't changed. The Constitution still says nothing about amendments being determined by apportionment. Each state still gets one vote, every amendment presently in the Constitution was ratified this way.

A convention can consider one amendment or several, just as Congress can, but it cannot rewrite and replace the Constitution. If the convention adopts 500 new amendments, then all 500 must be ratified by 3/4 of all states to become part of the Constitution, the same as if it proposes one amendment, the same as if Congress were to do so.

Delegates appointed by state legislatures are serving at the behest of state interests, and if the state feels so compelled, can withdraw the delegates from the convention at any time, if said delegate decides to 'go rogue' and start acting contrary to the interests of the state. The state also has the option of completely ignoring what the delegates do at the convention, they don't even have to offer it up for ratification following the convention, if it doesn't meet the criteria they deem appropriate. And even if they did, the proposal would have to be adopted by 3/4 of the states to be ratified into the Constitution. There is ZERO chance of a "runaway" convention. As Levin points out, the "runaway" is happening right now, in Washington, with Congress, the President and SCOTUS, who continue to ignore and usurp the Constitution.

Why does it matter if Congress, The President, and SCOTUS won't abide by the current letter of the Constitution, what makes us think it will abide by these new amendments? Well, because the power of the decision making is taken out of their hands and returned to the states, so other people are making the decisions.

 

[Boss]

We should devolve all power back to the states so we can legally discriminate against Negroes again.

Is that what you really think would happen? States would fail to recognize civil rights, child labor laws, environmental standards, etc.?

We should allow voters to vote on complex budgetary mechanisms relating to the technical measurements of CPI and funding requirements as constitutional amendments because citizens are fully capable of understanding such intricate issues especially when it is written in dense legalese on the ballot, but we shouldn't allow them to vote directly for Senators once every six years because, well, that's just beyond the average voter.

It's not about being beyond the voters, it's about state sovereignty. The Senate is supposed to act as representatives for the state's interests, and it doesn't. Bicameral congress is what our founding fathers intended, but we have abandoned that for a redundant dual body, two-headed beast, which serves it's own self interests. The Senate is complicit in churning out one mandate after another, onto the states, without the state being afforded any say in the matter at all.

We should allow mob rule to override the rule of law.

State are now "mobs" in your opinion? Even when 3/4 or 2/3 or 3/5 are required to do ANYTHING?

 

[Toro]

It's not about being beyond the voters, it's about state sovereignty. The Senate is supposed to act as representatives for the state's interests, and it doesn't.

Right.

IOW the state's interest is what Big Gubmint at the state level says it is, not what the people say it is. It's best that we have state Big Gubmint telling people who should represent them, not asking, you know, the people.

Because Big Gubmint at the state level knows best.



Outstanding.

 

[johnwk]

NEVER has it been considered the states be represented by apportionment. It's not in the Constitution, it defies the principles of sovereignty of state. When we ratify an amendment, we don't do so by electoral delegates based on apportionment, it's not in the Constitution, it can't happen that way. You are completely off in la-la land, with some kakamamie idea that has no basis in Constitutionality at all,

Last time I checked, when Congress is convened in Washington to do business, each state is represented in the House with a number of representatives based upon the rule of apportionment. This is part of the great compromise of 1787 which is written into our Constitution. Did you miss reading that part of our Constitution? Why shouldn’t each state be represented by the rule of apportionment to do business in an Article V convention?

JWK

Wow you really fear losing your big government.

And what do you base that comment on?


JWK


It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.

 

[Boss]

It's not about being beyond the voters, it's about state sovereignty. The Senate is supposed to act as representatives for the state's interests, and it doesn't.

Right.

IOW the state's interest is what Big Gubmint at the state level says it is, not what the people say it is. It's best that we have state Big Gubmint telling people who should represent them, not asking, you know, the people.

Because Big Gubmint at the state level knows best.



Outstanding.

You're not even making any fucking sense. No one has proposed taking away your right to vote, so your state government is the government YOU elect. Your representatives in the US House, are the politicians YOU vote for and elect. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of your particular State, the advocates for your State and what is best for your State. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, they have become an existential branch of the House, not representatives of the State at all. There is no representatives of the State in the Federal government anymore, and subsequently, the States take it in the shorts over and over again. Many states are nearly bankrupt because federal government continues to pile mandated responsibilities onto them, of which they have absolutely no recourse.

You are a mindless fucking idiot, who doesn't understand how government is supposed to function and how a Constitutional republic is supposed to work. You've heard some other idiots lamenting nonsense, and you've attached yourself to that, since you are apparently too stupid to think for yourself. The only "Big Gubmint" you need to worry about, is the one which is currently usurping your freedom at an alarming rate, disregarding your Constitutional rights, and operating in despotic fashion to enslave you forever. If you don't wake the fuck up, it will all be over with, and you won't have the liberty to come here and utter your stupidity anymore.

 

[Toro]

Just a reminder for those who worship at the alter of State's Rights

city government --> collective, government power
county government --> collective, government power
state government --> collective, government power
federal government --> collective, government power

Government is government is government no matter what the level. Simply because the constitution gave rights to state does not imply states protect individual liberties and rights. State government can abuse it's power and trample individual rights just as much the federal government.

The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission was a state agency directed by the governor of Mississippi that existed from 1956 to 1977, also known as the Sov-Com.[2] The commission's stated objective was to "[...] protect the sovereignty of the state of Mississippi, and her sister states" from "federal encroachment." Initially, it was formed to coordinate activities to portray the state, and the legal racial segregation enforced by the state, in a more positive light. ...

As the state's public relations campaign failed to dampen rising civil rights activism, the commission put people to work as a de facto intelligence organization trying to identify those citizens in Mississippi who might be working for civil rights, be allied with communists, or just tipped state surveillance if their associations, activities, and travels did not seem to conform to segregationist norms. Swept up on lists of people under suspicion by such broad criteria were tens of thousands of African-American and white professionals, teachers, and government workers in agricultural and other agencies, churches and community organizations. The "commission penetrated most of the major civil-rights organizations in Mississippi, even planting clerical workers in the offices of activist attorneys. It informed police about planned marches or boycotts and encouraged police harassment of African-Americans who cooperated with civil rights groups. Its agents obstructed voter registration by blacks and harassed African-Americans seeking to attend white schools."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

 

[Toro]

It's not about being beyond the voters, it's about state sovereignty. The Senate is supposed to act as representatives for the state's interests, and it doesn't.

Right.

IOW the state's interest is what Big Gubmint at the state level says it is, not what the people say it is. It's best that we have state Big Gubmint telling people who should represent them, not asking, you know, the people.

Because Big Gubmint at the state level knows best.



Outstanding.

You're not even making any fucking sense. No one has proposed taking away your right to vote, so your state government is the government YOU elect. Your representatives in the US House, are the politicians YOU vote for and elect. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of your particular State, the advocates for your State and what is best for your State. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, they have become an existential branch of the House, not representatives of the State at all. There is no representatives of the State in the Federal government anymore, and subsequently, the States take it in the shorts over and over again. Many states are nearly bankrupt because federal government continues to pile mandated responsibilities onto them, of which they have absolutely no recourse.

You are a mindless fucking idiot, who doesn't understand how government is supposed to function and how a Constitutional republic is supposed to work. You've heard some other idiots lamenting nonsense, and you've attached yourself to that, since you are apparently too stupid to think for yourself. The only "Big Gubmint" you need to worry about, is the one which is currently usurping your freedom at an alarming rate, disregarding your Constitutional rights, and operating in despotic fashion to enslave you forever. If you don't wake the fuck up, it will all be over with, and you won't have the liberty to come here and utter your stupidity anymore.

^^^^^^^
Another Big Gubmint "Conservative" hypocrite who thinks government knows better than individuals. Individuals are too stupid to vote for their Senator. Best we have government telling us what our interests are than having individuals deciding for ourselves.

Hello! It's not the 1840s anymore!

 

[johnwk]

John, you are raising the same defeated points all over again, so there is no need for me to address them again. Go back and read my response to the first time you raised them, it hasn't changed. The Constitution still says nothing about amendments being determined by apportionment. Each state still gets one vote, every amendment presently in the Constitution was ratified this way.

A convention can consider one amendment or several, just as Congress can, but it cannot rewrite and replace the Constitution. If the convention adopts 500 new amendments, then all 500 must be ratified by 3/4 of all states to become part of the Constitution, the same as if it proposes one amendment, the same as if Congress were to do so.

Delegates appointed by state legislatures are serving at the behest of state interests, and if the state feels so compelled, can withdraw the delegates from the convention at any time, if said delegate decides to 'go rogue' and start acting contrary to the interests of the state. The state also has the option of completely ignoring what the delegates do at the convention, they don't even have to offer it up for ratification following the convention, if it doesn't meet the criteria they deem appropriate. And even if they did, the proposal would have to be adopted by 3/4 of the states to be ratified into the Constitution. There is ZERO chance of a "runaway" convention. As Levin points out, the "runaway" is happening right now, in Washington, with Congress, the President and SCOTUS, who continue to ignore and usurp the Constitution.

Why does it matter if Congress, The President, and SCOTUS won't abide by the current letter of the Constitution, what makes us think it will abide by these new amendments? Well, because the power of the decision making is taken out of their hands and returned to the states, so other people are making the decisions.

No one on this end suggested convention delegates can change our existing Constitution. You state the obvious to avoid what the delegates can do should an Article V convention be called. And, they could write an entirely new constitution with an entirely new form of government, and vest powers in that new government as they see fit, and then ignore our existing constitution’s required ¾ state approval by which to effectuate their doings, and perhaps require a majority vote of our existing Senate to make their new Constitution the supreme law of the land. Even worse, they could require a simple majority vote of the people to effectuate the new constitution, and hail their new government as the people’s “democracy”, in which 51 percent of the voters would be left free to vote away the property and liberties of the remaining 49 percent of the nation’s population.

In regard to your notion about delegates acting “at the behest of state interests”, it is far more probable they would do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates. So who is it that will be selecting these delegates? Will it be those like myself who support and defend our existing Constitution along with the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or will the selection of delegates be left to those who have already spat upon their state constitution and despise the miracle our founding fathers produced? I suspect the latter choice would prevail and they would then be free to begin the process to undo our existing system of government, and make legal the “soft tyranny” Mark Levin often refers to. And the remarkable thing is that Mark Levin would have been part of the undoing of our existing Constitution.

JWK

America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.

 

[Boss]

Just a reminder for those who worship at the alter of State's Rights

city government --> collective, government power
county government --> collective, government power
state government --> collective, government power
federal government --> collective, government power

Government is government is government no matter what the level. Simply because the constitution gave rights to state does not imply states protect individual liberties and rights. State government can abuse it's power and trample individual rights just as much the federal government.

Bravo! So we should just disband all forms of government and live in Anarchy as a society! That's the only solution, if all government is bad! Fucking IDIOT!

 

[Boss]

John, you are raising the same defeated points all over again, so there is no need for me to address them again. Go back and read my response to the first time you raised them, it hasn't changed. The Constitution still says nothing about amendments being determined by apportionment. Each state still gets one vote, every amendment presently in the Constitution was ratified this way.

A convention can consider one amendment or several, just as Congress can, but it cannot rewrite and replace the Constitution. If the convention adopts 500 new amendments, then all 500 must be ratified by 3/4 of all states to become part of the Constitution, the same as if it proposes one amendment, the same as if Congress were to do so.

Delegates appointed by state legislatures are serving at the behest of state interests, and if the state feels so compelled, can withdraw the delegates from the convention at any time, if said delegate decides to 'go rogue' and start acting contrary to the interests of the state. The state also has the option of completely ignoring what the delegates do at the convention, they don't even have to offer it up for ratification following the convention, if it doesn't meet the criteria they deem appropriate. And even if they did, the proposal would have to be adopted by 3/4 of the states to be ratified into the Constitution. There is ZERO chance of a "runaway" convention. As Levin points out, the "runaway" is happening right now, in Washington, with Congress, the President and SCOTUS, who continue to ignore and usurp the Constitution.

Why does it matter if Congress, The President, and SCOTUS won't abide by the current letter of the Constitution, what makes us think it will abide by these new amendments? Well, because the power of the decision making is taken out of their hands and returned to the states, so other people are making the decisions.

No one on this end suggested convention delegates can change our existing Constitution.

Yes, YOU have, and you are about to do it again...

You state the obvious to avoid what the delegates can do should an Article V convention be called.

I've stated the FACTS of what the delegates can do, they are sent by the state to follow the guidelines laid out by the states, to do what the state sends them to do at the convention and nothing more. If they don't do what the state sends them to do, the state can withdraw them from the convention immediately. If for some reason, they do something without the state knowing about it until after the fact, the state can ignore what they did and not proceed with ratification or even acknowledge what they did. If for some bizarre reason, the state forgets to do this or lets this slip by them somehow, then the radical proposal has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.

And, they could write an entirely new constitution with an entirely new form of government, and vest powers in that new government as they see fit, and then ignore our existing constitution’s required ¾ state approval by which to effectuate their doings, and perhaps require a majority vote of our existing Senate to make their new Constitution the supreme law of the land.

NO THEY CAN'T!

Even worse, they could require a simple majority vote of the people to effectuate the new constitution, and hail their new government as the people’s “democracy”, in which 51 percent of the voters would be left free to vote away the property and liberties of the remaining 49 percent of the nation’s population.

NO THEY CAN'T!

In regard to your notion about delegates acting “at the behest of state interests”, it is far more probable they would do the bidding of those who appoint them as delegates. So who is it that will be selecting these delegates?

They are appointed by the legislatures of the states who send them. It's not "my notion" it's how the process works, this is documented and set, not debatable, not questionable.

Will it be those like myself who support and defend our existing Constitution along with the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or will the selection of delegates be left to those who have already spat upon their state constitution and despise the miracle our founding fathers produced? I suspect the latter choice would prevail and they would then be free to begin the process to undo our existing system of government, and make legal the “soft tyranny” Mark Levin often refers to.

Well, it won't be people like yourself, because you oppose an Article V convention. So you won't be represented at the convention in any regard. The only delegates at the convention, will be those appointed by the states who called for a convention. Your concerns and fears will be completely mute at the convention, because you're not going to be there.

And the remarkable thing is that Mark Levin would have been part of the undoing of our existing Constitution.

As Mark points out, the "undoing of our existing Constitution" is already happening right now, before our very eyes! All of this fear mongering you are doing, is to protect the continued undoing of our existing Constitution. Apparently, you like that it is being undone, and don't believe we should do a thing about that....(except to spew a few more radical anarchist platitudes you have no balls to proceed with.)

 

[Toro]

Just a reminder for those who worship at the alter of State's Rights

city government --> collective, government power
county government --> collective, government power
state government --> collective, government power
federal government --> collective, government power

Government is government is government no matter what the level. Simply because the constitution gave rights to state does not imply states protect individual liberties and rights. State government can abuse it's power and trample individual rights just as much the federal government.

Bravo! So we should just disband all forms of government and live in Anarchy as a society! That's the only solution, if all government is bad! Fucking IDIOT!

Whoosh! That's the sound of the point going right over your head.

This isn't about the 17th amendment. This is about you guys continuously losing and finding excuses. Rather than look at yourselves, you come up with these idiotic ideas.

But run with it. Tell the voters you're going to take away their voting rights. I'm sure you'll enjoy being in the political wilderness for a generation.

 

[johnwk]

John, you are raising the same defeated points all over again, so there is no need for me to address them again. Go back and read my response to the first time you raised them, it hasn't changed. The Constitution still says nothing about amendments being determined by apportionment. Each state still gets one vote, every amendment presently in the Constitution was ratified this way.

A convention can consider one amendment or several, just as Congress can, but it cannot rewrite and replace the Constitution. If the convention adopts 500 new amendments, then all 500 must be ratified by 3/4 of all states to become part of the Constitution, the same as if it proposes one amendment, the same as if Congress were to do so.

Delegates appointed by state legislatures are serving at the behest of state interests, and if the state feels so compelled, can withdraw the delegates from the convention at any time, if said delegate decides to 'go rogue' and start acting contrary to the interests of the state. The state also has the option of completely ignoring what the delegates do at the convention, they don't even have to offer it up for ratification following the convention, if it doesn't meet the criteria they deem appropriate. And even if they did, the proposal would have to be adopted by 3/4 of the states to be ratified into the Constitution. There is ZERO chance of a "runaway" convention. As Levin points out, the "runaway" is happening right now, in Washington, with Congress, the President and SCOTUS, who continue to ignore and usurp the Constitution.

Why does it matter if Congress, The President, and SCOTUS won't abide by the current letter of the Constitution, what makes us think it will abide by these new amendments? Well, because the power of the decision making is taken out of their hands and returned to the states, so other people are making the decisions.

No one on this end suggested convention delegates can change our existing Constitution.

Yes, YOU have, and you are about to do it again...


I've stated the FACTS of what the delegates can do, they are sent by the state to follow the guidelines laid out by the states, to do what the state sends them to do at the convention and nothing more. If they don't do what the state sends them to do, the state can withdraw them from the convention immediately. If for some reason, they do something without the state knowing about it until after the fact, the state can ignore what they did and not proceed with ratification or even acknowledge what they did. If for some bizarre reason, the state forgets to do this or lets this slip by them somehow, then the radical proposal has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.



NO THEY CAN'T!



NO THEY CAN'T!


They are appointed by the legislatures of the states who send them. It's not "my notion" it's how the process works, this is documented and set, not debatable, not questionable.

Will it be those like myself who support and defend our existing Constitution along with the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or will the selection of delegates be left to those who have already spat upon their state constitution and despise the miracle our founding fathers produced? I suspect the latter choice would prevail and they would then be free to begin the process to undo our existing system of government, and make legal the “soft tyranny” Mark Levin often refers to.

Well, it won't be people like yourself, because you oppose an Article V convention. So you won't be represented at the convention in any regard. The only delegates at the convention, will be those appointed by the states who called for a convention. Your concerns and fears will be completely mute at the convention, because you're not going to be there.

And the remarkable thing is that Mark Levin would have been part of the undoing of our existing Constitution.

As Mark points out, the "undoing of our existing Constitution" is already happening right now, before our very eyes! All of this fear mongering you are doing, is to protect the continued undoing of our existing Constitution. Apparently, you like that it is being undone, and don't believe we should do a thing about that....(except to spew a few more radical anarchist platitudes you have no balls to proceed with.)

How nice of you to once again post your unsubstantiated and groundless opinion and fail to address my specific points.

JWK

 

[thanatos144]

No one on this end suggested convention delegates can change our existing Constitution.

Yes, YOU have, and you are about to do it again...


I've stated the FACTS of what the delegates can do, they are sent by the state to follow the guidelines laid out by the states, to do what the state sends them to do at the convention and nothing more. If they don't do what the state sends them to do, the state can withdraw them from the convention immediately. If for some reason, they do something without the state knowing about it until after the fact, the state can ignore what they did and not proceed with ratification or even acknowledge what they did. If for some bizarre reason, the state forgets to do this or lets this slip by them somehow, then the radical proposal has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.



NO THEY CAN'T!



NO THEY CAN'T!


They are appointed by the legislatures of the states who send them. It's not "my notion" it's how the process works, this is documented and set, not debatable, not questionable.



Well, it won't be people like yourself, because you oppose an Article V convention. So you won't be represented at the convention in any regard. The only delegates at the convention, will be those appointed by the states who called for a convention. Your concerns and fears will be completely mute at the convention, because you're not going to be there.

And the remarkable thing is that Mark Levin would have been part of the undoing of our existing Constitution.

As Mark points out, the "undoing of our existing Constitution" is already happening right now, before our very eyes! All of this fear mongering you are doing, is to protect the continued undoing of our existing Constitution. Apparently, you like that it is being undone, and don't believe we should do a thing about that....(except to spew a few more radical anarchist platitudes you have no balls to proceed with.)

How nice of you to once again post your unsubstantiated and groundless opinion and fail to address my specific points.

JWK

Why don't you buy and read the book.