The Tea Party has become the Article V movement

The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
 
Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.

I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.
 
Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.

I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.

His goal apparently is to use the lack of an opposing GOP candidate
to rally as much media attention for himself to push his radio show that was cut.

If he had a good idea for resolving whatever issues he is targeting,
he could use that to push for real strategic solutions.

Instead he is just trying to play the same game as Cortez, Beto, etc.
and just say whatever he thinks is going to cause a stir in the media
and troll for shares by other people, trying to ride on the publicity.

Beto and Cortez could also use their notoriety to push for real
solutions instead of things that aren't going to fly through
Govt based on Constitutional limits, as Buttigieg pointed out
with how his colleagues are pushing for universal medicare in ways
that are not supportable by the public expected to pay for that.

They need REAL solutions that will speak for themselves.

Cortez and Beto are more effective at playing the game for
political publicity than Joe Walsh is. Too bad, because their
ability to speak in public and through media would be great
for promoting real solutions that empower people to participate
directly and democratically, instead of just mouthing off in the media
 
Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.

I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.

His goal apparently is to use the lack of an opposing GOP candidate
to rally as much media attention for himself to push his radio show that was cut.

If he had a good idea for resolving whatever issues he is targeting,
he could use that to push for real strategic solutions.

Instead he is just trying to play the same game as Cortez, Beto, etc.
and just say whatever he thinks is going to cause a stir in the media
and troll for shares by other people, trying to ride on the publicity.

Beto and Cortez could also use their notoriety to push for real
solutions instead of things that aren't going to fly through
Govt based on Constitutional limits, as Buttigieg pointed out
with how his colleagues are pushing for universal medicare in ways
that are not supportable by the public expected to pay for that.

They need REAL solutions that will speak for themselves.

Cortez and Beto are more effective at playing the game for
political publicity than Joe Walsh is. Too bad, because their
ability to speak in public and through media would be great
for promoting real solutions that empower people to participate
directly and democratically, instead of just mouthing off in the media
Well, here you can find a list of legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Cortez:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Does that not fit the bill?
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
 
Last edited:
Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.


In retrospect, I did have someone approach me with this idea some years ago and I agree with most of the points you made.

The problem I face is that I know what laws need to be changed and some things that need to be done, but there is NO organization in America where those discussions can take place.

Having to over-come the hurdles you mention, you've probably saved me from a lot of wasted time. Anything that would bring about a Constitutional Convention would put any remaining Rights we have at risk and we cannot trust that to an uneducated populace.

If you were looking to change someone's mind, then your post was not in vain. Mission accomplished.
 
Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.

The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.

There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement. First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through. And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is. Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again. We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era. America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump. The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now. Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended. Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely. In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover. Nothing else will do.
 
Last edited:
The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.


In retrospect, I did have someone approach me with this idea some years ago and I agree with most of the points you made.

The problem I face is that I know what laws need to be changed and some things that need to be done, but there is NO organization in America where those discussions can take place.

Having to over-come the hurdles you mention, you've probably saved me from a lot of wasted time. Anything that would bring about a Constitutional Convention would put any remaining Rights we have at risk and we cannot trust that to an uneducated populace.

If you were looking to change someone's mind, then your post was not in vain. Mission accomplished.

You are correct, most voters are ignorant and easily manipulated via the press and education system, etc. However, the beautiful thing about the Article V movement is, only educated voters will pursue it.

Here is an example of how intelligent voters are.



People are now just voting for an empty suit party member, nothing more.

In addition, most people who vote only show up during a Presidential race and only are concerned with voting for the President. Why? It's because power has been centralized to the President and we have been conditioned to look to only one man for our "collective salvation".

That is the bad news, the good news is that the Article V amendment relies only on state legislators being elected. I would say that 99.9% of the populace has no idea who they even are and have left that box blank as a result.

But it is the same as it was during the Revolution. Most Americans did not support the war and not involved in the war. Those that want freedom must work within the minority and do their best to secure liberty once again.
 
The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.

Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier.

If I did that kind of work, I would just guest post on a blog somewhere; few people here are actually serious about anything, just here to peddle their pet crackpot theories, and a waste of time to try and engage in serious discussions. This thread is an example, for instance the belief that the 5th A. causes the problem of corporate power. It doesn't, it's the radical abuses of the 14th that is the major source of 'corporate personhood' and the even worse abuse of 'judicial review' cases from 1864 up to the early 1900's.


I know other people who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

The ;middle class' has lost any ability to govern itself; it demographics is largely made up of dope addled loons who glorify mindless self-indulgence over everything else, and that includes both the sniveling, spoiled Burb Brat Left Whiners and their fellow travelers on the 'Social Darwinist Right whiners. neither wing producing anything but sociopaths and assorted deviants who all agree on destroying the country via various schemes, all revolving around personal whims and selfishness. They just use different rhetoric, is all; it isn't only the left's propaganda hacks who use the Gramsci For Dummies tactics laid out by Alinsky.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

You seem to think it the Amendments that are the problem, so you're not as interested in 'a common language' as you think you are. And again, these natural laws' don't exist, except in academic circle jerks. Mostly they come from a list of morals derived from ancient Greek philosophies through the Judaeo- Christian paradigms and that centuries long social revolution, Thomas Of Aquina, and co., to the Protestant revolutions, through the early evangelicals of the First and Second Great Awakenings. A sort of 'Great Third Great Awakening' took place in the late 1800's early 1900s as well, but it was weak, too weak to do anything but slow down the general trends.

See, your first problems that need to be resolved are rolling back social revolutions; without those, on amount of bullshit talk is going to be effective. This cite says it best:

.... the overlap between the Senate's rise within the governmental structure and the parallel ascent of corporations within the U.S. economy was unmistakable. The two fed on each other from the late 1860's to the early 1900's when corporations - indeed, wealth itself - began to be curbed. A half century earlier, during the post-Civil War decade, businessmen had been extorted by more simplistic forms of government corruption - New York's Tweed Ring, the Whiskey Ring, the Customhouse Ring, and suchlike. This produced the half-reformism wryly summarized by New York's Horatio Seymour:

"Our People want men in office who will not steal, but who will not interfere with those in private enterprise who do."

pages 238-239, Wealth and Democracy---- by Kevin Phillips, Broadway Books, New York 2002



And therein lies the differences in the 'basic math you see and what 'basic math' reality forces on even defining the necessary issues correctly. American government does actually represent American values; that's what nobody wants to admit, and why all the bloviating and high minded 'language' just hides corrupt beliefs itself. That's what ideologists are for, after all, to hide bullshit behind some self-endowed moral authority or other.
 
The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough. Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money". They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States. This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln. More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional. No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic. State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government. You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them. Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy. Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country. In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things. Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring. Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism. Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee. This was the plan all along.

Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.

There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement. First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through. And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is. Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again. We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era. America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump. The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now. Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended. Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely. In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover. Nothing else will do.

Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
why not acknowledge that problem up front?
And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
fix the problems with Government that HAVEN'T been following the
Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.

Of course there is.

It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
But if you lose, you lose all what you had and that means
being left with nothing.

However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
have nothing to lose. How do we set up an agreed process
where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.
 
Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.

Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.

There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement. First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through. And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is. Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again. We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era. America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump. The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now. Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended. Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely. In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover. Nothing else will do.

Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
why not acknowledge that problem up front?
And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
fix the problems with Government that HAVEN'T been following the
Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.

Of course there is.

It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
But if you lose, you lose all what you had and that means
being left with nothing.

However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
have nothing to lose. How do we set up an agreed process
where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.

I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

Why? Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled. Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.

That should absolve all fear about it.
 
Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.

There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement. First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through. And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is. Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again. We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era. America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump. The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now. Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended. Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely. In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover. Nothing else will do.

Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
why not acknowledge that problem up front?
And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
fix the problems with Government that HAVEN'T been following the
Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.

Of course there is.

It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
But if you lose, you lose all what you had and that means
being left with nothing.

However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
have nothing to lose. How do we set up an agreed process
where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.

I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

Why? Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled. Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.

That should absolve all fear about it.

You already have term limits. It's called an election. We got our first Muslim into the White House with term limits. He promised to transform America. Are you satisfied with how screwed up he left it?

Balanced Budget Amendment - yeah. Let's put this into perspective:

Let us say a man has $100,000 of debt. He makes his minimum monthly payments and is balancing his budget. But, wait, he needs a new car. So, now he has to raise his debt ceiling AND take on another job to afford the car. His new job allows him to pay for the car and balance his budget, but he never really pays down his debt. So every time he needs something in addition to what he has, he has to find a way to get more money.

In the context of government, they would always be raising your taxes. It's been quite a number of years since I checked, but decades ago, the average American was spending over 55 percent of all they made on taxes. The only real solution there is to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve (which is no more "federal" than Federal Express) and return to constitutional taxation.

The way it's rigged - you can NEVER pay down the federal deficit. Balancing the budget is just a way for Republicans to counter Democrats with a stalling technique that resolves nothing.
 
Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.

Ok, I'm interested. If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.

There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement. First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through. And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is. Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again. We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era. America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump. The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now. Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended. Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely. In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover. Nothing else will do.

Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
why not acknowledge that problem up front?
And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
fix the problems with Government that HAVEN'T been following the
Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.

Of course there is.

It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
But if you lose, you lose all what you had and that means
being left with nothing.

However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
have nothing to lose. How do we set up an agreed process
where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.

I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

Why? Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled. Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.

That should absolve all fear about it.

Those are two common sense amendments, but I have real concerns about ANY amendments being constitutional with the current batch of legislators. And Article V requires that all amendments have constitutional intent.

Discussing amendments without determining how to make sure legislators pass no unconstitutional amendment is a primary need of the peoples.
 

Forum List

Back
Top