Is this true? Do you think 34 states would sign on? And would it hold weight if we did?
(media.greatawakening.win)
WWG1WGA
Comments (70)
sorted by:
Constitutional conventions are very very dangerous. Anything can be brought forward, there is a reason there has only ever been one convention.
Its a convention of states, not a constitutional convention. No more dangerous than the re-writing of the constitution we have going on right now
I will have to look into that more, my understanding has been 2 methods of amending the constitution, Congress or the states call a constitutional convention, I’ve always understood conventions are very dangerous and there has only ever been the one. Granted they are stomping all over the constitution and violating it but the constitution still Is what it is. We need to get leaders back in power who will support the constitution.
The only people that call the constitutional conventions “dangerous“ are those that are scared of WE THE PEOPLE.
This is true. Constitutional conventions scare DC politicians. Why? Because suddenly they don't get any more say than you or I. Conventions bypass them - and that's the point.
Or scared of what some crazy state like NY or CA might being. Under a constitutional convention anything can be proposed. We run the risk of something far worse being added.
Clearly you are afraid of the citizens having the actual power.
SIT DOWN & STFU
Not at all, I thought we were here to discuss. Many have heard the same thing I have about the concerns of constitutional conventions and thankfully some people on here were kind enough to give me more information, which is what I thought the whole point was. They gave me more information to think and were not just rude as it seems you might be trying to start a fight. I appreciate constructive criticism and those who get me to think outside my comfort zone, give me more information I may not have had and not call me a coward.
Read Mark Levin's book about article 5 and convention of states. Great read and enlightening.
Thank you! Will do, love learning new things especially when I can’t trust some of the history I’ve been taught.
Give me a state convention over a congress vote any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I just don’t trust some of the other states, they can propose stuff too under a convention. Look at what these corrupt states did with the Election..
The whole point is it takes 35 of them to agree. It doesn't matter what they do if they can't convince the rest of the US.
Makes sense, there has only been the one as stated before so it’s true it could be a myth meant to keep states from trying to amend the constitution. We just have some crazy states!
I know. I live in one of them (CA). I'm pretty sure Dominion made us the way we are today. It's not the people like so many believe. While we do have more than our fair share of blue-pilled, I think the state itself overall is pretty red.
Amendments can also be directly enacted by the states (assuming the requisite 34 states pass such an amendment) or passed into law by Congress and then ratified by the states. A convention is not the only way to amend the constitution. A convention does, however, allow states to bypass Congress. 34 states still ultimately need to agree to the amendments. So while any idea may be presented, it has to get approval from 34 states.
Hmmm. 34? That's like 17 + 17.
So it is........hmmm
The "dangerous" label was put on there to scare us away from taking back control from the federal government.
As Reefay said, check out Mark Levin's explanation.
Thank you, will do!
I tend to agree with you, but I have to ask if we've reached the point where it's the best remaining alternative?
I’m hoping we are to the end. I just don’t know how people who have been here from the beginning have handled it all. I don’t know how much more I can take! My county is more asleep than awake. I am one of the few who refuse to wear a mask, when most of the rest of my states counties never followed the BS. I was a little sad when I went to dinner with my sons special ed teacher and a few other parents, out of the 5 of us only 2 won’t get the vaccine (me being one). I sympathized with one who has pretty much been locked down for a year, their daughter is downs and had to have heart surgery in October. My sons teacher is so sweet, and just wants to teach. I keep thinking of Plan to save the world video, people just want to get married have kids and live their lives. The 3rd mom works in the medical field and can’t wait to get her special needs son (10) “vaccinated”. I was trying not to be the Debbie downer and had to bite my tongue. By the end of dinner I couldn’t help but mention a few things. They had not heard of the great reset, agenda 2030, the WEC, or any of it. I tried to tell a bit but added, I can feel good things coming and the best is yet to come. I did say that we have to protect our rights, the Jews weren’t just rounded up and thrown in cattle cars. It happened over time, little by little.its hard to balance how to wake people up when it’s someone like my sons teacher and I really like her.
lol I like how you weave the fake Holocaust in there after a block of dooming
Ol' Reliable...
Well I truly was not trying to doom, it was just disheartening when I meet such nice people who just want to live their lives and trust. I didn’t know how to approach it. I don’t know about fake Holocaust, haven’t looked much into that just what I’ve studied but again I realize I can’t trust anything. I have a BA in history, again history books are only as accurate as the writer wants you to believe. I did go to a good school though and felt like they did a good job. Although I still think it was a good example to use on the group, it’s something they could understand as they learned in schools. I guess I could use any historical event, tyrannical governments aren’t going to warn you. How would you have explained it, or should I not try to warn people I know? They are good people who I think will believe the truth, I just don’t want to come across as an “the end in near” person to them, how do you warn them without dooming. It’s also harder not to sound doomy when your tired, I’ve had other encounters that went great.
You sound nice enough, Martha, so I apologize for jumping on your case.
Coincidently, I just posted this and it may be an answer to your question:
If the left tries something stupid whatever they do then has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. If they try to rig that or cheat doing that the public will lose their shit. Stupid being afraid of these lunatics.
US BEING AFRAID IS WHAT GIVES THEM POWER!!!
u/#victory
lol How can you say they are VERY VERY dangerous if there has only been ONE?
how the fuck is this the top comment? lol
Well the first constitutional convention was where they created the document and it wasn’t just one amendment. During a convention anything can be proposed, from any crazy state the danger lies in not knowing what the heck you might wind up with. I don’t even want to think about what New York or California would come up with.
We live in a termite infested house. The foundation is solid but the structure above it is beyond saving. The only option is to tear it down and rebuild.
It is my belief that we need to repeal every amendment after the tenth and begin anew.
That is what the left says too. Tear it down and rebuild, the foundation is unlike anything ever seen in history. Men have God given rights not government given rights! I don’t know what the answer is, but we do have to clean house you are 100% correct on that.
That is NOT what the left says. AT ALL. They want to destroy the Constitutition completely. I dont. I think everything after the first ten amendments has bastardized and twisted what our Founding Fathers envisioned into something barely recognizable.
I guess I misunderstood you, when you said “tear down and rebuild”, that is exactly what I’ve heard from progressive/ liberal activists, the difference is they just want to rebuild in their idea. I loved listening to Rush Limbaugh and he always said they look at the constitution as a bill of negative rights, says what the government can’t do and not what the government can do. That’s the glory of our constitution, anything not in the constitution is either left to the states to govern themselves the way the people want. No offense, just misunderstood you.
I did get my back up thinking you were likening me to one of those demonic pedophiles hell bent on destroying everything good in the world. Trust me I am not that. I am a full blooded Patriot that would gladly give my life to preserve this Nation as originally intended. I am 55 years old and weep at the thought of what my grandchildren may have to live through and my own lack of vigilence that played a part.
I am glad we could come to an understanding.
Sorry! I understand what you mean, it really is difficult to truly convey meaning in this form of communication. I find that I have many arguments with family over text because inflection can not be sent via text
There is a Soros backed effort to open a constitutional convention. Not sure if this is related. The idea sounds like something most of us can support. Like Martha1776 says once a convention is opened then any type of amendment can be proposed and adopted. The best path to term limits is free and fair elections.
Honest elections would work just fine. This is just a solution that doesn't address the real problem, which we all saw clearly 11/3/20.
I hope this is true!!
No term limits makes it easier for a small compromised minority to slowly infiltrate over time... kill the cancer!
Like a minority of 2%?
How about no campaign donations from outside of the area you hope to represent. Also, every donation amount and the name of the donor must be published within 24 hours of the donation. So, all the money for elections in a county or state or national election can only come from those groups of people who will be represented and everyone will know who may be supporting/buying a candidate. Just .02 cents.
I think there should be some anonymity since people could be targeted for supporting their preferred candidate. Maybe posting the zip code at least?
Imagine a world without pelosi and schumer...
Term limits are not a panacea to end corruption. The average politician is a piece of shit, and in the majority. The few good ones are in the minority.
So what is good about ending the careers of the few good politicians who make it to congress by imposing an arbitrary term limit on them?
We throw out the few good ones, along with lots of bad ones. What does that accomplish? Odds are the bad ones get replaced by more bad ones because the majority of politicians are pieces of shit. And worse, odds are that the few good ones who get thrown out are replaced by bad ones, because the majority of politicians are pieces of shit. Term limits won't do what people hope they will do, and could very likely make matters worse. Term limits are shortsighted, and invite a high risk for shooting ourselves in the foot.
There would be less piece of shit politicians if it was less fruitful of a position and easy to blackmail consistently.
This one.
Term limits are necessary to block whores and vodka elementals
I agree with this. It also creates more lame duck type opportunities for our “lawmakers”. We need honest and fair elections before deciding to impose term limits. Term limits are a bandaid on a gun shot for the time being. They may still ultimately be appropriate, I just find it hard to assess at this juncture.
I will totally campaign and work for my State to join. Term limits are way beyond necessary and far over due
We all subconsciously know the jerks in congress are not smart enough to read or write a bill. We all know they are puppets. And yet we still focus all our anger at them.
The last piece of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is written on K-Street. K-Street Lobbyists write the laws. Congress critters sell the laws. Lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws. That’s modern legislative business in DC.
Pass term limits all you want. Pretend "voting" matters. And then be shocked when the new guys walk down K-Street to see who will offer them the most cash to pass their bills... just like the old guys.
This is a bit misleading. There is no such thing as a “term limits” convention. That’s just not a thing. There is however a call for a convention of states. In the convention of states term limits is one of the items up for discussion. As well as lobbying fiscal responsibility, An end to qualified immunity, and the removal of corporate money from Washington DC, a return to true constitutional republic is the goal. My state has become one of the 18 states officially calling for it.
It’s a one-way our founders gave the citizenry to bypass all levels of Congress and amend the constitution directly. The last convention we had of this sorts actually drafted the fuckin Constitution, So this move has power most people don’t even realize
When you think of term limits, think of the new members seated in recent years. AOC and her crew come to mind. I shudder at the thought of a Congress dominated by a group of young zealots with no real world life experience. Be careful what you wish for because you may get it.
Yeah, I think we need 2/3s of states which would equal 33.33, so 34 states.
Wish we could get rid of the fucktard governor of Louisiana because the only thing he'd sign on to is a love letter to Xi Jinping.
No one in Louisiana voted R,R,R,D. Edwards is a Dominion/Smartmatic creation. And 48 hours after the election, when we started asking questions... "Zomg! The DMV gots a ransomware attac and we lost voting records. Ohhhn noes!"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=John+Bel+Edwards+Louisiana+DMV+ransomware&t=brave&ia=web
Yep and all of a sudden, fucktard miraculously received the votes he needed to win.
If this is the only way to pass term limits to senators and congress assholes then so be it.
A Constitutional convention is real and allows for amendments to the constitution. GOP controls the majority of states so this is very possible. It bypasses the corrupt congress. As long as the states are on the same page this is not dangerous and in fact would allow constitutional to create amendments to reign in Congress. Stuff like term limits, fortify states rights, limit the amount of SCOTUS judges, fortify 2a, force SCOTUS to hear cases of unique standing (state vs state) etc.
Honestly might be the only way to save the country other than war.
As long as the term limits are 0 I'm happy
Wow. This would solve a lot of problems with politics in the current structure. I really hope this passes. It would limit the effectiveness of lobbyists, and also make the government less beurocratic. It'd also be a way for the public to keep public opinion sync's with politicians.
I really like this. Also, they really need to limit/restrict PACs and super PACs. Corporations use these to essentially bribe politicians and get what they want. I work for a company that uses PACs to essentially manipulate what politicians should vote for. It sickens me.
At one point, there were a lot of states with red legislatures that had agreed to a Constitutional Convention for a balanced budget (I believe?) and some may have added term limits. Mark Levin was pushing the effort while we had so many red governors/legislatures after 2010. One problem was that all had different language and there was a concern that a Convention could be hijacked. But if the Republic ended after the 14th Amendment then we will need a Convention to address certain Amendments added after while under the Corporation.
When I heard him explain how the founders foresaw this need to go around Congress and enable the states on their own to call a Constitutional Convention, I was once again awed at the brilliance of those men. But in actuality, it was one man who really pushed for the ability of the states to be able to call a convention (I can't recall who ATM) - but he convinced others to add it. And thank God!
Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
From my limited understanding of the US Constitution, I thought that the Federal government was kind of like an outsourced provider of services to the member states when they want to present a single front to the rest of the world.
All of the checks and balances put into place were supposed to prevent this organisation from getting too big for their boots - hence why they are trying to change the nature of the contract and take over.
If this is true, then the member states are able to re-set the terms of the agreement or even just sack the Federal government and present themselves to the world as a sovereign state in their own right.
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
https://conventionofstates.com/
It's not an easy lift getting 34 states on the same page.