>Both warned that such a convention could not be controlled once set in motion. They also said that, under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the states, would be in charge of launching the convention.
>“Things could be worse, believe it or not,” said Judi Caler with the Eagle Forum. “This would make it worse. We could have a tyrannical constitution with new ratification process imposed on us.”
>David Super of Georgetown said that, contrary to supporters’ claims, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would limit the topics addressed by such a convention and nothing that would allow states to control the outcome. He said the only limit would be what convention delegates set for themselves.
I'm just trying to warn people who have never been on the left before that you could be playing right into their hands. Soros WANTS a convention of states.
except it really isnt though. did you stop for two seconds to ask yourself why you would want something that soros has been dreaming about for well over a decade?
because there was no general majority public support for the idea in the past, and too much republican and moderate-democrat resistance. It's not like super easy to call a convention of states. theres all sorts of shit soros wants and hasn't gotten yet. he isn't God.
youre being tricked by fake-maga globotrash influencers into liking this idea, imo
I lived my entire life as a raging blue haired prog. You don't care. Hopefully others reading this thread will at least see this. Progs were always pushing as hard as they could for a convention of states. As someone who had to scrape the brainwashing out of the inside of my head, ALL my alarm bells go off on this shit.
I think there is inherent risk in a convention of states. I also think there is inherent reward with a convention of states.
The correct outcome will only occur through massive vigilance by We The People.
Here are a few of my thoughts.
With the status quo, our country is nose diving off a cliff right now. We are at the precipice as a nation. Depending on this year's midterms and 2024, it is possible that our country will be lost forever. We can see the deeply rooted corruption all around us. This is where we are now.
I believe one of the main reasons our country is cucked right now is because there are no term limits for any elected officials except for President. This allows blackmail, bribery, and undue political influence to get deeply entrenched in our political system. This is the main reason that deep state uniparty politicians never lose. They are 100% controlled by their handlers. As we saw in 2020, their handlers also control the vote counting, so We The People truly have no voice via representative government.
If you look at an election map of our country based on county, our nation is very deep red all over the place. Only major cities are blue for the most part. When power is used at lower levels, meaning counties and municipalities, the power gets much stronger for conservative influence. This would be a good thing if there is a convention of states.
The TRUTH is coming out about the plandemic and it will continue to do so. When people realize that our federal government committed mass murder via covid hospital protocols and "vaccine" demands, the people will be so unbelievably pissed off that it will be the perfect time to hold a convention of states and dramatically limit the federal government's control over the people. Our nation was founded on the basis of federalism (state power) and there is no question that the federal government has taken far too much power and used it for ill will.
It is my understanding from reading one of the bills passed, Wisconsin in this case, that their request for a convention is limited to specific calls of action:
...for the calling of a Convention of the States limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress...
In conclusion, the status quo is killing our country. We must create major changes to get out of our controlled demise. Term limits are an essential component needed to remove corrupt lifelong politicians. I do not mean to minimize the objectives of fiscal restraint either, these are essential as well. I am personally convinced that the majority of federal spending is a giant money laundering operation designed to enrich the politicians themselves, along with their enablers.
I would also add that the convention of states should also make all elected politicians accountable to the laws they pass. No more carve outs for members of congress. If they are going to pass laws then they need to live by them too.
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!!
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, 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.
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, 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.
US National Archives also proves that Art.V Convention is a Constitutional Convention (!) [1]: "The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. (...) The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." Calling it by 'convention of states' or by any other name, doesn't change the fact that it's a con-con. It's a deathtrap.
All the doomers who cry "Soros," "progressives," "leftists," etc. need to weigh their fears against the fact that the Founders put Article V in for a reason. Those reasons need to be considered as well. Also, the afore mentioned are not too smart, and usually only succeed when operating in the dark. This would not be dark.
That said, I would be fine just overturning some of the more egregious Amendments without having to hold a convention.
Except that clause was put there by i.e. G. Mason at the end of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, because they stated they want a new Constitution when the time comes, to the opposition of Madison, Hamilton and Washington. It was accepted as a compromise made in order to finally come up with a draft of the supreme document.
Mason and some others (Adams?) indeed campaigned in 1788 for an Art 5 Convention (to put in a Bill of Rights), but because Madison, Hamilton, Washington and some others wanted to avoid a Convention at all costs (since it would bring new Constitution and destroy the Federation), they started to advocate against that and convinced Mason to do it through a single amendment option multiple times.
sources: Madison in Federalist No.49 and in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788); Hamilton in Federalist No.85; Washington in his letter to Richard Peters (Sep 7th,1788).
progressives have been pushing for a convention of states for something like 10-20 years or so now. They want to get rid of 2a among other things.
You can limit the discussion to prevent any changes to the second amendment.
>Both warned that such a convention could not be controlled once set in motion. They also said that, under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the states, would be in charge of launching the convention.
>“Things could be worse, believe it or not,” said Judi Caler with the Eagle Forum. “This would make it worse. We could have a tyrannical constitution with new ratification process imposed on us.”
>David Super of Georgetown said that, contrary to supporters’ claims, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would limit the topics addressed by such a convention and nothing that would allow states to control the outcome. He said the only limit would be what convention delegates set for themselves.
very first article in my ddg search. source: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/experts-warn-about-lack-of-limits-on-proposed-convention-of-states/article_b65d979e-6f30-11ec-b91e-53a23097be8a.html
I'm just trying to warn people who have never been on the left before that you could be playing right into their hands. Soros WANTS a convention of states.
That’s just fear mongering.
Any amendment would require three-quarters of the states to ratify the amendment before it is added to the Constitution.
So Congress cannot just change the constitution.
Don’t be obtuse. What he wrote is spot on - a convention of states could be playing Russian roulette if the DS has deeper infiltration than we know.
except it really isnt though. did you stop for two seconds to ask yourself why you would want something that soros has been dreaming about for well over a decade?
Really. If soros wanted it so bad, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why it hasn’t happened?
because there was no general majority public support for the idea in the past, and too much republican and moderate-democrat resistance. It's not like super easy to call a convention of states. theres all sorts of shit soros wants and hasn't gotten yet. he isn't God.
youre being tricked by fake-maga globotrash influencers into liking this idea, imo
I lived my entire life as a raging blue haired prog. You don't care. Hopefully others reading this thread will at least see this. Progs were always pushing as hard as they could for a convention of states. As someone who had to scrape the brainwashing out of the inside of my head, ALL my alarm bells go off on this shit.
I think there is inherent risk in a convention of states. I also think there is inherent reward with a convention of states.
The correct outcome will only occur through massive vigilance by We The People.
Here are a few of my thoughts.
With the status quo, our country is nose diving off a cliff right now. We are at the precipice as a nation. Depending on this year's midterms and 2024, it is possible that our country will be lost forever. We can see the deeply rooted corruption all around us. This is where we are now.
I believe one of the main reasons our country is cucked right now is because there are no term limits for any elected officials except for President. This allows blackmail, bribery, and undue political influence to get deeply entrenched in our political system. This is the main reason that deep state uniparty politicians never lose. They are 100% controlled by their handlers. As we saw in 2020, their handlers also control the vote counting, so We The People truly have no voice via representative government.
If you look at an election map of our country based on county, our nation is very deep red all over the place. Only major cities are blue for the most part. When power is used at lower levels, meaning counties and municipalities, the power gets much stronger for conservative influence. This would be a good thing if there is a convention of states.
The TRUTH is coming out about the plandemic and it will continue to do so. When people realize that our federal government committed mass murder via covid hospital protocols and "vaccine" demands, the people will be so unbelievably pissed off that it will be the perfect time to hold a convention of states and dramatically limit the federal government's control over the people. Our nation was founded on the basis of federalism (state power) and there is no question that the federal government has taken far too much power and used it for ill will.
It is my understanding from reading one of the bills passed, Wisconsin in this case, that their request for a convention is limited to specific calls of action:
In conclusion, the status quo is killing our country. We must create major changes to get out of our controlled demise. Term limits are an essential component needed to remove corrupt lifelong politicians. I do not mean to minimize the objectives of fiscal restraint either, these are essential as well. I am personally convinced that the majority of federal spending is a giant money laundering operation designed to enrich the politicians themselves, along with their enablers.
I would also add that the convention of states should also make all elected politicians accountable to the laws they pass. No more carve outs for members of congress. If they are going to pass laws then they need to live by them too.
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!!
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, 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.
Sauce: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, 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.
Sauce: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
US National Archives also proves that Art.V Convention is a Constitutional Convention (!) [1]: "The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. (...) The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." Calling it by 'convention of states' or by any other name, doesn't change the fact that it's a con-con. It's a deathtrap.
All the doomers who cry "Soros," "progressives," "leftists," etc. need to weigh their fears against the fact that the Founders put Article V in for a reason. Those reasons need to be considered as well. Also, the afore mentioned are not too smart, and usually only succeed when operating in the dark. This would not be dark.
That said, I would be fine just overturning some of the more egregious Amendments without having to hold a convention.
Except that clause was put there by i.e. G. Mason at the end of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, because they stated they want a new Constitution when the time comes, to the opposition of Madison, Hamilton and Washington. It was accepted as a compromise made in order to finally come up with a draft of the supreme document.
Mason and some others (Adams?) indeed campaigned in 1788 for an Art 5 Convention (to put in a Bill of Rights), but because Madison, Hamilton, Washington and some others wanted to avoid a Convention at all costs (since it would bring new Constitution and destroy the Federation), they started to advocate against that and convinced Mason to do it through a single amendment option multiple times.
sources: Madison in Federalist No.49 and in his letter to Turberville (Nov 2nd, 1788); Hamilton in Federalist No.85; Washington in his letter to Richard Peters (Sep 7th,1788).
Very interesting. Worth waiting 7 months for :-) Thanks for taking the time, pede.