The constitution established the house of representatives. You'd have to get 2/3 of the house members to vote themselves into extinction. That's not likely to happen.
It occurs to me, if the plan was intended to lead to an outcome which would effectively be an abolition of the constitutional republic of our nation's founding, then why would the Q drops and President Trump himself ( on more than one occasion at political rallies) state they were doing everything by the book.
If the end goal is to have a different form of government ( rather than restoring the original government of our nation's founding), then it really is an unnecessary exercise in futility to try to bring about this new planned government by following to a letter the legal rules and requirements of the old government.
The task, for such a "change government plan", instead becomes gain sufficient popular support to dissolve the original government and replace it outright either with said government's approval or without. The critical factor would be that the people enmasse across the nation clearly and decisively voicing their desire and intention to dissolve the current form of government and to implement something different. As it stands currently, I don't see Trump campaigning for anything like this, but I do see a lot of discussion about restoring the constitutional republic as founded.
From this perspective, I don't agree with much of any of these predictions beyond the parts that would be compatible with and normal in our nation within the original constitutional Republic.
Not to mention 2/3s of the US Senate. Then it would go to the states where 39 state legislatures would have to approve the amendment. Plus the amendment would have to provide for a replacement. The ultimate problem with Congress is the people that reside in both chambers.
You don't shoot an unbroken horse because you can't ride it. You train it to do your bidding. Even Horse Face (AOC) can been trained to behave correctly. They must be enlightened , we just need to be the light shinning in their dark places.
You "wrote" about eliminating congress (what would be needed).
I agreed with you and used a metaphor to explain what the OP clearly didn't get. But reading comprehension can be hard when we rush. "Hurry but don't rush."-John Wooden
The problem is the criminals who've been installed in the House of Representatives, not the Constitution. Assuming The Plan comes to fruition, those criminals will be expelled, or worse, and we can elect true patriots to fill the House. And going forward, we as Americans, need to be vigilant and not allow this to happen again.
Your description is basically: the constitution is null and void.
The issue is that the constitution had a beginning, 1791, and thus, since it is created by man ,it can be abolished, or changed. Before 1791, there were the Articles of confederation.
At any rate, the Declaration of independence is about the people taking the equal station, not the system by which the people govern themselves.
So, yes, there may be areas where we could find room for improvement. I think it is very valuable if indeed individual freedoms become the corner stone upon government powers rest and little room is given for government to put up an act as if EMINENT DOMAIN is something government is given by the people.
The constitution established the house of representatives. You'd have to get 2/3 of the house members to vote themselves into extinction. That's not likely to happen.
However, everything is going to change.
It occurs to me, if the plan was intended to lead to an outcome which would effectively be an abolition of the constitutional republic of our nation's founding, then why would the Q drops and President Trump himself ( on more than one occasion at political rallies) state they were doing everything by the book.
If the end goal is to have a different form of government ( rather than restoring the original government of our nation's founding), then it really is an unnecessary exercise in futility to try to bring about this new planned government by following to a letter the legal rules and requirements of the old government.
The task, for such a "change government plan", instead becomes gain sufficient popular support to dissolve the original government and replace it outright either with said government's approval or without. The critical factor would be that the people enmasse across the nation clearly and decisively voicing their desire and intention to dissolve the current form of government and to implement something different. As it stands currently, I don't see Trump campaigning for anything like this, but I do see a lot of discussion about restoring the constitutional republic as founded.
From this perspective, I don't agree with much of any of these predictions beyond the parts that would be compatible with and normal in our nation within the original constitutional Republic.
that's way too much like a 'living constitution'. we don't need to change government, we just need to bring back tar and feathers.
Obama, is that you?
A constitutional convention can be called if you can get enough states to go along, but other than that, I don't see any options.
Not to mention 2/3s of the US Senate. Then it would go to the states where 39 state legislatures would have to approve the amendment. Plus the amendment would have to provide for a replacement. The ultimate problem with Congress is the people that reside in both chambers.
You don't shoot an unbroken horse because you can't ride it. You train it to do your bidding. Even Horse Face (AOC) can been trained to behave correctly. They must be enlightened , we just need to be the light shinning in their dark places.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote.
You "wrote" about eliminating congress (what would be needed).
I agreed with you and used a metaphor to explain what the OP clearly didn't get. But reading comprehension can be hard when we rush. "Hurry but don't rush."-John Wooden
You're right fren. I must admit I was smoking a brisket and throwing back a few cold ones when I posted that. My bad ;)
All good as long as the brisket turned out well. (which can't be rushed either)
I got started late and the fire went out when I fell asleep so it's still smoking. Total amateur mistakes, but I think that I saved it. ;)
The problem is the criminals who've been installed in the House of Representatives, not the Constitution. Assuming The Plan comes to fruition, those criminals will be expelled, or worse, and we can elect true patriots to fill the House. And going forward, we as Americans, need to be vigilant and not allow this to happen again.
Your description is basically: the constitution is null and void.
The issue is that the constitution had a beginning, 1791, and thus, since it is created by man ,it can be abolished, or changed. Before 1791, there were the Articles of confederation.
At any rate, the Declaration of independence is about the people taking the equal station, not the system by which the people govern themselves.
So, yes, there may be areas where we could find room for improvement. I think it is very valuable if indeed individual freedoms become the corner stone upon government powers rest and little room is given for government to put up an act as if EMINENT DOMAIN is something government is given by the people.
One thing I disagree with is the militia used for tax collection. It is past time to eliminate the IRS! PERIOD END OF SENTENCE!
set the pay scale in the house to the median family income in their respective districts..then we will see who is in it for the people........