Ya'll can all bitch and scream about Convention of States but, it's what is needed right now.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials."
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
I hear this a lot but, this is not how a Convention of States works. In case you haven't noticed, it's been a LONG time since we've had one because it is so hard. What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
You're correct, it's not true (though I question how far I trust even "True Americans" at this point).
But you forget just how dirty the other side is. They don't need to get their own people in place, they only need to threaten or blackmail the ones in place enough to swing votes. Why do you think the Republicans are so cowed? It's because things really are that bad -- much worse than people think. The CIA and FBI were completely weaponized to control politicians.
In theory, yes. But when you put people in a room throwing everything wide open, you open the door to anything.
New Amendment: "In recognition that this document is 250 years out of date, We The People declare all prior parts to be obsolete, and the following Constitution to be in effect."
Do I expect that to pass? No. But did I expect the Democrat Party to grow into a deranged combination of Fascism and Communism? No. All I know is that when people think about a constitutional convention, they have this fantasy that it will all be compromised of patriotic, "correct thinking" Americans that care about Liberty and Freedom. Well, it won't. Maybe most of them will be -- but maybe not.
I won't get into specifics, but there a LOT of conservatives, even around these parts, who aren't on-board with what I consider Liberty and Freedom (and no, I'm not talking Libertarian-style liberty and freedom).
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see new Amendments to curtail Federal power. But people seem to forget that we don't need to wait for a convention to propose new Amendments. Don't wait around for a wet dream of a Constitution Convention. Start proposing and let's see if we can get them passed.
See? We already have a problem. I don't care which adults get married and the government shouldn't be deciding that. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it's none of anyone's business.
This is why I trust NO ONE other than myself to decide my own liberty and freedom. The idea of giving idiots the power to change MY Constitution? Even with safeguards? Fuck that. People want to force their own opinions on everyone else far too easily. Start with "mind your own damn business" and let's go on from there.
There's a way, but it's messy and bloody. These fucks want to take over and destroy this country in a bloodless coup, but we can't let them have it that easy.
I wonder what would happen if President Trump told SCOTUS to review some 2A cases, then if they refused to review them under their own rules? President Trump could then remove the justices who won't review them and replace them. When people complain that isn't constitutional, Trump could point out that justices not following or upholding the constitution as it is plainly written is unconstitutional. President Trump could keep Thomas and Kavanuagh and fire the rest of them.
"Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas joined forces on a dissent Monday charging their Supreme Court colleagues with a "decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment."
"The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous 'justifiable need' or 'good cause' restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a 'good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property' violates the Second Amendment," he said. "By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard."
Such a split between the circuits is generally one of the most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to take up a case, and is actually laid out in the tribunal's official rulebook. Rule 10, which discusses what the court takes into consideration when deciding to hear a case, says the court is likely to step in when "a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter."
That's why they would be removed, thrown into prison and replaced by POTUS. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. If SCOTUS is tearing it apart, then POTUS must defend against that. If the justices are exceeding their authority in destroying the Constitution, POTUS is more than justified in exceeding his authority to protect the Constitution. This particular subject is also a question that scholars have pondered on, but never settled, nor is there any definitive ruling.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I'm so pissed off about SCOTUS. Even when we should be winning, we don't.
We need a way to deal with this wickedness other than constitutional amendment.
Ya'll can all bitch and scream about Convention of States but, it's what is needed right now.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials."
https://conventionofstates.com/
It's the only power left to us.
Fuck that. If you give me the power to write the new Constitution, then I'm in. But it won't be me, it'll be a corrupt coalition of globalists that will toss out the one we have and replace it with a Communist/Fascist constitution.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
If you think we'll get true Americans of the caliber of the Founding Fathers, you're insane. We won't. If we unlock what we have, what we'll get will be infinitely worse. There's literally nobody I trust in politics or law enough to do something like this.
I hear this a lot but, this is not how a Convention of States works. In case you haven't noticed, it's been a LONG time since we've had one because it is so hard. What you are basically saying is that you believe there are no more true Americans anymore and that the crazy fringe left far out-number us. That's simply not true.
You're correct, it's not true (though I question how far I trust even "True Americans" at this point).
But you forget just how dirty the other side is. They don't need to get their own people in place, they only need to threaten or blackmail the ones in place enough to swing votes. Why do you think the Republicans are so cowed? It's because things really are that bad -- much worse than people think. The CIA and FBI were completely weaponized to control politicians.
Bingo. 100%.
It isn't writing a new constitution, it's how the people can directly propose amendments. Those proposed amendments get voted on.
In theory, yes. But when you put people in a room throwing everything wide open, you open the door to anything.
New Amendment: "In recognition that this document is 250 years out of date, We The People declare all prior parts to be obsolete, and the following Constitution to be in effect."
Do I expect that to pass? No. But did I expect the Democrat Party to grow into a deranged combination of Fascism and Communism? No. All I know is that when people think about a constitutional convention, they have this fantasy that it will all be compromised of patriotic, "correct thinking" Americans that care about Liberty and Freedom. Well, it won't. Maybe most of them will be -- but maybe not.
I won't get into specifics, but there a LOT of conservatives, even around these parts, who aren't on-board with what I consider Liberty and Freedom (and no, I'm not talking Libertarian-style liberty and freedom).
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see new Amendments to curtail Federal power. But people seem to forget that we don't need to wait for a convention to propose new Amendments. Don't wait around for a wet dream of a Constitution Convention. Start proposing and let's see if we can get them passed.
Nice idea. How mad would they be to have marriage be returned to man and a woman by a convention of states.
See? We already have a problem. I don't care which adults get married and the government shouldn't be deciding that. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, it's none of anyone's business.
This is why I trust NO ONE other than myself to decide my own liberty and freedom. The idea of giving idiots the power to change MY Constitution? Even with safeguards? Fuck that. People want to force their own opinions on everyone else far too easily. Start with "mind your own damn business" and let's go on from there.
SCROTUS
There's a way, but it's messy and bloody. These fucks want to take over and destroy this country in a bloodless coup, but we can't let them have it that easy.
The time has come.
I wonder what would happen if President Trump told SCOTUS to review some 2A cases, then if they refused to review them under their own rules? President Trump could then remove the justices who won't review them and replace them. When people complain that isn't constitutional, Trump could point out that justices not following or upholding the constitution as it is plainly written is unconstitutional. President Trump could keep Thomas and Kavanuagh and fire the rest of them.
"Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas joined forces on a dissent Monday charging their Supreme Court colleagues with a "decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment."
"The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous 'justifiable need' or 'good cause' restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a 'good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property' violates the Second Amendment," he said. "By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licensing schemes with 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' requirements, applying what purported to be an intermediate scrutiny standard."
Such a split between the circuits is generally one of the most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to take up a case, and is actually laid out in the tribunal's official rulebook. Rule 10, which discusses what the court takes into consideration when deciding to hear a case, says the court is likely to step in when "a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter."
https://archive.isE5yci
https://www (dot) foxnews.com/politics/thomas-kavanaugh-lament-decade-long-failure-to-protect-the-second-amendment
Be careful what you wish for. The way Supreme Court is ruling right now, it's just going to go against the constitution anyway.
That's why they would be removed, thrown into prison and replaced by POTUS. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution. If SCOTUS is tearing it apart, then POTUS must defend against that. If the justices are exceeding their authority in destroying the Constitution, POTUS is more than justified in exceeding his authority to protect the Constitution. This particular subject is also a question that scholars have pondered on, but never settled, nor is there any definitive ruling.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is a way to make change and the left has been showing you how for the past couple of weeks.
So go smash up and loot stuff?