1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

How could a single state have any power to do so? Take Oregon, for example. They legalized most drugs, but the Fed still has it criminalized. An amendment like this would give Oregon the ability to abrogate all federal laws regarding drugs within their state. We can see many examples where states might abrogate federal laws/regulations, related to guns, education, vehicle regulations, etc.

The effect of this shifts a lot of domestic power back to the states. Thereby making the swamp inert in one single stroke.

1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

State legislators call for a convention (Several states already have done so). Delegations propose amendments to the Constitution and it's passed.

1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I still don't think a betrayal is characteristic when Trump would lose the electoral count anyway.

2
Mark2 2 points ago +2 / -0

who had signed the objection originally?

5
Mark2 5 points ago +5 / -0

who signed it and rescinded????

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

In that case what's the point at all? Even if Trump wins, he'll be done later. Same problem in 2024, 2028, 2032, etc.

If we can't make meaningful progress but once per generation, we should just pray and submit to God.

I'd like a more proactive and long lasting resolution, but maybe I'm a dreamer and war will get better results.

1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

We'll see how tomorrow goes. I wager the swamp is deeper than we know.

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

I guess. If we have the right leadership there's hope. If were fractured and small groups acting out of anger we're dead. I want to save the country, not burn it the ground in my attempt.

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Mere mention of the legal and constitutional method is harmful? Do you have no grasp of history? Do you really just want 4 more years of Trump and that's it? Like, that's going to solve everything for ever? What fantasy do you live in?

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

I don't believe we need governors. Don't need congress. Don't need courts. And once called, permanently called by that state. A convention is feasible, though it will take longer to get there.

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are other routes and you condemn the mere mention of them?

You are a short sighted fool. A pyrrhic victory is not really a victory.

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Perhaps. But if state legislatures are all that corrupt, its easier to put our own people in because it's local. If we can't even change our local elections then we have a bigger problem.

1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

We're not far from 38 states. Look it up.

And who cares how much work it'll be, are you looking for the speediest route or the correct and legal one?

1
Mark2 1 point ago +1 / -0

A convention makes that irrelevant or can make it an explicitly written crime. We can enforce voter IDs, give states back their powers. A convention solves for the long-term, not just until the next election cycle (that's rigged anyway).

0
Mark2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Perhaps, but it's more likely than winning a rebellion.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›