Realizing the dream - only a few more GOP state legislatures required to call convention

In doing so, they can rewrite the rules of ratification and institute balanced budget along with other rules severely limiting the power of the federal government.

It's a chance to win the war once and for all, allowing decentralization and ensuring free America will never have their rights infringed upon by a certain cheating minority party.

Support the convention. End our massive debt.

Because Americans DESERVE liberty.

Careful what you wish for......They could do what you are describing, or they could go the other way and do away with pesky things like all or part of the bill of rights. If this is done, then everything will be on the table, not just the things we don't like.

originally posted by: JBurns
Support the convention. End our massive debt.

Because Americans DESERVE liberty.

Yeah... no thanks. You, like most other supporters, of this insanity, are falling for a deep state trap.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the one and only precedent for this, that also had a well defined limitation on the scope and authority of those participating, ended up scrapping the entire Constitution (then called 'The Articles of Confederation'), and writing up a brand new one.

No, if this happens, it will be on a par with what happened at the end of 'Jericho' - we will end up with no more 1st or 2nd amendments, and lots of other heinous crap shoved down our throats.

a reply to: JBurns

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust any of our elected representatives to meddle with the Constitution.

a reply to: JBurns

Decentralization can be gained without any input from governments or corporations at all.

We dont need the governments ok, or corporate approval, to actually work towards self-sufficiency in all of our homes.

The Narrative is slowly being shaped about decentralization to just disperse the same power among more obfuscated, but seemingly diverse entities. It rarely speaks of how all of these technologies and concepts, from aquaponics to automation, can be used in all of our homes. Its still all about how its going to be deployed by large corporations.

We have pretty much everything we need right here and now though. Once sintered metal printing becomes financially accessible.. The things we can do in our own homes becomes absolutely staggering. If people finally figure out it has personal relevance beyond eliminating jobs.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: JBurns

Decentralization can be gained without any input from governments or corporations at all.

We dont need the governments ok, or corporate approval, to actually work towards self-sufficiency in all of our homes.

The Narrative is slowly being shaped about decentralization to just disperse the same power among more obfuscated, but seemingly diverse entities. It rarely speaks of how all of these technologies and concepts, from aquaponics to automation, can be used in all of our homes. Its still all about how its going to be deployed by large corporations.

We have pretty much everything we need right here and now though. Once sintered metal printing becomes financially accessible.. The things we can do in our own homes becomes absolutely staggering. If people finally figure out it has personal relevance beyond eliminating jobs.

Agree with this, add in nuclear power and you can truly cut the cords that bond us

a reply to: JBurns

I actually believe time is somewhat of the essence here, so I would push harder for solar/wind/hydro while we work on smaller scale LFTRs and such.

They are available right here and now, pretty darn financially accessible, and also relatively easy to use. They arent this "super duper green" solution they are touted as by so many, but they do yield actual decentralization and self-sufficiency while examining each household/building as a node.

a reply to: JBurns

It's a chance to win the war once and for all, allowing decentralization and ensuring free America will never have their rights infringed upon by a certain cheating minority party.

I'm not trying to be dense, but please define "the war" and define "decentralization". Thanks.

a reply to: Klassified

Defending the Bill of Rights precisely as written, preventing a hostile force determined to undermine the BOR/our individual liberties through voting/court precedent/etc.

There's side A (our side) ie: the good side
There's side B (their side) ie: the bad side

A properly done convention could ensure this was impossible

Decentralization = giving power to states to operate how they see fit. You want to live in dumb-istan that's their choice, you want to live in free America (my America) that's your choice. We'd begrudgingly still have economic ties, but lets not pretend there are still social ties between either major party.

And balanced budget instantly shrinks the federal government to reasonable levels (say, 1790's levels) and ensures they can't really exercise power over states unless its to 1) uphold the BOR 2) settle contract disputes between states 3) defend ourselves against a foreign enemy (nuclear)

a reply to: Serdgiam

Hey I'm with you 100% on that. We have the technology and resources, just have to use it properly. Then won't have to worry about who has what ideology, they'll have no ability to project their will onto you and vice versa

a reply to: tanstaafl

Congress has no input into a Constitutional Convention. States do that. The most Congress can do is call for one with states approval, but the states can call for one without Congress' approval.

TheRedneck

If this works, I'll be looking for a few things:

• Assigning abortion decisions to states.
  
• Assigning all marriage restrictions to states.
  
• Balanced budget.
  
• Defining basic voting requirements (restricting absentee and mail-in voting).
  
• Changing the threshold for impeachments to 2/3 of the House.
  
• Clarification of Congress' ability to oversee the President, along with an explanation that Congress cannot interfere with the President.
  
• Requiring states to recognize Federal law enforcement.
  
• Specifying electors must vote for the state's choice.

What i do NOT want to see in there:

• Any restrictions on firearms or ammunition rights.
  
• Anything to do with private enterprise (including energy).
  
• Any ambiguous wording whatsoever.

Now, I just hope this isn't a very bad mistake if it happens.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

Defending the Bill of Rights precisely as written, preventing a hostile force determined to undermine the BOR/our individual liberties through voting/court precedent/etc.

Decentralization = giving power to states to operate how they see fit. You want to live in dumb-istan that's their choice, you want to live in free America (my America) that's your choice. We'd begrudgingly still have economic ties, but lets not pretend there are still social ties between either major party.

But states can already operate how they see fit within the confines of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. What will they gain by a convention that they don't already have under the constitution? Sincere question, not being argumentative. I'm trying to understand the finer points of your argument.

a reply to: Klassified

I understand

So basically, as things stand right now, because of cowardice, court decisions and votes, our bill of rights is no longer fully intact. Essentially, someone at some point decided it was OK to limit rights

And balanced budget, that just ensures government can't spend money it doesn't have in our name. Itd vastly shrink it's size and scale

But basically as it stands now, enough people could vote to put restrictions on gun ownership as one limited example. With the proper clarifications at a convention, no number of voters could get together and do that. In this limited example shall not be infringed means what weapons I choose to own is my business not the government's and not voters

It's basically limit voters, the courts and the government from being able to restrict rights they didn't give us in the first place

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl
Congress has no input into a Constitutional Convention. States do that. The most Congress can do is call for one with states approval, but the states can call for one without Congress' approval.

Ummm... Congress has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my comment.

My point is, there is absolutely nothing - nothing - preventing a Constitutional Convention from being hijacked, and resulting in a the total rewrite destruction of the Constitution.

As I said - the one and only time a Convention was called for, that is precisely what happened.

Do you really - seriously - believe that tptb wouldn't take advantage of such an opportunity?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...
I just hope this isn't a very bad mistake if it happens.

It will be. I guarantee it. The fact that you, and others, cannot see that, is very troubling.

Most of the things on your list are already in the Constitution (heard of the 9th and 10th amendments?) - how is that working out?

No, you are thinking backwards. The framers knew the pitfalls of trying to be too specific. All that is needed are a few simple and very general amendments. I can think of 5 or 10, but I'd be fine with just three:

1) The Federal Government is forbidden from exercising any power not explicitly delegated to it in Article 1 Clause 8 Section 17 (this covers the first two items on your list),

2) No federal elected official may be paid from the federal Treasury. Instead, all federally elected officials are paid from a fund created and managed by a local Oversight Board made up of local Citizens who are domiciled in their District and have resided their for at least the past 2 years, and no one who is not a local Constituent and Citizen can contribute anything to said fund (which means corporations or other legal fictions are excluded from contributing),

and

3) All elected officials are subject to direct oversight by their Constituents, in the form of an elected Board made up of 25 Citizens who must reside in their district for at least 2 years. Said Board has the power to do one of three things - adjust the amount of pay to their Representative, including reducing it all the way to zero, or, if deemed appropriate, refer them for Civil Trial in the local courts on the charge of violation of their Oath of Office. The jury for such a trial must also be made up of local Citizens who must reside in their district for 2 years, but are not on the Oversight Board. If found guilty, the only punishment is the elected official is stripped of their office, loses any and all benefits that have accrued, and is forever ineligible to either run for any elected office or to work as a government employee, for the rest of their lives.

The big changes I would like to see are actually following the Constitution instead of Circumventing it. Stronger and more instantaneous responses to those that do push for violations to it. And remind the participants of such a convention that what is going on is blind rage with a financial backing...you absolutely do not want to see a focused rage funded directly by the people, so be very careful of grandiose schemes. If nothing else, I’ll explain what you did and set the people loose on you.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
The big changes I would like to see are actually following the Constitution instead of Circumventing it. Stronger and more instantaneous responses to those that do push for violations to it. And remind the participants of such a convention that what is going on is blind rage with a financial backing...you absolutely do not want to see a focused rage funded directly by the people, so be very careful of grandiose schemes. If nothing else, I’ll explain what you did and set the people loose on you.

Prevent courts or voters from being able to interpret away our rights, and instead follow the mandates precisely as written

Thanks for declaring publicly your desires to overthrow rightful American government and establish one-party rule.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Republicans are in the majority in the US.

Most Americans are independent.

That said, I'd love to see a Constitutional Convention.

It's time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Any party rule is a problem. The founders warned about "party" politics and look what democrats have done these days.

Anyone who wants to protect the Republic and uphold the Constitution deserves a seat at the table. Giving a voice to anyone else is tantamount to suicide or worse.

"I want to murder you" is just as bad as "I want to limit your inherent God-Given rights" Would you argue that a murderer/prospective terrorist deserves an equal voice? The goal is to protect and preserve, not to give those who want to tear this country apart a chance to do so. Its time to stop pretending all opinions/positions are equally valid. No, if you believe communism is the answer - your opinion isn't valid. If you believe socialism is the answer - your opinion isn't valid. Both of those things are unlawful and unconstitutional (Article 4 Section 4) and we are crapping on the Constitution by pretending they are valid alternatives to republicanism (the only lawful form of government).

Yes, it is less than ideal. But the alternative is worse. Have you ever considered its low intelligence incompetent fools like Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler etc that pass laws that lead to needless incarceration and killings? Or that subject the rest of us to ever increasing assaults on our civil liberties?

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

The immutable Constitution needs a hard line drawn around it, and a clear declaration (even though there already is one) that says no voter, no court and no politician can pass laws infringing on these rights. A tyranny of 99.99999999% is still intolerable to the 0.00000001% affected. And dispense with any person taking a side against our bill of rights, whatever pretty language they cloak it in.