Danger - 2 States From Constitutional Convention

reply to post by titorite
I would suggest that a good addition to the Constitution would be a law that requires that each, and every, Federal Official elected by "the People" be required to conduct their selves in office according to the Constitution and that they must voice the desires of their constituents in all instances where they have received a representative amount of input from those constituents. In all other cases they must represent their constituents according to the platform presented to constituents at the time they were elected to office.

Enforcement for failure to act according to the U.S. Constitution would be tantamount to treason against the United States and punishable by death or otherwise as determined by the Supreme Court to be a suitable penalty for the particular violation.

Responsibility for bringing violations before "the People" will be held by "the People" and public consensus that a violation has occurred will be sufficient to petition the Supreme Court to take action against the violator and all those found to be contributors to the violation through application of influences above and beyond those accepted as normal influences utilized to conduct the business of State.

Without the means for keeping our representative accountable for their actions and penalties for non-compliance we don't stand a chance.

In the current political climate, a Con Con would be an absolute disaster for the USA. Whatever excuses or assurances that would be given to mollify the public, whether it be the 'limited' nature of the convention or what have you, once it got going you can be sure our rights would be gutted.

I support a balanced budget amendment, since the legislature has consistently ignored their own balanced budget laws, but there’s just way too much enmity to the constitution right now to let the globalist socialists get their claws into it. Let the amendment originate in the house.

Here’s a good radio show from RBN on the subject. AZ state senator Karen Johnson talks about the Con Con. It's hour 2 from the Wed, Dec 10 show.

www.republicbroadcasting.org... mID%253D1%26year%3D8%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives

Originally posted by titorite
I can't wait. We need a few amendments. Like the end of electoral colleges in preference to letting the people choose the president by popular vote.

Amongst many others....

If they call one I will do all in my power to be there.

Yeah, right, let's make stealing an election by ballot stuffing easier!

Originally posted by redhatty

Danger - 2 States From Constitutional Convention

www.rense.com

The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote today, Wednesday, Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing. New York and California have too much power. There are more "red states" than "blue states". In the 1780's the ratio of big states to small states was not as great as it is now. The larger number of smaller states could equalize the situation.

A "Balanced Budget is FRAUD.

The system must address Monetary Reform!

The Ferderal Reserve Bank is a "Private Bank"!

Monetary Reform MUST revoke the Federal Reserve Charter!

Crush the Federal Reserve and let the Federal Government replace all money with U.S. bank notes!

Plese see the Video "The Money Masters".

Please!

I am dredging this thread up again, since I missed it the first time around. I have received this in my email from Chuck Baldwin..

www.chuckbaldwinlive.com...

Do we know where this issue stands and do we know who that last state might be? My state is already on the list and I don't even know how we are supposed to fight this..

First, let me state that there is a lot of fearmongering associated with this "reported" push for a Balanced Budget Convention push. Such a push existed in the late 80's and early 90's when most of these Convention applications were made. It should be pointed out though that these applications were made by state legislatures that are no longer in existence to numbered Congresses that are no longer in existence and as such would have little validity in a court of law in my view. If the organizers of such an amendment were truly serious, they would get as many of the CURRENT EXISTING state legislatures on board with applications made to the CURRENT Congress.

That said, it should be pointed out that a Convention in and of itself does not rewrite the Constitution. All it does is propose amendments which then HAVE to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Finally, I want to make you aware of a serious effort now underway to bring about AUTONOMOUS REGIONAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. via a National Constitutional Convention. Given the dire economic and social circumstances our nation now finds itself in, I believe it is time. See link below for more info:

groups.yahoo.com...

Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, but I have a copy of the constitution in front of me. 2/3 of the states are required to call a constitutional convention, not just two states. (see article V)

Article V reads

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 proposing ammendments.....

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


What they mean is, they only need TWO MORE to make it 34 states.

But I think this is fearmongering at its worst. States have been voting on this balanced budget amendment since /1978/. This is not a new thing, and has nothing to do with Obama.

Secondly, even if they get the two more states, it only means that the proposed amendment gets considered and it can be radified either by 3/4 of the legislature or 3/4 of votes in another state convention from each state. It cannot scrap the constitution itself. And the proposed Amendment must be as written, of course.

The drive to enact a constitutional amendment requiring balanced federal budgets has been a defining issue of American politics in the final decade of the twentieth century. Supporters of this measure deemed it the only way to break the cycle of huge deficits that inflated the national debt to almost unmanageable proportions in recent years. In 1995, 1996 and 1997 only the Senate's narrow failure to deliver the requisite two-thirds majority – latterly by a single vote – prevented Congress proposing an amendment for ratification by the states. Nevertheless the balanced-budget amendment campaign is not a product of the deficit-conscious 1990s. It originated in the 1970s as a movement by the states to impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Between 1975 and 1979 thirty states petitioned Congress for a convention to write a balanced-budget amendment. The convention method of constitutional reform had lain unused since the Founding Fathers devised it as an alternative to congressional initiative, but the support of only four more states would have provided the two-thirds majority needed for its implementation. The states' campaign stalled at this juncture in the face of opposition from the Carter administration and congressional Democrats. By then, however, it had done much to popularize the balanced-budget amendment and make it part of the nation's political agenda.

journals.cambridge.org...;jsessionid=6A4F32AC0E9C849EACF51222FB8BF196.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=7939

Alabama, applications enacted on August 14, 1975 and September 18, 1976, [the 1976 application was rescinded on April 28, 1988, and the 1975 application was rescinded on September 22, 1988];

Alaska, application enacted on Feb. 3, 1982;

Arizona, applications enacted on May 19, 1977 and March 9, 1979;

Arkansas, application enacted on Jan. 22, 1979;

Colorado, application enacted on March 29, 1978;

Delaware, application enacted on June 11, 1975;

Florida, applications enacted on May 13, 1976 and June 10, 1976 [both applications rescinded on May 5, 1988];

Georgia, application enacted on Jan. 19, 1976;

Idaho, application enacted on Feb. 21, 1979;

Indiana, applications enacted on March 7, 1957 and March 28, 1979;

Iowa, application enacted on Feb. 22, 1979;

Kansas, application enacted on April 26, 1978;

Louisiana, applications enacted on July 12, 1975, June 29, 1978, and July 9, 1979;

Maryland, application enacted on April 3, 1975;

Mississippi, application enacted on March 20, 1975;

Missouri, application enacted on May 26, 1983;

Nebraska, application enacted on Feb. 23, 1976;

Nevada, application enacted on March 12, 1979;

New Hampshire, application enacted on April 26, 1979;

New Mexico, application enacted on Feb. 16, 1978;

North Carolina, application enacted on Jan. 26, 1979;

North Dakota, application enacted on March 12, 1975;

Oklahoma, application enacted on April 15, 1976;

Oregon, application enacted on July 11, 1977;

Pennsylvania, application enacted on Nov. 9, 1978;

South Carolina, applications enacted on Feb. 12, 1976, Feb. 25, 1976 and May 16, 1978;

South Dakota, application enacted on Jan. 31, 1979;

Tennessee, application enacted on March 30, 1977;

Texas, application enacted May 31, 1977;

Utah, application enacted Feb. 1, 1979;

Virginia, application enacted on March 10, 1976; and

Wyoming, application enacted on Feb. 17, 1977.