Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

I look forward to you teaching me how we are going to control the balance of power in this process when, eventually, everybody in America will be participating in the process and they are all liberals.

I guess if they boycotted the whole thing, you'd win by default. Not trying to rain on your parade, just trying to be realistic after watching liberals bring down the most sincere right wing groups - most of the time without so much as a whimper from the right.

 

End the country. Break up the US and allow each State to govern it's own destiny. Most importantly, eliminate the Presidency. Trump has proven this democracy has failed and is fantastically dangerous.

Places like Alabama can be the white only, bible thumping heaven religious extremists want. Righties should love this. The South has NEVER accepted the Constitution. They have never wanted to be "America". And they have hated anyone who isn't from the South for as long as I can remember,

But most importantly, this democracy has failed. The EC should have never allowed trump to take office. Trump is out of control and a threat to not only what's left of the Constitution, but the entire planet. Nothing like this can ever be allowed to happen again.

The grand experiment has failed. It is time to end the insanity.

This ends by mutual agreement or civil war. Take your pick. The country is already dead. There is no sense in allowing a war to start.

 

we should amend the 2nd Amendment.

make it clear what kinds of gun regulations are legal.

 

Yes, with the caveat that the Convention be limited by the attendants beforehand to only discuss a number of amendments that would be agreed to be debated ahead of the convention.

 

No. I think the political atmosphere in the US is too polarized for any meaningful progress. We are in the middle of a cultural shift that needs to be stabilized before we start amending the foundations of our laws. It would be like a married couple who are seperated and considering a divorce trying to buy a house together or deciding to have another kid. Not a good idea to say the least.

 

Understood, it's important that one learns and understands what we currently have in order to propose changes.

The process is the Amendment, a long and tedious process that makes it extremely difficult to change the Constitution. Rightfully so because IMO the founders did not want the Constitution to easily undergo changes. The problem is that they did not cover some extremely important issues within the original Constitution. The first post I wrote is not very complicated although I later got into a detailed discussion with a poster who offered much criticism and no suggestions.

That was never one of my suggestions. There has to be an impartial judiciary but that's just it, it has to be strictly impartial and follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I addressed the judiciary in item #3.

The biggest issue is enforcing the Constitution on the US government. The vast majority of "laws" are unconstitutional.

The Federal Reserve is one of the most egregious scams ever perpetrated on Americans. I addressed that in Item #2. The monetary system cannot be changed overnight. It does need to be in full compliance with the Constitution, so it will have to changed reasonably, logically and incrementally. I don't have a suggested methodology for that, that area would belong to experts on the economy who also understand constitutional compliance.

 

I think your post is a diversion that could easily derail this thread, but when people are determined to try and crash the party, they need to be addressed.

IF Donald Trump has "proven this democracy has failed" then I am most happy. The reason being, the Constitution provides:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution

The founders were adamantly opposed to a democracy.

Next you seem to have a bias against those from Alabama. But, when you condemn people that are white, it said a lot about you. So, for the record, let me remind you about the Constitution. In the Preamble you will find this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That word, "posterity" is very important in the Constitution. It was interpreted to mean members of the white race. That is confirmed by studying all the earliest state constitutions. In virtually every one of the earliest state constitutions only the whites could become citizens, hold public office and vote. I know. I know. Those who dream of a non-white America call that racist.

To this day, China remains 98.5 percent Han Chinese; Japan is over 97 percent all one race as is North Korea. Zimbabwe is over 99 percent black. Travel the world over and you find that the American people have absolutely NO PROBLEM with other countries being homogeneous. It's only in America where it becomes a problem. Yet, ironically, America is the only country on the face of the earth that was built on the presupposition of God given, unalienable, inherent, natural Rights. Today people confuse those Rights with the privileges of citizenship.

It's frustrating. Most Americans have no clue about what I just told you. Adding insult to injury, the Republicans illegally ratified the 14th Amendment to include the mixed multitude and the non-whites haven't been satisfied with anything they get unless it is absolute control. Black people even sold out those who sacrificed for them and joined the Democrats. At the heart of my fears about the ideas in the instant case is that the anti-white advocates will use it as an opportunity to subtly lobby for more genocide - much in the same manner that you are doing. You don't understand the Constitution and have no regard for the white people.

 

I chose yeas because we as a nation need to review our Constitution, its founders and what exactly this country is founded upon. My idea if a Constitutional Convention is a through review of the founding document needs to be performed so that this country can go back to its founding document. This will clear up many misconceptions and what they country is supposed to be.

 

The Pennsylvania Constitution is one of the earliest state constitutions and it states (in part) the following:

Political Powers
Section 2

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Elections
Section 5

Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

I don't see anything racist about the above. It further states:

Reservation of Powers in People
Section 25

To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

So Article I could have never been amended to my knowledge. So I don't see how the term "posterity" in the Preamble was specifically meant for the white race. I do know that the some of the founders were slave owners and did not view their slaves as human beings and therefore did not consider them to have constitutionally protected rights. But that is not written within the Preamble or the body of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Preamble is just a statement of intent, it is not a law within the context of the Constitution.

 

See, I knew somebody would HAVE to chime in, make this complicated and derail the thread.

CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA 1838
Article 3 Section 1 "In elections by the citizens, every white freeman of the age of one and twenty years, having resided in this state one year ... shall enjoy the rights of an elector"

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA 1777
Article I, Sec. 7 "All male white inhabitants , of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this state, ... shall have right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large."

At the national level, the United States Supreme Court ruled as follows:

"We think . . . [the people of the Negro race] . . . are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.
....At the time of the adoption of the Preamble, the phrase 'WE The People' was known and understood to mean the people of the white race and none other. The Preamble emanated from and for the people so designated by the words "to ourselves and our posterity" (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. [60 US] 393, 406-07, 410- 11 (1857)

That is the Court ruling that inspired the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Are you sure you want to derail this thread to have this race debate OR do you think you have the ability to start another thread and take it up there?

Note to OP: Sorry for what happened to your thread, but ultimately this is the same thing that I fear about trying to discuss this issue with the average person on the street.

 

I knew what you meant.

What did you think of my four amendments to the Constitution?

 

Not really, the purpose of a Constitutional Convention is to modify the Constitution or create a new one. To do that, there has to be a discussion on the current Constitution. And I believe that is what is being discussed.

Ok thank you, I stand corrected. I did not read older state constitutions (my bad I did not do the proper research) and the current Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits a revision of Article I. Thanks for the above.

Agreed that the US government was (and still is) racist (example already given). Thank you for the above information anyway. As to the 14th Amendment, I also agree that some historians believe it was never legally ratified, same with the 16th and 17th Amendments. There was also allegedly a 13th Amendment (the Title of Nobility Amendment) that was fully ratified and "lost" during the Civil War. That Amendment was originally proposed as part of the Bill of Rights.

Sorry but I have no intention of derailing this thread or starting a new one. I already started a thread on proposed Amendments as explained earlier in this thread. The current discussion is not a derailment nor a "race debate" as already explained. Furthermore, I do not or ever debate in any forum, I join to discuss issues relevant and of interest to me. Debating is a game of sorts where there's (usually) a winner and a loser. I'm not here to play games.

 

Okay, I'll take you at your word. I don't believe in phony Internet debates either. Those who pretend to be in them generally violate all the rules of debate.

 

Most of those are crazy ideas.

As far as the war powers act, sounds like you just don't like it. So write your Congress man/woman.

 

I challenge you to tell me why they're crazy ideas, one by one.

 

That would be interesting because, even among the right wing conservatives, over three quarters of them cannot tell you the difference between an unalienable Right and a privilege.

Sadly few of them care either.

 

I'd like to take the challenge on the first point you made:

Among the nuttiest things we can do is to impose term limits. The right wound up with Barack Obama on that kind of law just for starters.

While it's true some become lifelong bureaucrats, the people have had the power of term limits ever since our country's first election. If you don't like the candidates, then don't allow ANYONE to buy the office.

While some complain about term limits, most out there don't even know what their congresscritters believe in. For example, I once went to a gun show and outside was a trailer and some guys campaigning for Mac Collins. I agreed with most of Mac's positions so I told the guy who was soliciting me that I had one question. I said if he got it right, I would promise Collins my vote. Lo and behold, the man answered it correctly. We talked for a couple more minutes and then Mac shows up and his campaign worker told him how he secured my vote.

Mac then asked what the question was. I repeated it. Mac Collins got it wrong! I only said, "you're lucky that guy got my promise before I asked that question." Collins looked perplexed as I walked away... me knowing that we'd have yet another mis-educated egotist in Washington.

And the people keep voting for the incumbents. If people believed in term limits so much, why don't they just vote for someone other than the incumbent?

 

Because we can't. The parties don't allow it. They always support the incumbents and squash challengers.

Incumbency breeds corruption. The typical congresscritter is not an American at heart. He or she is a self-interested politician first, a slave to the interests who will donate the most to their reelection, and a slave to the Party leaders who dole out committee assignments and campaign funds. Term limits would largely cure this.

Thanks for taking up the conversation.

 

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, it violates Article I Section 8 as well as the 10th Amendment. The Constitution never granted Congress any authority to delegate its powers to another branch. It's not a matter of anyone liking or disliking it, it's a clear violation of the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e. it's illegal).

 

I may be the sole poster to actively participate in trying to get one when Clinton was president. It was not the only one I wanted but, it was being worked on and for a time we had hopes it might be done. We had the backing of many in Congress. but it died. We wanted to repeal the 17th amendment and had excellent reasons for it.

Sadly it died. It was as if we were walking around with 5000 blocks of concrete. The public really was not interested. We told them why it was needed but they had other interests.

I wanted the 16th amendment repealed as well I doubt you want that repealed. I still do.

I voted no only because I know very well how futile the effort is. I don't want to put others through what we went through.

 

The Federals have assumed powers not granted them
in the Constitution and per the 10th are the State's.
Examples: health, welfare, housing, urban development, education.
The Greatest State of California did a better job at health before MediCaid '64.
And certainly a better job at education, school lunch programs before before the Federals got involved.

I vote YES for the convention.
Let the Federals do what Federals should do,
defend the borders.
Return powers reserved for the States to the States.

And State lands currently occupied by the Federals.

 

There are those of congress who removed themselves from very lucrtive jobs. Then there are those who earn much more in Government than they would in civil life.

My main message is this. I believe that roughly 40 percent of your congress really does care. That 60 percent only say they care. But we citizens have enough trouble trying to recall their names, much less what they do for us or against our interests. Then we vary in self interests.

My method of guessing the percent is do to some interesting work when i was on a major board of directors and saw how that group operated.

 

I'm open to hearing all sides of the argument.

When I was a kid, I read a couple of books by George Lincoln Rockwell, a naval commander that started the American Nazi Party.

He would rail against the conservatives and their laziness AND not funding the causes and candidates that they claimed to believe in. He was a dedicated patriot and conservative, but saw no future in America as it began crumbling.

I could not have disagreed more with the solutions he settled for, but his criticisms stuck with me now for over thirty years when I was much younger. There is much in this idea that makes me skeptical. You have to be really whizzed that more people don't rebel against those who are using the system to illegally change the original intent of our Constitution.

But, instead of fighting a battle where we go on the offense, we're talking about a whole restart of America (or that has been my interpretation so far.) For me, it's been extremely frustrating to see those who should be American patriots unable to understand the Constitution and unwilling to put in the time and effort to defend it. I might not immediately jump on this bandwagon on this idea. Neither will I seek to make anyone an enemy that uses this as their starting point. It's gotten so bad that any action is better than none.

 

You need to pay attention to context, pilgrim. The "gut the Constitution" scenario, which I accepted arguendo, came from TheResister.

If we're gonna have a conversation, you're gonna have to ease up on the stupid.

 

No one would be able to agree on any particular change. I fear we're so partisan and ignorant as a nation today that we couldn't hope to accomplish anything constructive. Beyond this, this nation has a unique kind of identity crisis, because it began life as a union of largely independent states with a relatively small federal government, whereas today the federal government has expanded astronomically, leaving us caught between how the nation was first established and the more top-heavy, uniform national systems of government in existence all around us, and so we have a lot of division on the point of just how large the federal government should be and no clear answer to that, because we have both the constitution and every change that has been implemented since to create what we have now. It's a massive structure built on that old foundation, and it's not always efficient or ideal, and it's not the work of any one architect.