Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

So, you think Meckler wants a Confederacy? As far as I could tell, he only wants to remove extra powers not originally intended by the original Constitution. That's not a Confederacy.

I get your fears. I understand we are weaker as a nation without a Federal government.

 

I gotta say, I was against the bailouts also. Why do they get all the rewards and the taxpayer gets all the risk.
But, I read recently, that the same thing happened in 1929, and the banks were allowed to fail. What followed was worse.

But the taxpayers should not be the one's accountable. The laws and regulations should be such that banks aren't allowed to take on so much risk in the 1st place.

 

Id rather not open that door because it is more likely you won't like what walks through it.

 

Specifically what? Something worse than the socialist doctrine of Bernie Sanders?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

No, I don't think Meckler wants a Confederacy, I think he thinks the federal govt has overstepped its bounds. I recommend that he reads the Federalist Papers because within them is the explanations and understanding of the Constitution that he seems to be either missing or simply misunderstanding.

 

Accordingly, the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court today, is in fact the problem. This interpreted Constitution allows runaway spending, undeclared wars, government agencies spying on the citizens, massive debt that will impose economic slavery on our children, rule by executive order, coercive medical insurance, and the rise of a dominating bureaucracy.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to allow Congress to set the rules for interstate shipping. As interpreted, it allows Congress to regulate virtually any part of our lives that has a dollar sign attached to it.

The General Welfare Clause as interpreted allows Congress to tax and spend for any fool thing that Congress desires. Madison’s view of the General Welfare Clause (which was shared by a majority of the Framers) was that the General Welfare Clause was not a grant of spending power at all. It was a limitation on spending. Madison believed that when Congress used its other enumerated powers to spend, it had to do so in a manner that truly promoted the welfare of the nation (“the general welfare”), as opposed to the welfare of a specific locality or a small group of individuals.

All of the entitlement spending that is bankrupting this country would be unconstitutional if we faithfully followed either Madison’s or Hamilton’s view. All federal mandates imposed by Congress on the States would likewise be unconstitutional. Accordingly, our task is to do two things to fix these constitutional problems. We need to write very specific language that clarifies and adjusts the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause according to their original meanings. Moreover, we need to put proper checks and balances in place to ensure that the federal judiciary no longer has the ability to legislate from the bench.

 

Likewise, the taxing power in the Sixteenth Amendment is dangerous and needs to be changed. Executive orders and administrative regulations have been allowed to become law even though Article I, Section 1 declares that all federal laws must be passed by Congress. The current interpretation is unacceptable and must be corrected. Experience has taught us that the Constitution as interpreted has allowed the abuse of both federal power and the rights of the people. We need to correct these erroneous interpretations and constrain the power of the federal judiciary to make activist interpretations in the future. George Mason knew that it would take constitutional changes to return the government in practice to the government the Framers intended to give us. And he knew that Washington, D.C. would never propose such changes. He was right on all counts.

 

e. What amendments will be proposed?


The subject matter of the Convention is settled in advance by the State applications. For our model application, the subject matter is limited to imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the jurisdiction of the federal government, and imposing term limits on federal officials. The final text of any amendments on these subjects (and only these subjects) will be approved only when twenty-six or more States approve. If more than one amendment is proposed, which is likely, they will be sent as a package—just like the Bill of Rights—where each amendment would be ratified (or rejected) individually.

 

The central problem with American government is the belief that the purpose of government is to provide for our needs. Washington, D.C. carefully nurtures this belief because it serves its own prime purpose—the aggregation of federal power. Accordingly, Washington, D.C. has gradually amassed overwhelming power that is clearly outside of the boundaries that the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution. This improper aggregation of power crisis, in fact, arises indirectly from the Constitution itself. The Constitution permits the federal judiciary to be the final interpreter of the Constitution.1

 

Let me fix this. I could not load the file.

You can find all of that and more, here: https://conventionofstates.com/files/answers-to-questions-posed-by-the-jbs

 

While the Constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the laws, that was not meant to be expanded to allow them to legislate from the bench.

 

Everyone is afraid they will lose rights and end up with slaves, again. I wonder why? That's not what I get out of this movement.

 

Your first paragraph shows Meckler doesn't understand what he is claiming. The Supreme Court has no bearing on Congressional spending, the War in Iraq was passed via Congress granting further authority to the President regarding a specific instance, FISA courts are allowed via the Constitution, Executive Orders are directives issued by the President and are allowed by the Constitution.

Meckler is a business law attorney that specializes in internet advertising. If he were to practice what he preached why did he not argue his case regarding criminal possession of a weapon in NY?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meckler

The problem was he had 19 rounds of 9mm in the clip sitting next to the Glock in the case. In most states, transporting a weapon is legal but the ammo must be out of arms reach from the weapon, meaning they can't be within the same locked case. Had they been in 2 separate cases he would have been fine.

I'm sorry, he's not a Constitutional Scholar of any sorts, he's nothing more than an activist.

 

That's not what I get either, I just see his activism on things he thinks are problems. I don't see his perceived issues/problems as being outside the scope of the Constitution.

 

They interpret it. That's what is written.

You misinterpreted.

Yes, and these things need some looking into, though they aren't directly mentioned anywhere I saw.

??? He isn't running for president. His assertions are true. You have proven that fact. Wasted post for political purposes.

Don't be sorry. That wasn't his claim. He is not running for an office. He is part of a group that wants changes made to the Constitution. It doesn't matter that he is an activist like any other that has made changes to laws of the land.

Confusing comments.

 

They were never intended under the Constitution, for the most part.

 

lol

The record clearly indicates I never said a damn thing about 17A. So much for your power of recall.

Your self-recrimination is misplaced. It's a common enough mistake that making it in the OP will presumably highlight for others the difference between what you're advocating and what happened in 1787. As for the mods, remember that they're unpaid volunteers, so they get to it when they get to it; and in this case, if they never do, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.

If you think the federal gov't hasn't overstepped its bounds routinely over the last few decades, the misunderstanding is all yours.

 

Thanks.

 

It's a quick free download. You can find many of the answers to your questions here.

 

I see where it is I misread, I ran 2 sentences together. So I'll question what run away spending is Congress doing?

I read your link to the 16 questions answered of the JBS by Michael Farris, I again submit what the answers reveal are claims made that aren't understood by CoS. They (CoS) claim EO's have been allowed to become law, when the reality of it is they haven't (page 5); Treaties haven't been allowed to control internal law, etc. I see the claims made but I don't see the specifics to cases or to instances. CoS gives 3 citations in that paper, the first citation admits the Supreme Court has Judicial Review authority to determine Constitutionality of law and references Federalist 78 and 2 State records of the ratification records, while some commenters in this thread call it as being diametrically opposed to the Republic our forefathers envisioned.

What CoS calls erroneous interpretations of the Constitution seem more to be there claim that the Supreme Court made a horrible decision (Obamacare), or that only in a few instances is the Constitution being interpreted outside of Original intent, which they want to restrict the power of the judiciary. Then I come across this sentence: But let’s suppose that even with new safeguards, the left succeeds in overriding these new amendments with new federal usurpations. So now it's an ideological complaint and only they have the correct interpretations? Court Opinions can be overruled or abrogated by Congress via statute or amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

Sure they were. The Convention Records and the Federalist Papers clear up much of the CoS complaints, the rest is ideologically driven.

 

Enlighten me.

 

It works for some. But ideological differences make the original convention irrelevant.

 

I voted "yes", though likely not for the same reasons as others.
I chose yes because I dislike most of the current "rights" that the American Constitution provides.