The Countermand Amendment-Congress cannot runoff with lawmaking

This is something that probably should have been in the constitution to begin with because it is an extension of the 10th amendment and the spirit of Article V, but it is much more straight forward.

https://www.countermands.us/countermand-amendment.html

Quite a few states are already on board with it.

It seems it will require an Article V convention to make it law, so America will have to prepare to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent anyway. This thread has strategy for that and countering what pears as a conspiracy conducted by a conglomeration of corporations headed by the Koch Bros, ALEC.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

 

This proposed Amendment should have probably been a part of the 10th amendment because it is in the same context of states powers.

So what is the matter here? Do people here not approve of having a way for states to dispense with unconstitutional legislation that congress produces WITHOUT having congresses permission as is required with "Article V"? The only other way to get rid of onerous congressional mis-legislation.

 

Why on earth would you need this when Congress can already change any existing law that comes up.

You seem to think that States are somehow different than congressional representatives but I can tell you this, if you can't get enough congressmen to overturn something you certainly are not going to get enough states.

If people want something undone badly enough then you will find politicians running on that issue, that is how our system works and how it was designed to work and it works quite well.

And if this was in the Constitution we would still have slavery in the South.

Dumb idea.

 

Wow, can I believe you are not reading? Not the link or the OP.

This is about when federal government makes a law that the states do not want. Or, . . . duh, congress will not get rid of it.

It makes it so the states do not have to assemble 2/3 to apply for an Articke V convention or gather up 3/4 of them to propose and ratify in a defacto ART5 convention; in order to get rid of a crap federal law.

Only a covert agent attempting to manipulate would pretend to think congress takes action when people want something undone and that the system works quite well.

Didn't it get shut down a while ago? Isn't that a threat again?

BTW, you have never been accountable to explaining HOW America is supposed to unify to alter or abolish if doing such is NOT the purpose of free speech. Do so or be a covert, manipulating infiltrator, failing.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/391740-what-purpose-free-speech-choosing-limits-over-purpose.html

 

I already said that if the people want to change a law that there is a process in place to do that, electing new representatives that will do it.

This sounds like you want a way around the Supremacy Clause, which is part of the Constitution, and for some reason you forget that congressmen actually work for their states. Apparently, in your world, congressmen have no qualms about going against what their constituents want as if they know for a fact that a pissed off electorate will not matter in their next re-election campaign.

What you are going to have here are a bunch of states simply deciding they no longer want to pay a federal income tax or something like that. Do you really believe our government can function that way?

What if Texas wants to outlaw abortions.....hey, done deal in your world.

You are making the Constitution irrelevant and returning us to the Articles of Confederation with this stupid idea.

 

If you think our government is working, maybe you had consult with about 70% of the citizens then figure out how to explain the 17 trillion in debt our grandchildren will be paying off.

Democracy depends on opinion, opinion depends on information, information depends on media. I just explained why our system if governance is a failure.

How about you explain the issue about the purpose free speech.

Try reading the link to countermand.us too. It explains that 2/3 of the states have to pass measures to end the federal law.

You are really good at pretending to be a moron.

 

It is not my idea, and the more I learn about the constitution or how federal abuses of authority usurp it, the more I understand the position of those that want a return to the Articles of Confederation.

These days, there is not much guarantee that states are going to be a lot better.

How about some accountability spook?

Or is agreeing and accepting such a purpose for free speech against your agenda as a cognitive infiltrator?

 

The Articles of Confederation did not work which is why a convention was called to rewrite them.

They were failing horribly.

And if you believe there are massive federal abuses then demand your representatives fix them. Why in the world you have so much faith in states is beyond me, their corruption is far ahead of what happens in Congress.

 

31 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and it would not be difficult to get two more in there for your 2/3 majority to overrule any judges decision and ban gay marriage.

And believe me, it is not going to be difficult for people in states, at least 33 of them, to decide they no longer want to pay a federal income tax.

There goes our economy.

How many states could we get on board to immediately kick out every illegal immigrant and station the military on the border with Mexico?

Are you sure you really want to give the people direct control to do anything they want with no middle man in there?

 

No accountability, maximum error spooky.

You are not reading, just posting nonsense.

 

That is not nonsense that is the truth.

Trust me, as soon as the States realize that they can remake government they are not going to go small. You seem to be under the impression that they will be responsible and only act if there is a very clear error by the federal government but history shows us that is not the case.

What you will see is an annual governors meeting, heavily lobbied by corporations, where they set an agenda of what laws they want to keep and what they no longer want to follow. The very first laws to go will be any federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA. States absolutely hate that they have to bow to the federal government and want that power for themselves. This will be a 50-0 vote. No longer do we have any form of pollution control or limits on drilling, fracking, natural gas pumping, coal mining or any pollutants put up into the atmosphere.

The next big one will be water regulation...some states like California will fight this but you will get at least 2/3 to say that the federal government can no longer regulate the nations water supply. This means that Arizona will no longer be supplying California with their valuable water and will use it for themselves. Department of education is gone, states will now dictate how and what children learn with no standards on a nationwide basis.

The Supreme Court will become irrelevant and we might as well put every case straight to a vote of the states since they will overturn anything they do not like anyways. A big problem under the AOC was the funding of the federal government where some states simply refused to donate any money because their budgets came first, we can expect to see this happen again.

No law will ever be scored by a professional agency any longer, Congress will no longer be lobbied, instead, States will. Corporations will focus on 30 second tv advertisements to sway the people to vote for what they want...no more law or constitutional based anything, it will all be based on the emotional responses of the states voters.

In fact, the Constitution will no longer even exist, what will happen is that the annual governors meeting will dictate what our constitution is for that year until their next meeting.

And just imagine all the precedent that will be overturned by the States. Anything that reflects badly on them will be gone which means our court system will now have laws based on state law, not federal law since that will no longer exist.

What about wars? What if the president sends our military into some engagement and the states say nope, we do not want that and vote against it. Well they are not privy to all the intelligence a president has, they do not know what negotiations he has going on or what secret reasons he may have for doing this so he will now have to disclose state secrets to keep the military action going or simply give it up. Basically, his role is now irrelevant. Our warfare will be decided by whatever group can put out the most spiffy television ads to sway voters.

God, this would be a complete and utter nightmare.

 

And under the Articles of Confederation, which is what this amendment would lead to, you had states setting their own standards of time, you had tariffs so high that trade basically stopped between the states, and you even had states like Virginia negotiating foreign policy with nations like France.

Is that what you really want to see happen again?

If you do not think it will happen then you do not understand how much the states absolutely hate giving up power they want to wield for themselves. Do you think Arizona likes having the federal government dictate to them how to run their border?

Do you think any state likes that?

I can assure you they do not.

 

Not trusting ANYONE that is not accountable to explaining how the framers intended Americans to have the unity to alter or abolish IF the purpose of free speech is NOT to create that unity.

I notice you argue here in this thread with the complexity of the countermand issue in support of the federal constitution rather than in the purpose of free speech thread in support of the constitution OR with accountability to your position there against the purpose of free speech.

You do this because you actually do NOT support the constitution and also cannot show that the purpose of free speech was NOT intended to be the method of creating the unity of the people needed to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

 

There is another fact about the Countermand Amendment that needs consideration.

The fact that 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention in 1911 to stop the federal reserve, and congress refused to call a convention, shows that an alternative to Article V, NOT relying on congress, to stop unconstitutional legislation is needed.

This man actually researched the congressional record to learn of congresses violation of law, of the constitution and their oath in 1911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

 

Poor spook does not know that defensive wars are the only constitutional wars.

That intelligence spook thinks the president has is really misinformation designed to get him to misuse the nations military.

It is very logical that the states would know of an actual threat and allow the president to act when such is appropriate.

Here is the history and law showing that from the director of the countermand amendment effort.

James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman, political theorist and the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817).

He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights. He served as a politician much of his adult life.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

 

This makes 15 states that have approved of this approach to Article V.

The NORTH DAKOTA House passed both our “Countermand Amendment” Application on Congress and “Delegate Resolution” that binds delegates going to the Countermand Amendment Convention by an incredible margin:

HCR 3017 - Article V Countermand Amendment Application on Congress - 59 Yeas / 32 Nays
HCR 3016 - Countermand Amendment Delegate Resolution 59 Yeas / 32 Nays

 

The countermand amendment in comparison to other Article V proposed structures.

http://citizeninitiatives.org/Media/Comparison-Table.pdf

It looks very impressive. The delegate resolution keeps amendments limited to what legislatures authorize, meaning there is accountability after the fact if states propose something not having constitutional intent. Of course legislators would have to publicize the proposals for amendment before delegates participated in the convention.

Good plan. There are perhaps 17 states actually making applications for Article V with the countermand amendment as the proposed amendment. Basically starting a process of making very quick Article V conventions a part of the constitution.

 

This table provides a graphic comparison of the features and security of the countermand amendment..

https://www.countermands.us/article-v-amendment-table.html

Very impressive function offering far more of what is needed now.

 

It's a very dumb idea. The States had that power under the Articles of Confederation, and it nearly destroyed the United States as a nation. The Constitution was created to eliminate that particular power of the States. It would render the Federal Government powerless and turn the country into 50 separate nations. How long do you think it would take for Texas to decide to invade it's neighboring states to take them over? Or California or New York? It would not be very long before the small states were absorbed by the bigger ones. The Articles of Confederation were an abject failure, and the proposed amendment would turn this nation into an abject failure.

 

Yet people still go on about it do they not?

I think we can see from this thread how much thought they actually put into it and those who push for this type of nonsense will be the first ones screaming to high heaven as soon as things start to turn bad. Its like a kid who sets his house on fire then runs to mommy and daddy for protection.

Laughable.

 

the supreme court handles that, republicans just want to undo constitutional equal rights laws

the people of the States can bring there case before the courts if they want to dispute a law as unconstitutional

what republicans are saying is if they lose there, they want to be able to just undo it anyways

would inter-racial marriage exist today if such was allowed in the south?

.

 

Seems no one is reading about the comparisons of the countermand amendment to other Article V proposals found in the .pdf which can be downloaded here,

https://www.countermands.us/article-v-amendment-table.html

instead comments are trying to protect business as usual for the infiltrated government. Looks like covert cognitive infiltration to me which is trying to foul viewers perceptions of a very potent lawful concept for change.

 

We have addressed your post and shot it down fairly well.

It is a stupid idea.

I think it may be you who does not want to listen to reason here.

 

republicans even want to arrest and imprison anyone that protests or interferes in any way what they do

"Section 5. Any elected or non-elected government official, or any non-government individual or organization, who intentionally obstructs or prevents the implementation of any provision in this Article shall have committed a criminal offense and shall be subject to impeachment (when applicable) and criminal prosecution and upon conviction serve up to five years in prison. "

each state already gets to pick their leaders in Congress, there is no reason for this silliness on top of that

.

 

It seems the only talk of that going on at the moment that is real is Gore and his wanting to arrest climate change deniers.

You lose.