Levin: Backing Convention of States is a no-brainer for conservatives

[Valletta]

Mason argued for the states option because "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people if the government should become oppressive," wrote another Virginian, James Madison.

Oppression is what we have now, Levin says.

"I see that as we move further and further away from constitutional government with more and more power centralized in Washington, DC, more and more power centralized in the Democrat Party," he said." You see the Democrats in Congress doing things the Framers could never have dreamed of: When they have a Democrat president, they can further legislative power to that president. When they don't, they try to destroy the Republican president who's in office.

Levin: Backing Convention of States is a no-brainer for conservatives

A move is under way, perhaps a quiet move, to give more governing authority to the man or woman you're prone to see at church, the grocery store or the community 4th of July fireworks celebration.

afn.net

It is obvious that Congress is not going to reform itself. Ross Perot was so right about health care for all Americans, he said that if you want a good health care system make sure your servants in Washington get the exact same health care plan. Likewise we see members of Congress getting wealthy in the stock market because they have an advantage over you and I. We can certainly MEET to discuss crucial matters, whether or not amendments can be passed is another story--but we need to try. The framers of the Constitution were so wise in giving us two methods to amend our U.S. Constitution.

 

[durangodawood]

People are afraid that minority rule is slipping away from them.

 

[Valletta]

People are afraid that minority rule is slipping away from them.

Of course, that's why Joe is running again. But they can't suppress and shout down their opponents forever. People can see the crime and inflation and human border crisis and educational disaster and homeless problems that the hard left has brought us. But some Democrats are standing up and saying enough is enough.

 

[eleos1954]

Mason argued for the states option because "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people if the government should become oppressive," wrote another Virginian, James Madison.

Oppression is what we have now, Levin says.

"I see that as we move further and further away from constitutional government with more and more power centralized in Washington, DC, more and more power centralized in the Democrat Party," he said." You see the Democrats in Congress doing things the Framers could never have dreamed of: When they have a Democrat president, they can further legislative power to that president. When they don't, they try to destroy the Republican president who's in office.

Levin: Backing Convention of States is a no-brainer for conservatives

A move is under way, perhaps a quiet move, to give more governing authority to the man or woman you're prone to see at church, the grocery store or the community 4th of July fireworks celebration.

afn.net

It is obvious that Congress is not going to reform itself. Ross Perot was so right about health care for all Americans, he said that if you want a good health care system make sure your servants in Washington get the exact same health care plan. Likewise we see members of Congress getting wealthy in the stock market because they have an advantage over you and I. We can certainly MEET to discuss crucial matters, whether or not amendments can be passed is another story--but we need to try. The framers of the Constitution were so wise in giving us two methods to amend our U.S. Constitution.

It could come to that ..... convention of the states .... but honestly I don't think that will happen .... the bible speaks of a union of church and state worldwide .... it's going to be global government put in place ..... personally I believe this will happen through the WEF and other unelected entities of which politicians world-wide are greatly influenced by.

 

[eleos1954]

It could come to that ..... convention of the states .... but honestly I don't think that will happen .... the bible speaks of a union of church and state worldwide .... it's going to be global government put in place ..... personally I believe this will happen through the WEF and other unelected entities of which politicians world-wide are greatly influenced by. No doubt we are experiencing more and more government control as time goes on and yes that is indeed oppressive ... even so it's not as bad now as it's going to get.

 

[Yttrium]

Good luck getting two-thirds of the states to call for a convention.

And then you need three-quarters of the states to ratify. Haha. That's not going to go your way.

 

[HARK!]

A Con Con, is very dangerous in the light that we could end up with a runaway convention; and the Federal Government doesn't submit to what is already clearly written.

Just one example:

November 19, 1973. - Ordered to be printed


REPORT
[Pursuant to S. Res. 9, 93d Cong.]
INTRODUCTION

---

A - A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS
OF EMERGENCY POWERS NOW IN FORCE

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.​

Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973

Who is running America? Have you ever asked that question? Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae,

web.archive.org

The U.S. Constitution might not be perfect; but it's better than what we have.

 

[Valletta]

Good luck getting two-thirds of the states to call for a convention.

And then you need three-quarters of the states to ratify. Haha. That's not going to go your way.

It would be a discussion, and a discussion is so important instead of blocking access to social media and drowning out or threatening those with different viewpoints. You are right that little could be passed, but perhaps pay limits for Congress and no stock trading, maybe nine members to the Supreme Court and two term limits for members of Congress.

 

[Valletta]

A Con Con, is very dangerous in the light that we could end up with a runaway convention; and the Federal Government doesn't submit to what is already clearly written.

Just one example:

November 19, 1973. - Ordered to be printed


REPORT
[Pursuant to S. Res. 9, 93d Cong.]
INTRODUCTION

---

A - A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ORIGINS
OF EMERGENCY POWERS NOW IN FORCE

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.​

Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973

Who is running America? Have you ever asked that question? Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae,

web.archive.org

The U.S. Constitution might not be perfect; but it's better than what we have.

Our founders were wise in allowing two methods for amending the U.S. Constitution. According to the U.S> Constitution, once the Convention of States was convened Congress would have no say. In this way term limits for Congress could be passed and salary and benefit caps for Congress set.

 

[HARK!]

Our founders were wise in allowing two methods for amending the U.S. Constitution. According to the U.S> Constitution, once the Convention of States was convened Congress would have no say. In this way term limits for Congress could be passed and salary and benefit caps for Congress set.

Even at the local level, have you ever wondered why a politician would spend $1M on a campaign for a two year term for an office that pays $10K per year? Have you ever wondered where a police officer, who worked for low pay all of his life, comes up with $1M to run for Sheriff?

 

[Pommer]

Wo

Mason argued for the states option because "no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people if the government should become oppressive," wrote another Virginian, James Madison.

Oppression is what we have now, Levin says.

"I see that as we move further and further away from constitutional government with more and more power centralized in Washington, DC, more and more power centralized in the Democrat Party," he said." You see the Democrats in Congress doing things the Framers could never have dreamed of: When they have a Democrat president, they can further legislative power to that president. When they don't, they try to destroy the Republican president who's in office.

Levin: Backing Convention of States is a no-brainer for conservatives

A move is under way, perhaps a quiet move, to give more governing authority to the man or woman you're prone to see at church, the grocery store or the community 4th of July fireworks celebration.

afn.net

It is obvious that Congress is not going to reform itself. Ross Perot was so right about health care for all Americans, he said that if you want a good health care system make sure your servants in Washington get the exact same health care plan. Likewise we see members of Congress getting wealthy in the stock market because they have an advantage over you and I. We can certainly MEET to discuss crucial matters, whether or not amendments can be passed is another story--but we need to try. The framers of the Constitution were so wise in giving us two methods to amend our U.S. Constitution.

Wouldn’t re-drafting the Constitution be the very antipathy of “conservatism”?

 

[Valletta]

Wo

Wouldn’t re-drafting the Constitution be the very antipathy of “conservatism”?

This would not be a re-draft, it is a way to propose and pass amendments to the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article V

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 for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Pommer]

This would not be a re-draft, it is a way to propose and pass amendments to the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution Article V

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 for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It’s never going to be a “good time” to open a Constitutional Convention, only less bad times.

 

[Valletta]

It’s never going to be a “good time” to open a Constitutional Convention, only less bad times.

To me it seems like it is always a good time to open a Convention of States. Only with a bi-partisan effort can amendments be passed.

 

[Pommer]

To me it seems like it is always a good time to open a Convention of States. Only with a bi-partisan effort can amendments be passed.

Let’s just put the patient on the operating table and fiddle with the innards of our republic?
I’d like a second opinion.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It’s a good thing for Levin that his ratings aren’t correlated with the accuracy of his analysis.

 

[Fantine]

It’s never going to be a “good time” to open a Constitutional Convention, only less bad times.

As more and more young people enter the voting pool, who are by nature more progressive and less apt to be manipulated by Fox News and the NY Post, the time might be better. I wouldn't mind ditching or minimizing the second amendment, and young people agree.

 

[Derf]

As more and more young people enter the voting pool, who are by nature more progressive

"By nature more progressive"?

and less apt to be manipulated by Fox News and the NY Post, the time might be better. I wouldn't mind ditching or minimizing the second amendment, and young people agree.

"Manipulated by fox news and ny post"? That's a laugh. Sounds like you've been manipulated all your life and don t realize it.

 

[Fantine]

My media sources win Pulitzers.

Yours loses 3/4 million dollar lawsuits.


Hmm...

 

[iluvatar5150]

My media sources win Pulitzers.

Yours loses 3/4 million dollar lawsuits.


Hmm...

*billion