Convention of States Hits an Even Dozen!
Posted by RimCountry 7 years, 11 months ago to Government
The last time we talked – I believe it was in 2014 – there were 4 states that had signed on to the Convention of States bandwagon. Last week, despite the one-off state-count in the FNC video, Missouri became the 12th. So, given that 34 states are needed to compel Congress to call the convention, we’re one-third of the way there.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
The only thing we can do is make relationships with our local state rep and district senator. They are willing to speak to us. We need democrats too but they are slow learners. LOL
But, more to your question: Why don’t “they” propose these specific amendments that you mentioned? If by “they” you are talking about the proponents of an Article V Convention, the civilian activists like me who are advocating for it, then the simple answer is that we have no such authority.
Article V provides that the STATES, or the delegate-commissioners who are sent by the states, are the only ones who may introduce, debate and propose such amendments. We advocates are simply a grassroots organization encouraging the various state legislatures to pass resolutions applying to Congress for a convention. Once the 34-state threshold is met and the convention is called, it will then be up to the duly-commissioned delegates to submit their proposals, all of which will be strictly limited to the specific constraints of the call.
In case you missed it in the video, all of the applications being sent to Congress are identical and limit any proposals to those that would 1) reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government; 2) impose fiscal restraints in the form of a rational balanced budget amendment; and 3) set mandatory term limits for all federal officials, including the judiciary.
I’m sure you’ll agree that if anyone is going to be suggesting legislation in any of those three areas, it should be duly-elected, constitutionally conservative lawmakers doing the drafting, the debating, and the proposing, not a bunch of far-flung, rag-tag activists and keyboard kommandos.
Just a little over six months ago, I was sickened at the spectacle of the President of the United States looking the other way while corrupt appointees in his administration used their bureaucratic authority in an attempt to steal an election!
And just a little over a year ago, I stood in disbelief that a President (of either party) could take for himself the unilateral power to use Executive Orders in blatant contravention of the other two branches of government, to kill Americans with drone strikes, to ignore congressional edicts by choosing which immigration laws to enforce and which to supersede, and to repeatedly meddle in the relationships between doctors and patients and mandate that some individuals purchase health insurance or pay penalties, while to others these decrees need not apply.
It's time to once and for all reduce the size, scope, and jurisdiction of our over-reaching federal government, and the ONLY way to accomplish that is by constitutional amendment. It’s inarguable that Article V of the Constitution gives STATES the power to propose amendments to the Constitution whenever 2/3 of the states decide that Congress has failed to act, and I think it’s fair to say that Congress has failed to act... responsibly.
At a time when federal spending has accumulated inconceivably staggering debt; when the NSA spies on innocent civilians using mass surveillance technology; when the Federal Communications Commission openly seeks to control or even abolish websites that are "too conservative," and to determine what stories newsrooms may run...
When the IRS blatantly targets grassroots organizations because of their political or religious beliefs; when the Department of Defense indoctrinates soldiers to accept that people who extol the virtues of the Founding Fathers, or who believe in the fundamental teachings of biblical Christianity, are extremists and potential terrorists...
When the Department of Housing and Urban Development can take private property and re-develop that land to the benefit of the "winners" as defined and identified by the government…
When the Department of Justice can order an American multinational technology company to scan tens of millions of eMail messages searching for a list of specific "keywords," while using national security as justification; when the Department of Education orders schools to allow students to use restrooms irrespective of their biological gender...
When the Supreme Court invents doctrines that subvert the very Constitution from which they derive their authority, and when Congress is simply too busy raising money for re-election to care or even notice...
When, in short, the federal government has run amuck, is it not time to at least TRY an Article V convention?
And to those who say such an endeavor is “dangerous,” I would suggest that, all things considered, it's more dangerous NOT to attempt an Article V convention. Just as the Second Amendment secures the right of the individual to defend himself against an intruder, so does Article V secure the right of society to defend itself against an intrusive government. As someone recently rather famously asked, "What the hell have we got to lose?"
http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_i...