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.
The posts and quotes are whatever supports MY case, which happens to agree with COS. I discovered COS after I had already drawn my own conclusions.
Here is one I used already, quoting NOTHING from COS and virtually all of it quoting the Framers.
----
Convention Debates, June 11, 1787
9/5/2014
0 Comments
Picture
Consent of Congress not required
The discussion continued with Col Mason insisting that the plan will have defects, as did the Articles of Confederation. Therefore amendments would be needed in a civil organized manner, to avoid “chance and violence”. The amendment process would be provided to avoid that. And the approval of Congress should not be required because Congress itself might be the problem and reason for the amendments. Mr. Randolph reinforced Mason's views.
Takeaway points:
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
Still under consideration, is not requiring the approval of Congress
June 11, 1787
Resolution 13, for amending the national Constitution hereafter without consent of Natl. Legislature being considered, several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the Natl. Legisl. unnecessary.
Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendmt.
Mr. RANDOLPH enforced these arguments. The words, "without requiring the consent of the Natl. Legislature" were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. Con.
>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centu...
===========================
Article V, the 1787 Formation Process
Index to all the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, Federalist 43 and 85, and Jefferson's letter to Samuel Kercheval
>http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
And still don't have a solution to the probems of governmental problem that Ayn Rand covers in her books.
Why else are we here? To avoid stirring the establishment and sending them home?
I want to send them home, tell them to be Producers. And stop Taking.
COS volunteers are spreading that thinking, the same thinking the Founders had, to all the states. IN quick summary, it is about who decides. It is about moving power back to the states and away from the Feds. And yes, amendments can do t hat. It takes action to do that, and I'd call it COS Action.
What I see though from you is just a negative attitude toward that, and NO solution that is ( like the COS solution is...)
1. Constitutional
2. Can actually work in this real world.
Moreover, your attacks, which are ad hominem in nature... "conservative anti-intellectual militant activists" do not follow the forum rules here.
Rather than giving a solution, or following sound solutions to moving the country back to Producers and away from Takers, you offer nothing that answers #1 and 2 above.
Just fear.
Wesley Mooch offered none either.
Fear and depredation proffered like that, if present at Valley Forge, would have cancelled the crossing and ended the revolution at that precipitous stage.
George Washington and his men were courageous enough to conquer frozen weather and a river, plus the enemy.
Naysayers to the Constitution are afraid of mere words constructed by the states, and the state formed the Constitution to begin with. Under the threat of death, they came through all the way.
I am appalled.
I read it all, I did my own research to verify.
And I am not stuck in a rut...anymore.
One could say, take your unproven theories somewhere else.
I already knew "con-con" is a derisive term for Constitutional Convention, and "con" is a negative term. No one wants to get "conned", so it is a somewhat clever way to be negative on what is actually a very positive Article V.
I already know that a "Constitutional Convention" is one in which and ENTIRE new Constitution is formed and the Constitution including Article V does NOT allow for that.
The whole argument that an Article V convention to amend (that is what it says) is a Constitutional Convention (IE to write a new one) is bogus from the start. That fact has been noted here and other places and you ignore the error and continue.
Especially humorous, is that a multitude of progressives (who originated the argument decades ago) are on the same side of the fence with the same error, in the same wording.
They are NOT copying you (IE your sources either), but the reverse. [see below for proof]
As I see it, you therefore stand with the progressives, using their own argument against the Constitution.
And COS is on the other side of the fence being attacked by the Soros $$_billions and his minions.
The sophistry (the word you used, dictionary:"the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving".) the deception is on the part of those on the Soros side of the fence. Theirs is an attempt, succeeding with some so called "conservatives", to get them to reject Article V of the Constitution, and generally along the way Article VI and/or the Preamble.
No, it is the naysayers that are rejecting the Constitution.
As for finding old posts, I know I can. But it would be a rehash of the old, with newer more relevant stuff out now. I don't need to waste my time on it.
--
[Excerpt, use the link to get all of it]
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONVENTION AND THEIR SOURCE
Opponents present an array of stock arguments against using the Constitution's convention procedure. One such argument—the claim that “amendments won't work”—has been so resoundingly contradicted by history that it has little credibility.2 The others can be distilled into the following propositions:
Little is known about how the process is supposed to operate;
a convention for proposing amendments would be an uncontrollable “constitutional convention;”
a convention for proposing amendments could be controlled or manipulated by Congress under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause;(3) and
a convention for proposing amendments could unilaterally impose radical constitutional changes on America.
These arguments are largely inconsistent with established constitutional law and with historical precedent, and (as the reader can see) some are inconsistent with each other.
This paper shows that these arguments did not originate with the conservative groups that rely on them. Rather, they were produced as part of a disinformation campaign run by America's liberal establishment. Members of that establishment injected these arguments into public discourse to cripple an important constitutional check on the federal government.
This disinformation campaign dates from the mid-20th century. Its participants included members of Congress who feared that a convention might propose amendments to limit their power, activist Supreme Court justices seeking to protect themselves from constitutional reversal, and left-of-center academic and popular writers who opposed restraints on federal authority.
The campaign succeeded because its publicists enjoyed privileged access to both the academic and the popular media. The fact that many conservatives swallowed the propaganda enabled liberal activists to recede into the background and rely on conservatives to obstruct reform.
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
They ignore that states are just as bad as the Federal government with their own statism, and yet expect us to believe that this is all only a dispute between the Federal government and the states, as if either side gaining more power relative to the other would make any difference to the political trends.
They ignore that they have no means to make any substantial progress for Constitutional amendments against the same culture that caused the need for reform. They ignore that states imposing their own statism are not going to suddenly in a super majority reform the Federal government even if they could, for the same reason.
That is why this is an anti-intellectual movement promoting itself as our savior with no clue what the cause of the problem is, apparently oblivious to how ironic it is for such conservative anti-intellectual militant activists to try to hijack an Ayn Rand forum for their promotions.
However, the point of the caution that I have should have elaborated upon is that I don't trust their motives. You are absolutely right. Most of these groups and their objectives are not desirable to a person interested in Constitutionally protected liberties. So, the question must be posed as to why they are taking these positions. It does not make sense they would adopt these long carefully thought out points. I suspect a strategy of diverting true Constitutionalists off into the sophistry of the COS position. If the COS efforts were to prevail, these groups would be ready to pounce.
On the other point of a Con-Con. It is merely a shortened version of a Constitutional Convention. It has been used for decades and is well known to be what it is. I have heard many arguments trying to work around this simplicity, and they just don't hold up. However, I'm open to repeated attempts to try and explain this.
But also, elsewhere in this thread, I have inquired to any possible method of accessing old threads on the same topic. Any ideas?
I'll be on the road for the next 4 days.
These groups are ALL socialist progressives, and anti-Constitution and anti-objectivism .
They are intent on destroying the free market economy we have, liberty, and all that goes with it.
The cognitive dissonance here is between those groups and you. This is George Soros and his groups. I am quite astonished you would side wit them.
There is no con-con, it is a fabricated term to go with a fabricated argument.
---
Extreme right/left scam against Constitution
http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/1/po...
The simplification of Constitutional Convention is Con-Con. It is that simple. I am amazed at the display of cognitive dissonance by the COS followers that can't accept this.
And I have to laugh. Yep, the same old arguments. So, I think a constructive thing for all that are interested in this topic would be to see if there is a way to re-access our old debate. I learned a lot in the sequence of all that. Do you know or anybody else out here know of a way to do that?
I'll be on the road for the next 4 days.
But they only support overturning campaign financing. And they have no traction, can only get a few states, can not even begin to approach 2/3 for proposing or 3/4 for ratification.
And they don't need to. The progressives are getting almost everything they want through judicial reform, Congress, regulatory agencies, and more.
They do NOT support the COS application.
-----
COS Application
http://bit.ly/cosAppHiLite
Let's try again.
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
Now as for actually supporting this PDF, they certainly do. At least 220 Soros led groups are on board with the opposition against Convention of States Project.
More here at these two links:
More Than 200 Organizations Oppose Calls for New Constitutional Convention, Warn of Dangers
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire...
PDF 200+ groups - Constitutional Rights and Public Interest Groups Oppose Calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
But that's only if one were curious would one ask such a question...
Load more comments...