Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 06, 2022, 08:17:50 AM
-
Has anyone heard of this movement and organization? They were on Fox and Friends this morning. They have just reached half the required states. I'm kinda bummed Idaho isn't on it, even if it ends up only being symbolic.
https://conventionofstates.com/news/halfway-there-convention-of-states-movement-hits-historic-milestone-in-fight-to-rein-in-federal-power
-
I’m highly suspicious of it being a dem plant or something they will hijack, especially given their newfound proclivity of invading states and turning them purple or blue.
-
This sounds a lot like a call for a Constitutional Convention, which is one of the ways to amend COTUS. What Amendments they propose isn't really clear...
-
I’m highly suspicious of it being a dem plant or something they will hijack, especially given their newfound proclivity of invading states and turning them purple or blue.
Yep.
They could easily use such a convention as a means to repeal the Second Amendment.
-
Probably not a false flag.
Prominent endorsers include Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Senator Rand Paul, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sean Hannity, Senator Ben Sasse, Dr. James Dobson, Pete Hegseth, and Gov. Mike Huckabee.
-
I'm highly suspicious of attempts to amend or change the constitution. Sounds like a good way to get permanently screwed.
Our constitution is just fine. The problem is that no one is being held accountable to follow it.
-
I'm highly suspicious of attempts to amend or change the constitution. Sounds like a good way to get permanently screwed.
Our constitution is just fine. The problem is that no one is being held accountable to follow it.
What he said.
-
I read about this a week or two ago. Sounded like they wanted to return more power to the states. Not sure how they are going to do that.
-
I read about this a week or two ago. Sounded like they wanted to return more power to the states. Not sure how they are going to do that.
A good way to start would be to appoint more federal judges who aren't willing to accept anything and everything as "affecting interstate commerce" as a justification for so many federal laws that infringe on state sovereignty.
What the Constitution actually says is:
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...
If I were a strict constructionist, I would read the words "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States" as meaning that the Congress can regulate things that are bought or sold between states. The clause says nothing about "affecting" commerce among the states. The notion that making or growing and then selling something entirely within one state is subject to federal oversight because by making and selling it locally that state doesn't have to buy it from another state is nothing more than a legal fiction. If I grow oranges in South Carolina and I sell all my oranges in South Carolina, I don't care how many oranges South Carolina doesn't have to buy from Florida -- my oranges are not in interstate commerce, and should not be subject to federal regulation.
-
This movement has been building for at least a couple of years. I'm sure we've discussed it before.
Yes, it would be a Constitutional convention.
Yes, it would be a high-stakes situation, where we absolutely can't risk being outmaneuvered.
-
Just read read Article V. The purpose of a Con Con is to do an end around Congress for purposes of proposing an Amendment to COTUS. If I'm reading their website right, they want to (1) impose restrictions on federal spending, (2) impose limits on federal power and authority, and (3) impose term limits on Congress and Senate. I'm thinking #3 may be the only one that had a chance of ratification. And that may depend entirely on the mood of the states when it comes to a ratification vote in each state legislature
-
(3) impose term limits on Congress and Senate. I'm thinking #3 may be the only one that had a chance of ratification. And that may depend entirely on the mood of the states when it comes to a ratification vote in each state legislature
That could be done without a constitutional convention. I've never seen any polls, but it seems to me that a majority of citizens across the political spectrum are in favor of it. It is the politicians themselves that continually kibosh any attempts. It seems to be regularly brought up by some Republicans trying to do the right thing, but other Republicans as well as Democrats seem to stomp on any attempts pretty quickly.
Which I guess might be why these guys wanna do it this way.
-
I'm highly suspicious of attempts to amend or change the constitution. Sounds like a good way to get permanently screwed.
Our constitution is just fine. The problem is that no one is being held accountable to follow it.
I mostly respect most of those on the right that support a constitutional convention-
(Prominent endorsers include Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Senator Rand Paul, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sean Hannity, Senator Ben Sasse, Dr. James Dobson, Pete Hegseth, and Gov. Mike Huckabee.).
However, I do not for one second believe we would end up with the libertarian/conservative wet dream of a new constitution most supporters fantasize about getting.
Imagine Stacy Abrams and Mitt Romney being prominent, senior members of the committee.
We do not need a new constitution, we simply need to actually use the one we have.
-
I’m with most of you all. A con-con is probably a horrible idea as it would be impossible to contain it to a handful of conservative/libertarian ideals. Our current constitution would work just fine with intellectual honesty from the judiciary.
That said, I’d be happy if we just repealed the 16th and 17th amendments. The 14th could benefit from some tweaking. If the draft were repealed or the age for raised to 21 I’d be fine repealing the 26th.
If CSD were still active here I’m sure he’d argue for repeal of the 19th.
-
Perd Hapley said,
"Yes, it would be a high-stakes situation, where we absolutely can't risk being outmaneuvered."
But that's what Republicans do. They love being outmaneuvered.
It hurts so good.
Do it again.
-
One thing some people might not understand, or might have forgotten, is that anything proposed by a convention would have to be approved by 39 states before it would be adopted as law. Even if the convention was completely taken over by Antifa/CNN/Big Pharma/Big Teacher/Big ID Politics, etc; they would still have to get 3 out of 4 states to agree with them.
On the one hand, we have seen mass media (news/opinion, Hollywood, sports media, sitcoms) move figurative mountains in changing public opinion. They completely reshaped the map on at least one social issue in my lifetime, though they’ve failed on others. So it’s possible they could seduce enough Americans into voting for hard-left amendments. On the other hand, alternative media is reaching a lot of people, too. On hand # 3, no amendment is likely to get ¾ approval in this country right now.
-
Makes me wonder if getting any amendments approved would require adding in some compromise measures. The first one that comes to mind for me is to combine several medical/health issues into one amendment that would remove various issues from federal control. So drug policy, healthcare policy, abortion laws, would all be up to the states.
Or maybe an amendment that would abolish federal gun control laws, and remove guns and explosives from the ATF/AFT’s ambit. At the same time, it would legalize drugs at the federal level, and combine the defanged DEA and ATF into one organization that just regulates recreational drug commerce.
-
My biggest issue is people will try to add all sorts of nuanced language that will have the net effect of confusing things and expanding the Constitution from a handful of pages to a few hundred pages. It would probably be done with the best of intentions. Federal judges have spent 200 years stretching the Constitution's wording into something nearly unrecognizable. Add in a bunch of legalistic wording and it will be worse down the road.
A couple Amendments I might want to see:
1. All Federal laws have a 10 years sunset unless otherwise lowered (never higher). Same with treaties. Federal regulations have to be reapproved as well.
2. Congress Shall NOT delegate any legislative authority to the federal bureaucracy. No new regulations may be adopted by agencies without a new vote of Congress. Even if a past law (See #1) directs an agency to adopt new regulations, they have to be separately approved by Congress (maybe the President also).
3. Term limits for Congress.
4. Term limits for the federal bureaucracy. I think term limits for a whole bunch of federal regulatory positions are in order as well (and I mean they can't work anywhere else in the govt). Not sure how far that should extend.
-
I would propose basic election security amendment, such as requiring government ID, banning vote by mail, and requiring paper ballots and clear ballot boxes.
I don't understand the love for term limits. If anything, i would include something to prevent the revolving door. Something like a lifetime non-compete. That's nearly the opposite of term limits.
-
That could be done without a constitutional convention. I've never seen any polls, but it seems to me that a majority of citizens across the political spectrum are in favor of it. It is the politicians themselves that continually kibosh any attempts. It seems to be regularly brought up by some Republicans trying to do the right thing, but other Republicans as well as Democrats seem to stomp on any attempts pretty quickly.
Which I guess might be why these guys wanna do it this way.
https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig)
-
I would propose basic election security amendment, such as requiring government ID, banning vote by mail, and requiring paper ballots and clear ballot boxes.
I don't understand the love for term limits. If anything, i would include something to prevent the revolving door. Something like a lifetime non-compete. That's nearly the opposite of term limits.
That last is something I would include. My main issue is I don't want career politicians. Limit the number of terms people can serve and also limit the number of years in all public office if not at least the federal level. I am not sure how to say they can't become lobbyists or get themselves appointed to some regulatory board or something.
-
Every time the GOP loses at something, you hear one of them slip with "This will be a fundraising opportunity."