testtest

A convention of states

HayesGreener

HayesGreener

SAINT
Article V of the Constitution provides that the legislatures of the states may propose amendments to the Constitution. It requires that 2/3 of the states (34) vote to hold the convention. Thus far 20 states have passed resolutions to hold a convention, and a number of others have resolutions in the works so we are getting closer. Once delegates at the convention vote to adopt amendments, any amendments coming out of the convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38).

A grassroots movement proposes the convention would consider amendments governing the federal budget, controlling power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on federal officials and Congress. Florida's legislature has signed on with 19 other states, and 8 more states have passed the resolution in one of the two houses of their legislatures. Other states are considering it.

States that are fed up with career politicians are moving in the right direction. This impacts us in the 2A community as most of the anti-gun legislation at the federal originates with career politicians who believe they are secure no matter what they say or do.

In my opinion, two terms in Congress is enough, then go back to a real job.
 
Concur 100% with two terms is enough for Senate (12 years), maybe three terms for House (6 years). IMO, if you can’t write/work to pass helpful legislation in that time, time for someone else to get the chance. The other thing it does it get them somewhat out of the full time campaigning and then, perhaps, doing what they get paid for. They can have a 401k, or TSP like other Federal Employees, but benefits for life after 6 or 12 years needs to be off the table as well.

On a different note, with a Convention of States, be careful what you wish for…there is no guarantee those Constitutional Amendments will all go the way you want. Not to mention, there is a certain contingent within our great Nation, that have proven time and again that if they don’t get their way, valid elections and procedures be damned, their solution, without a doubt, will be to burn it to the ground.

 
The problem with having a Constitutional Convention is that ALL of the Constitution is then open to amendment. The antis have made it well known that they want to eliminate the entire 2nd Amendment.
The liberals are also likely to try to gut much of the Bill of Rights.
While I also believe that we desperately need term limits, be careful what you wish for.
 
Grayfox said:
The problem with having a Constitutional Convention is that ALL of the Constitution is then open to amendment. The antis have made it well known that they want to eliminate the entire 2nd Amendment.
The liberals are also likely to try to gut much of the Bill of Rights.
While I also believe that we desperately need term limits, be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
The state legislatures specify in their resolutions the purpose of the convention. At this point this is what they have signed on for: impose fiscal restraints, limit federal jurisdiction, and institute term limits for members of Congress and federal officials.
 
What happens when they propose anti 2a legislation or any other leftest BS. It all sounds great when they start with term limits and limiting budget; but it can quickly change.

Politicians only serve as long as they are elected and re-elected. When you term limit an idiot, theres nothing stopping the idiots that elected her to voting in another idiot. Term limits will also limit good guys that see the world that way we see it.
 
HayesGreener said:
The state legislatures specify in their resolutions the purpose of the convention. At this point this is what they have signed on for: impose fiscal restraints, limit federal jurisdiction, and institute term limits for members of Congress and federal officials.
Click to expand...
Oh that makes me feel so much better. :rolleyes: The first Constitutional convention was assembled to "fix" deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. Except people like Adams, Jefferson, to name two, that had already decided that a new form of federal government (Federalism/Federalists) was need before they ever left home and had corresponded with each other about doing so. There are no quick fixes, no magic pill. We have the means to fix these issues through amendments to the constitution. It's not easy nor is it supposed to be. Do any of use trust any of our politicians to keep their word, to not compromise any of our protected freedoms? I.E. we get term limits and fiscal restraint but surrender those evil black rifles, and restrictions on "hate speech". 80% of all demographics are in favor of the Save America Act, but still it languishes in the halls of congress dead, just hasn't fallen down yet. There will have to be compromises. What are we willing to compromise and are they the same as the representative we send to the COS?
COS IS A VERY BAD IDEA!
 
“Convention of States” Status Update
COS Article V Convention Status
Advocates of holding a Convention of States (COS)-type Article V convention for “proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress” currently have 19 states with “live” applications to Congress. See the red states on the COS Con-Con Status Map. This means 15 more states are still needed to trigger a risky convention.

Residents of the 31 states without a “live” COS-type Con-Con application are urged to stop the passage of any new such applications in their state legislatures.


COS Poses Threat to 2nd Amendment
COS has maintained that “Alterations to the 2nd Amendment cannot be on the table” at a COS-type Article V convention. However, when a COS supporter asked on Facebook why couldn’t the Second Amendment be updated at a COS Article V convention, Convention of States Project answered back that “Clarification Clauses” such as the supporter was referring to are “very much on the agenda” of many COS study groups around the country. So much for the COS assurance that a COS-type Article V convention wouldn’t threaten the Second Amendment!

Watch the 3-minute video above, “Tricked Into Gun Control,” for more details on the COS threat to the 2nd Amendment.


COS Claims Convention “Limited”
The Convention of States (COS) official website poses the question: “Can an Article V Convention be Limited to a Single Subject?”

The COS answer to this question is: “Yes. The text, history, and purpose of Article V all point to the ability of the states to limit a convention to the consideration of a single topic or set of topics.”

However, The John Birch Society has maintained since the 1980s that an Article V convention cannot be limited. Watch the above video, “An Article V Convention: Can It Be Limited?”, for the reasons why the JBS says Article V conventions have the inherent power to be “runaway” conventions.

J.B.S.
Sorry don't know how to make that a link. Mods. please do so if you wish.
 
The convention of states if convened has no power to change the Constitution on its own. Whatever they do still has to be ratified by 38 states. It took13 years to ratify the original document when there were 13 states. With 50 states it will be a long process. I don't buy into the runaway convention naysayers. it is, after all, Article V of the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top