'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)

[Sanguine]

Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.

So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.

As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.

I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.

Those are great questions.  For the first questions, I refer to Article V for instruction as to how to do it (there isn't any).  So, the specifics would be left to the states and have to be hammered out.

As for what specific amendments are being offered, that again is a a great question.  A number of states have offered a balanced budget amendment.  I think that is the right track - cut off the carpetbaggers' ability to enslave future generations by spending money we don't have, and much of the overreach of the feds would necessarily disappear. 

I would like to see a "no deficit spending" amendment passed.  I would also add an order of spending, something along the lines of: military, border control, federal highways....social security.....federal welfare....salaries for Congress....staff for Congress, the end. If they run out of money before they get to their salaries, well, they are donating their time to this great nation.

[Smokin Joe]

A number of states have offered a balanced budget amendment.  I think that is the right track - cut off the carpetbaggers' ability to enslave future generations by spending money we don't have, and much of the overreach of the feds would necessarily disappear. 

Careful....There are two ways to balance a budget. One is to cut costs. The other is to increase revenue. There are herds of sacred cows on Capitol Hill, they outnumber the buffalo that once covered the great plains. If costs are cut, it won't be the sacred cows, it will be highway funding, the military, and the health care the government is taking over (especially for those nasty ol' conservatives).

Here is one for you: The Congress may not make itself, its members, nor their staff exempt from laws the rest of the population must obey.

[Sanguine]

.....

Here is one for you: The Congress may not make itself, its members, nor their staff exempt from laws the rest of the population must obey.

That's an excellent one. 

What did you think of my proposal, above?

[Doug Loss]

Are you proposing an open Convention or a closed one? If the latter, what specific issues will the Convention cover? If the former, there is an element of risk that what you get will not be what you think will be the outcome. Then you have to get 3/4 of the States to ratify, provided the proposals pass at all.

So what specific amendments are being proferred? Otherwise, it is a pig in a poke.

As for standing in the way, nope, I'm not. Go for it. I'm just not signing on to anything without knowing specifically what is being proposed.

I must note Americans are enamored with the quick fix, the get rich quick scheme, and other hopes of hitting the proverbial Trifecta and getting everything we want in one fell swoop. While in rare instances that does happen, more often progress is made one dismal shovel full at a time, which is the way our Constitution got buried in the muck by the Potomac. It is my contention that ultimately we will have to dig it out much the same way.

Surely you must realize that the majority of your questions are incredibly premature.  Again, I urge you to go to the Convention of States Project website (http:www.conventionofstates.com) and see what's being proposed.  They have the requested wording of the resolution they ask state legislatures to pass, so that no one can claim that the various resolutions can't be counted together (as has been done many times previously to keep an Article V convention from being convened).

What amendments are being proffered? Obviously, none, since the convention hasn't been called.  That is something for the delegates to decide.  However, there are numerous proposals available to inform them, from Mark Levin, from Randy Barnett, etc.  Expecting this to be a set piece with an outcome decided upon going in is frankly silly, in my opinion.  Regardless of the left's repeated attempts to force their desires on the rest of the country without any input from the rest, an Article V convention would have to consider proposals brought up by any of the delegates sent to it.  To do otherwise would only exacerbate the now almost irreparable political and philosophical divide in the country.  And anything coming out of the convention will need ratification by at least 38 states to become a part of the Constitution.  If you are sure 3/4 of the state legislatures would pass amendments that would destroy rather than enhance our liberties, then I submit that it's time for you to give up.  I have a bit more faith in the American people than that.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I could see such a scenario happening:

Convention of states schedule for next year. Trump ushers in a Democratic takeover of state legislatures. New Article V convention amendments includes right to health care, schooling, and the right of transgenders to go to a crap in any house in the country. Also blacks and hispanics get 2 votes for every 1 white vote, to atone for centuries of oppression. Democratic state legislatures quickly ratify amendments before GOP can take back legislatures.

[Doug Loss]

Here's the wording of the Convention of States resolution as it was put before the Delaware legislature.  This is similar to that put before other state legislatures, only the specific references to Delaware are unique:

APPLYING FOR A CONVENTION OF THE STATES UNDER ARTICLE V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PROPOSE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


WHEREAS, the Founders of our Constitution empowered State Legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people— particularly for the generations to come—by proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of power.

NOW THEREFORE:

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the 148th General Assembly of the State of Delaware, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that Delaware hereby applies to Congress for a convention of the states, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution to propose amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this application be provided to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states have made applications on the same subject.

[Doug Loss]

As for how such a convention would operate, here's a set of proposed rules for such a convention:

http://www.conventionofstates.com/proposed_rules

[Doug Loss]

As to proposals for amendments, here's Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments proposal:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/160843892/The-Liberty-Amendments-as-proposed-by-Mark-Levin

and here's Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism proposal:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett.html

[Sanguine]

I could see such a scenario happening:

Convention of states schedule for next year. Trump ushers in a Democratic takeover of state legislatures. New Article V convention amendments includes right to health care, schooling, and the right of transgenders to go to a crap in any house in the country. Also blacks and hispanics get 2 votes for every 1 white vote, to atone for centuries of oppression. Democratic state legislatures quickly ratify amendments before GOP can take back legislatures.

WTF, you might want to read Article V.  It would reassure you somewhat.

[MACVSOG68]

The utter corruption of the entire DC cartel/power structure with the moneyed special interests of K street and Wall Street, and that includes both arms of the Uniparty, would be an immense hurdle to overcome. I can see their influence perverting the Originalist intent  of a COS. That is why secession is such an attractive option to me.

Well, let's hope this secessionist movement offers more freedom than the last one did.

[austingirl]

Of course it would. Secession would provide a chance for all  to escape the national plantation.

[thackney]

Thank you @Oceander. It is nice to be on a forum where we can even disagree civilly. That is a breath of fresh air.
Through disagreement, we refine our ideas, improve them, and if used constructively, come to conclusions we can all better live with.

+1

[MACVSOG68]

Of course it would. Secession would provide a chance for all  to escape the national plantation.

Good, because the last one forced each state to continue slavery, that is to remain on the plantation.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Good, because the last one forced each state to continue slavery, that is to remain on the plantation.

You know full well that the plantation is not the same.

Shame on you for inferring otherwise.

And BTW, forced slavery to the federal govt is alive and well, thank you for bringing it up after all.

[MACVSOG68]

You know full well that the plantation is not the same.

Shame on you for inferring otherwise.

And BTW, forced slavery to the federal govt is alive and well, thank you for bringing it up after all.

Plantations didn't use slaves?  Didn't realize that.  You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not.  You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave?  But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery? 

[austingirl]

Plantations didn't use slaves?  Didn't realize that.  You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not.  You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave?  But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?

No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Plantations didn't use slaves?  Didn't realize that.  You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not.  You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave?  But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?

The shift is in full progress with you, I see.

You are indeed a forced slave to the almighty fed who apparently you see fit to serve, as you pay your taxes, your allegiance in honoring non-freedoms.  You are serving, make no mistake, whether you are aware or not.

Do you not see your freedoms being subverted, aka being in slavery?

[MACVSOG68]

No one is equating the practice of owning human beings, an abhorrent practice that has been with us since the beginning of human history and not limited to the Confederate States, to today's slavery to national government. The IRS alone is reason enough to make the analogy.

I didn't make the analogy, in fact I abhorred it.  And nothing I have been involved in during my lifetime is in any way analogous to slavery.  I do agree slavery was not limited to the Confederacy.  That rebellion was formed for the purpose of continuing it.  There was no moral justification for it.

[MACVSOG68]

The shift is in full progress with you, I see.

You are indeed a forced slave to the almighty fed who apparently you see fit to serve, as you pay your taxes, your allegiance in honoring non-freedoms.  You are serving, make no mistake, whether you are aware or not.

Do you not see your freedoms being subverted, aka being in slavery?

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I didn't make the analogy, in fact I abhorred it.  And nothing I have been involved in during my lifetime is in any way analogous to slavery.  I do agree slavery was not limited to the Confederacy.  That rebellion was formed for the purpose of continuing it.  There was no moral justification for it.

You are abhorrent to slavery yet reject you are subject to the slavery foisted by this government?

You have no concept of true freedoms, apparently.

[thackney]

Plantations didn't use slaves?  Didn't realize that.  You may be a forced slave to the federal government, but I'm not.  You say shame on me, yet you try to equate the life you live here to that of an African slave?  But just to be sure, are you arguing that the last secession didn't force its rebellious states to continue the institution of slavery?

Another BS thread hijack.

Start your thread to argue history

[MACVSOG68]

Another BS thread hijack.

Start your thread to argue history

We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread. 

[austingirl]

We are trying to talk about secession and whether anyone has a right to invoke it, which is the topic of the thread.

Then quit refighting the War of Northern Aggression and besmirching the family honor of those whose ancestors fought for the South.

[Smokin Joe]

That's an excellent one. 

What did you think of my proposal, above?

There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.

No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There are two ways to eliminate a deficit, just like any budget shortfall. One is to cut spending. The other is to increase revenue. For Congress, that would mean either they take a pay cut, or we get a tax increase, and the latter could be tacked onto anything from fuel to the various 'sin taxes' (where one smaller group bears the brunt of the expense) to even a tariff on goods. The bottom line is that no matter how they choose to raise that revenue, we all pay for it.

No way they will pass on a paycheck and the perks of office. If you require them to balance the budget, it will be the one Constitutional Obligation they will fulfill, and they will tax us mercilessly to accomplish it before they cut a dime in spending, especially if they are eligible for re-election.

One must go farther afield, am afraid.

Most countries undertake other mechanisms to cut a deficit.  One is inflation.  Countries can create more currency to cheapen it.   Making a million dollars borrowed years ago now worth due to inflation one-tenth that amount makes perfect economic sense to a country in debt, doesn't it?

The other is to rescheduling of debt.  Many simply say they cannot pay and then agree to repay pennies on the dollar.  Think Obama's agreement to pay pennies to GM's bondholders.