BREAKING: Ted Cruz Introduces AWESOME Constitutional Amendment

[INVAR]

However, rather than throw our hands up and declare that there is no hope to remedy any of the issues and situations at hand peacefully, we have to work with what we've got which I do see offers some glimmer of hope.

I'm sorry, but history teaches that institutionalized corruption and tyranny is never 'remedied' via civil means.  We can pretend all the day long that somehow we are different and that we can just elect the right people to the right offices and turn things around - and you would be exercising both futility and insanity.  A majority of the population WANTS the tyranny and corruption you and I oppose.  A parity of the population is wholly ignorant of our foundations or sees them as an enemy belief system to be expunged.

A self-serving corrupted political class leading a debased, ignorant and wicked society is not a recipe for restoration of liberties.

It is going to be extraordinarily difficult to 'fix' Washington from the top down

That is an impossibility.  There is NO TOP-DOWN FIX unless you want to support a dictatorship - and then it's not a 'fix' at all.  We were forged from the people on up, not from the top on down.  The idea of fixing us from the top down is to surrender liberty for monarchy or dictatorship.  In fact, that sentiment is exactly how we have arrived at this place of Constitutional anarchy to begin with.

What has changed, IMHO is the attitude of the electorate and the scales of peace could very easily be tipped towards pandemonium and I feel many of our elected officials realize that, whether or not they truly react to the voices of the people (as Ryan promised in his speech) remains to be seen.

Do not misconstrue what the Federal Beast sees of the electorate and the populace.  They do not fear us, they hold us in contempt.  They also do not fear pandemonium, they think they can properly guide and manage that to their benefit.  In fact they are stoking it themselves.

What I feel many people see in Trump is that he is someone who will stop the corruption.

Beguiled fools, all.  I use the word 'Institutionalized' before the word corruption when referencing the feds.  That Trump has funded and endorsed the corruption apparently escapes notice of everyone who lifts all their hopes and dreams upon the man who spent his life living in gilded luxury that would make Liberace blush.

Right now, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.  If he doesn't deliver, there's going to be a tremendous backlash in this country...

No there will not be.  Trump will enjoy the same devotion from his supporters that Obama continues to enjoy from his - even when he never made good on any of his promises to them.

It's what happens with cults of personality.

I think the Left is going to be pleasantly surprised and eventually join the ranks of the Trump faithful when Trump's Liberalism is truly revealed in the things he will push for and act on.

[catfish1957]

What?  That makes no sense.

As does trying to complete a term limit constitutional amendment with the scum that is running the show.

Understand now?

[Hoodat]

Have the forum #nevertrumps been able "to move forward"?   

About as much as the Trump supporters have moved to the left.  Can't wait to see what the new insurance mandates of Trumpcare look like.

[Sanguine]

As does trying to complete a term limit constitutional amendment with the scum that is running the show.

Understand now?

Not really.  We're talking state legislatures, not the DC scum.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Not really.  We're talking state legislatures, not the DC scum.

And Republicans just picked up a YUGE number of seats across the country. I think it's worth a shot, there's no reason not to try.

[libertybele]

I'm sorry, but history teaches that institutionalized corruption and tyranny is never 'remedied' via civil means.  We can pretend all the day long that somehow we are different and that we can just elect the right people to the right offices and turn things around - and you would be exercising both futility and insanity.  A majority of the population WANTS the tyranny and corruption you and I oppose.  A parity of the population is wholly ignorant of our foundations or sees them as an enemy belief system to be expunged.

A self-serving corrupted political class leading a debased, ignorant and wicked society is not a recipe for restoration of liberties.

That is an impossibility.  There is NO TOP-DOWN FIX unless you want to support a dictatorship - and then it's not a 'fix' at all.  We were forged from the people on up, not from the top on down.  The idea of fixing us from the top down is to surrender liberty for monarchy or dictatorship.  In fact, that sentiment is exactly how we have arrived at this place of Constitutional anarchy to begin with.

Do not misconstrue what the Federal Beast sees of the electorate and the populace.  They do not fear us, they hold us in contempt.  They also do not fear pandemonium, they think they can properly guide and manage that to their benefit.  In fact they are stoking it themselves.

Beguiled fools, all.  I use the word 'Institutionalized' before the word corruption when referencing the feds.  That Trump has funded and endorsed the corruption apparently escapes notice of everyone who lifts all their hopes and dreams upon the man who spent his life living in gilded luxury that would make Liberace blush.

No there will not be.  Trump will enjoy the same devotion from his supporters that Obama continues to enjoy from his - even when he never made good on any of his promises to them.

It's what happens with cults of personality.

I think the Left is going to be pleasantly surprised and eventually join the ranks of the Trump faithful when Trump's Liberalism is truly revealed in the things he will push for and act on.

I understand completely where you're coming from and feel that the attempts to fix Washington from the bottom up have been derailed if not completely halted. I am still of the opinion that was the purpose of the hopeful runoff between Clinton and Bush which obviously never happened and I still believe that Trump's motivation wasn't for the people but to also halt the conservative momentum. What has baffled me though is the fact that Clinton wasn't left standing; she was defeated.  That is the only reason I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt.  I have no doubt that Trump will do whatever is going to make Trump wealthier and more powerful.  IMHO, I see him going through with the North American Union in order to bolster our economy, which will please the liberals, and infuriate conservatives, I see him going through with the Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling and tapping into the shale which will infuriate the liberals and please the conservatives.  In essence our economy will be saved and jobs will be plentiful but at a price neither side will be happy with. I also feel he will be successful in negotiating deals with foreign countries and the U.N.  My fear is the Trump v. Putin 'deals' that I think are already happening and perhaps eventually we may see a Trump v. Putin standoff.

IMHO there is still the possibility of tremendous backlash; rioting in the streets because there are those unhappy with the election, Black Lives Matter and attacks on our police force, etc., is just the beginning and has the potential to erupt into something much, much larger. In part, all the scenarios are a result of how Trump has handled himself and because he is now our President elect, he holds all the keys right now.  Who he has in his pocket and vice-versa remains to be seen.

[catfish1957]

Not really.  We're talking state legislatures, not the DC scum.

And those two are mutually exclusive?  Who knew....

 

[Sanguine]

And those two are mutually exclusive?  Who knew....

 

What does that mean?  I can't tell if you have a point or are just being pointlessly snarky, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Fishrrman]

The chances of a Congressional term limit amendment being passed by Congress are.... zero.

The chances of such an amendment being passed by an Article V Convention of the States .... somewhat better.

[LateForLunch]

I...feel...

Invar thinks, you feel and somehow you both jump to the same conclusion. What is the unifying theme !?!

"Still a (person) hears what (they) want to hear and disregards the rest." The Boxer (Simon and Garfunkle)

[GrouchoTex]

The first time I remember hearing about term limits was back in 1994 when the republicans were running to take back congress with the "contract for America".

The same mistrust exists,maybe more so today.

I used to agree that this was not necessary,that we would "throw the bums out" by paying attention. We would get rid of the bad ones and keep the good ones, and it was an insult to our intelligence to think that we could not, thank you very much!

Then came this cycle:

Dems hold up a candidate, as corrupt as any we have ever seen, as a paragon of virtue, and the media colluded with her party to prevent any challengers. The media also gives a ratio of 3-to-1 free coverage to Trump, over his nearest rival, in hopes to get a favorable match up that their chosen candidate can win. Many of us wondered how we could get what we felt as the worse POTUS choices in our lifetimes. We know the media manipulated it.

It didn't work out as they had planned, obviously, but it came too close for comfort.
So the Dems are saying "at least, we only have Trump for 8 years, max", just as all of us would be saying, if reversed,"She can only serve 2 terms".

This is why I am now in favor of term limits. While I have faith in my fellow Americans, I do not in the media and those who run it. The coup almost worked. I'll support term limits just to keep the media out of it, as much as possible, anyway.

[INVAR]

The first time I remember hearing about term limits was back in 1994 when the republicans were running to take back congress with the "contract for America".

The same mistrust exists,maybe more so today.

I used to agree that this was not necessary,that we would "throw the bums out" by paying attention. We would get rid of the bad ones and keep the good ones, and it was an insult to our intelligence to think that we could not, thank you very much!

Then came this cycle:

Dems hold up a candidate, as corrupt as any we have ever seen, as a paragon of virtue, and the media colluded with her party to prevent any challengers. The media also gives a ratio of 3-to-1 free coverage to Trump, over his nearest rival, in hopes to get a favorable match up that their chosen candidate can win. Many of us wondered how we could get what we felt as the worse POTUS choices in our lifetimes. We know the media manipulated it.

It didn't work out as they had planned, obviously, but it came too close for comfort.
So the Dems are saying "at least, we only have Trump for 8 years, max", just as all of us would be saying, if reversed,"She can only serve 2 terms".

This is why I am now in favor of term limits. While I have faith in my fellow Americans, I do not in the media and those who run it. The coup almost worked. I'll support term limits just to keep the media out of it, as much as possible, anyway.

Human nature is human nature for a reason - it will ALWAYS default to corruption and to impose tyranny on others.  ALWAYS.

Term limits are necessary in an age where the majority of the populace is totally ignorant of our foundational principles, our history and heritage and in whom the foundational religions are no longer practiced. 

Only a moral and religious people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they will have more need of masters, according to Franklin.

[LateForLunch]

Human nature is human nature for a reason - it will ALWAYS default to corruption and to impose tyranny on others.  ALWAYS.

There are a lot of historical figures who might disagree with such a sweeping general statement and say that Natural Law, (which is also demonstrated in both the good and bad aspects of human nature) dominates over all other elements of life ( including government) in the long run. By that, Locke and others who believe in Natural Law thought without reasonable controls and safeguards, the inclination of groups of people, leaders and government are toward tyranny. Hence the careful way the Founders tried to structure the government as a free representative Constitutional republic. People will adhere to Natural Law including actions guided by moral sense, even if they do not consciously or enthusiastically support either religion or moral codes of ethic consciously (because there is a lot of strong evidence which suggests that these things are "hardwired" into the behavior of normal people raised in Western culture).

Term limits are necessary in an age where the majority of the populace is totally ignorant of our foundational principles, our history and heritage and in whom the foundational religions are no longer practiced.

Although there is a strong rational argument in favor of that without question, that is strikingly similar to saying that there may be a strong rational argument that could be made for the idea that people should never lie or cheat or steal - it is not so much a matter of morality as possibility. The whole enterprise is unwieldy (impossible) politically so another avenue must be found, at least in the short-to-intermediate view. 

[libertybele]

Invar thinks, you feel and somehow you both jump to the same conclusion. What is the unifying theme !?!

"Still a (person) hears what (they) want to hear and disregards the rest." The Boxer (Simon and Garfunkle)

Gee, thanks for being judge and jury. Just so you know the only one whose judgement really matters to me is Jesus Christ's.

[bolobaby]

Do you really think that 2/3 of BOTH HOUSES of congress will support a measure to limit their job? It is DOA..  I like to see the House term moved from two years to four years.

@kevindavis

Yep. The only way to make term limits happen is through an Article V Constitutional Convention.

[INVAR]

There are a lot of historical figures who might disagree with such a sweeping general statement and say that Natural Law, (which is also demonstrated in both the good and bad aspects of human nature) dominates over all other elements of life ( including government) in the long run.

"Natural Law" outside of the revelations of scripture is essentially 'survival of the fittest' - where the strong rule the weak and plunder them under every kind of threat or tradition they can establish.  "Natural Law" as Locke and others understood it is through the prism of a biblical construct, which as you suggested as being 'hardwired' into Western culture.  That is simply a natural outgrowth of living in cultures where Christianity and/or the bible was a fundamental part of society.  It is the 'culture' that is "hardwired" into people raised in it - not morality.

I witnessed that firsthand when living in India.  Their culture is hardwired into their mindsets - not morality.  Things we find repugnant and immoral (such as child marriages, killing little girls legally up to age 5) are perfectly acceptable and considered a moral duty within a culture where scripture never had a foothold in influencing a culture.  In India - swindling or stealing from someone and getting way with it is widely accepted as the person being 'clever' which is an attribute that is celebrated, not disciplined.

The whole enterprise is unwieldy (impossible) politically so another avenue must be found, at least in the short-to-intermediate view.

Without the foundational and biblical principles that once governed our society, as the Founders warned - liberty will be in ruin.  There is no other way to preserve what was intended for us outside of a moral and religious people who are self-governed by the biblical religions.

[kevindavis007]

@kevindavis

Yep. The only way to make term limits happen is through an Article V Constitutional Convention.

@bolobaby


Sorry a Article V will be a bad idea as well..

[INVAR]

Sorry a Article V will be a bad idea as well..

Not entirely bad. 

It's failure will provide the justification to do what is necessary to resist what will be attempted to be imposed on us.

[Doug Loss]

@bolobaby


Sorry a Article V will be a bad idea as well..

Ah, no, it's about the only possible way to reduce the size of the federal behemoth.

[bolobaby]

@bolobaby


Sorry a Article V will be a bad idea as well..

@kevindavis

No offense, but I never put much credence in people who say "x would be bad," but then don't bother to offer even a simple explanation why, or present a reasonable alternative.

Typical stubborn do-nothing response.

[Hoodat]

No offense, but I never put much credence in people who say "x would be bad," but then don't bother to offer even a simple explanation why, or present a reasonable alternative.

@bolobaby
@kevindavis

I would be happy to answer that.  The reason 'x' would be bad is because the average citizen today is a blithering idiot compared to our Founding Fathers.  A Constitutional Convention would allow the people to make wholesale changes to our Constitution in all areas.  Do you really trust a populace who gave us Baraq Obama and Donald Trump - two of the biggest enemies to the Constitution to ever hold the highest Executive office - to have the power to make changes to Amendment I, Amendment II, Amendment V, Article 4, etc?  I would love nothing more to get rid of Amendment XIV, 80% of Amendment XIV, etc.  But the risk of doing so by today's citizenry is not a chance I am willing to take.

The only alternative is to elect Congressmen and Senators who support term limits.  Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is remote, precisely because of the same citizenry mentioned above.  Sure, the average citizen wants term limits for every other Congressman and Senator out there.  Yet they keep re-electing their own again and again and again.

[Sanguine]

@bolobaby
@kevindavis

I would be happy to answer that.  The reason 'x' would be bad is because the average citizen today is a blithering idiot compared to our Founding Fathers.  A Constitutional Convention would allow the people to make wholesale changes to our Constitution in all areas.  Do you really trust a populace who gave us Baraq Obama and Donald Trump - two of the biggest enemies to the Constitution to ever hold the highest Executive office - to have the power to make changes to Amendment I, Amendment II, Amendment V, Article 4, etc?  I would love nothing more to get rid of Amendment XIV, 80% of Amendment XIV, etc.  But the risk of doing so by today's citizenry is not a chance I am willing to take.

The only alternative is to elect Congressmen and Senators who support term limits.  Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is remote, precisely because of the same citizenry mentioned above.  Sure, the average citizen wants term limits for every other Congressman and Senator out there.  Yet they keep re-electing their own again and again and again.

Howdat?  Do you really think that they could get a 3/4 vote on boneheaded amendments? 

[Doug Loss]

@bolobaby
@kevindavis

I would be happy to answer that.  The reason 'x' would be bad is because the average citizen today is a blithering idiot compared to our Founding Fathers.  A Constitutional Convention would allow the people to make wholesale changes to our Constitution in all areas.  Do you really trust a populace who gave us Baraq Obama and Donald Trump - two of the biggest enemies to the Constitution to ever hold the highest Executive office - to have the power to make changes to Amendment I, Amendment II, Amendment V, Article 4, etc?  I would love nothing more to get rid of Amendment XIV, 80% of Amendment XIV, etc.  But the risk of doing so by today's citizenry is not a chance I am willing to take.

The only alternative is to elect Congressmen and Senators who support term limits.  Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is remote, precisely because of the same citizenry mentioned above.  Sure, the average citizen wants term limits for every other Congressman and Senator out there.  Yet they keep re-electing their own again and again and again.

You're laboring under some tremendous misapprehensions.  The "average citizen" wouldn't be delegates to an Article V convention, anymore than they were in the Founders' time.  You don't really thing the Founders were "average citizens," do you?  And all an Article V convention would do is propose amendments to the states for ratification, just as Congress proposes amendments for ratification.  Make wholesale changes?  Only if 3/4s of the state legislatures agree to them.  If you say 3/4s of the state legislatures would agree to gut the Bill of Rights, a) you're looney, and b) if you're right, the country is already lost.  You really don't understand how an Article V convention would work, that's clear.

[corbe]

   I understand @Hoodat 's apprehension, 3/4 of the States doesn't leave us much room to play with, obummer carried 28 in 2008 and Trump carried 30.
   @Doug Loss  maybe the ratification of the 16, 17, 18, and the 23rd Amendments make some us a little paranoid in this current celebrity obsessed society.  It seems, a few here think giving women the right to vote, the 19th, has proven catastrophic for this Country, another argument for another day. 

[libertybele]

@bolobaby
@kevindavis

I would be happy to answer that.  The reason 'x' would be bad is because the average citizen today is a blithering idiot compared to our Founding Fathers.  A Constitutional Convention would allow the people to make wholesale changes to our Constitution in all areas.  Do you really trust a populace who gave us Baraq Obama and Donald Trump - two of the biggest enemies to the Constitution to ever hold the highest Executive office - to have the power to make changes to Amendment I, Amendment II, Amendment V, Article 4, etc?  I would love nothing more to get rid of Amendment XIV, 80% of Amendment XIV, etc.  But the risk of doing so by today's citizenry is not a chance I am willing to take.

The only alternative is to elect Congressmen and Senators who support term limits.  Unfortunately, the chance of that happening is remote, precisely because of the same citizenry mentioned above.  Sure, the average citizen wants term limits for every other Congressman and Senator out there.  Yet they keep re-electing their own again and again and again.

First of all it's our State legislators that would be convening, not individual citizenry.  Proposition, voting and acceptance of amendments to the Constitution would be by two-thirds of the state legislatures.  The time is now, while we have a chance.  I don't think we'll ever have a more opportune time than now, while most of our state legislators for the most part lean more conservative.

The first ever, historic Convention of States Simulation has been completed! One-hundred and thirty-seven delegates representing every state in the nation convened in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept. 21-23.   During this simulation The Convention passed amendment proposals on the following six ideas:

1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.

www.conventionofstates.com/cossim