(Updates)Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Ru

[libertybele]

Whatever made you @libertybele think that anyone is going to pay any more attention to a revised Constitution than they pay to what we already have?  That is a complete mystery to me.

The purpose of the Convention of States wasn't to revise the Constitution but rather to return the powers that the Feds have take away from the states back to the states.  That would take conservative legislators in each state standing up for states rights.

As it stands now you are absolutely correct; our Republic just collapsed.  Our Senators and Congressmen who we elected to protect our rights under the Constitution absolutely failed. Instead they twisted the Constitution to allow a one party government.  I'm talking on both side of the aisle -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm absolutely livid and need to vent.

Like everyone else in here this absolutely sickens me.  Revolution?  New Party?  or Do Nothing?

What remedies do we have left, if any?

[Bigun]

@Bigun

IIRC, you were a big supporter of an Article V convention.  Did that change?  Serious question, with no criticism implied.

You do not recall correctly @Cyber Liberty I have NEVER been a proponent of that idea nor will I ever be! At least until I see some validity given to the Constitution we already have and I don't see that happening!

[Bigun]

The purpose of the Convention of States wasn't to revise the Constitution but rather to return the powers that the Feds have take away from the states back to the states.  That would take conservative legislators in each state standing up for states rights.

As it stands now you are absolutely correct; our Republic just collapsed.  Our Senators and Congressmen who we elected to protect our rights under the Constitution absolutely failed. Instead they twisted the Constitution to allow a one party government.  I'm talking on both side of the aisle -- I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm absolutely livid and need to vent.

Like everyone else in here this absolutely sickens me.  Revolution?  New Party?  or Do Nothing?

What remedies do we have left, if any?

And how - by what mechanism- was that supposed to happen even before very recent events?

[Cyber Liberty]

You do not recall correctly @Cyber Liberty I have NEVER been a proponent of that idea nor will I ever be! At least until I see some validity given to the Constitution we already have and I don't see that happening!

Cool beans!  I was obviously thinking of somebody else.   

I agree 100%!  @HoustonSam is making sense.  To conclude a Constitution will never work means we have to find another system, and I am at a loss as to what that would be.  Feudalism?  I think that's what we have, now that the Republic as we knew it is dead.  If that's the case, I hereby declare the Castle to be an Autonomous Zone. 

Government of the people, by the people and for the people has finally perished from the Earth.

[skeeter]

@BigunWhy* will government not enforce the Constitution?  What is the fundamental antecedent problem we have to solve to return government to its proper moorings?

I can answer that one -  because the US Constitution is, what one so called Constitutional professor once called it, a ‘negative charter of liberties’ limiting the reach of the government for the benefit of the states and, most importantly, the sovereign individual.

Can’t have that if total control is your goal.

We all well know what the founders considered the last line of defense against the inevitable ascent of the despots. What we don’t yet know is do we still have the character to do what must be done if we’re to remain free.

[libertybele]

Here is a Simulation of the Convention of States that took place in 2016. One-hundred and thirty-seven delegates representing every state in the nation convened in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept. 21-23, 2016.

https://conventionofstates.com/cos-simulation

[Bigun]

I can answer that one -  because the US Constitution is, what one so called Constitutional professor once called it, a ‘negative charter of liberties’ limiting the reach of the government for the benefit of the states and, most importantly, the sovereign individual.

Can’t have that if total control is your goal.

We all well know what the founders considered the last line of defense against the inevitable ascent of the despots. What we don’t yet know is do we still have the character to do what must be done if we’re to remain free.

B I N G O ! ! !

Well said!

[Bigun]

Here is a Simulation of the Convention of States that took place in 2016. One-hundred and thirty-seven delegates representing every state in the nation convened in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept. 21-23, 2016.

https://conventionofstates.com/cos-simulation

  And what are those people doing other than amending the Constitution?  @libertybele

[HoustonSam]

Can’t have that if total control is your goal.

So government ignores the Constitution precisely because the Constitution limits the power of government.  I agree with that @skeeter.  Like all institutions, the US Government ultimately exists not to fulfill its original purpose (as delineated in The Preamble), but to perpetuate itself.

We talk of issues being "on both sides of the aisle" but I think we're missing where "the aisle" actually is : it isn't between Ds and Rs in the US Congress, it's between the people and the states, and the Federal Government.  More generally it's between the ruling class of political elites, primarily at the Federal level, whether elected or appointed, whether R or D, and all the rest of us.

Perhaps there is some remaining cause for hope in the R control of more state legislatures.  Certainly some - California, NY, Illinois - appear lost permanently, but more are majority R than majority D.  Can we believe that *at the state level* the R party can be re-claimed and re-purposed?  And if so, what specific things can be done *at the state level* to re-assert meaningful rule of law, or at least to free ourselves from illegitimate assertions of Federal authority?

[mystery-ak]

Trump Approves Filing Retooled Texas-Style Election Challenges: Giuliani
By Zachary Stieber
December 12, 2020 Updated: December 12, 2020

President Donald Trump’s legal team is planning on filing retooled lawsuits, his lawyer said Saturday.

“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”

Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.

Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.

“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”

Courts have been using the matter of standing to dodge facing the facts, he alleged, adding, “Nobody wants to face the reality that this election was stolen.”

more
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-approves-filing-retooled-texas-style-election-challenges-giuliani_3615492.html

[roamer_1]

I don't think it's likely people would pick up a gun to defend Trump's Presidency, which I was not talking about.

Point in fact: I am offended and more than a little uncomfortable that I may have to. I can think of MANY better hills to die upon.

[DCPatriot]

Whatever made you @libertybele think that anyone is going to pay any more attention to a revised Constitution than they pay to what we already have?  That is a complete mystery to me.

Exactly.  It's what bothers me most of all.

Back in the American Colonies, one-third of a population of 2.5M didn't take a position one way or the other regarding independence from 'Mother England'.  That's 825K for all forum members who hate math.

Today, thanks to a concerted agenda, it probably 200 million who couldn't care less whether our Constitution was re-written.  For starters, they don't vote and don't show any interest in truth or what we're fed as 'News'.

If we couldn't even count on our Supreme Court to correct the thievery/fraud of Nov 3rd, we sure as hell can't count on our military to ignore orders to disarm American Patriots.  Maybe it's clear now why gun registration was/is a very bad idea.

We're bleeped.

[roamer_1]

Our Republic vanished because "We the People" kept voting for the same RINO's expecting a different result. 

Lots of reasons ... hind sight....

We need to move forward somehow.

THAT IS RIGHT.

[Bigun]

@Bigun I think that's a fair question, but it raises in my mind a far more troubling question : if a Constitution is going to be ignored, then clearly it cannot be the basis for establishing a government.  So what can be the basis for establishing a government?

I realize it's a very academic question, but if we actually conclude that the Constitution simply will not be enforced by government, then where do we go next in our thinking?  What do we advocate?

*Why* will government not enforce the Constitution?  What is the fundamental antecedent problem we have to solve to return government to its proper moorings?

I think some of the root causes are in education and culture; it will be a very long march to make changes there, a march that will be continuing long after I'm gone.  But maybe that's the march we have to start and hope that those who come later will complete it.

It's been said far better than I ever could and LONG before I arrived as well!



“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.”

John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776

"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits,
which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their
own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are
circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of
magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the
grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them, and in
them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in
operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their
authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion
in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to
whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)

[roamer_1]

@Bigun I think that's a fair question, but it raises in my mind a far more troubling question : if a Constitution is going to be ignored, then clearly it cannot be the basis for establishing a government.  So what can be the basis for establishing a government?

I realize it's a very academic question, but if we actually conclude that the Constitution simply will not be enforced by government, then where do we go next in our thinking?  What do we advocate?

*Why* will government not enforce the Constitution?  What is the fundamental antecedent problem we have to solve to return government to its proper moorings?

I think some of the root causes are in education and culture; it will be a very long march to make changes there, a march that will be continuing long after I'm gone.  But maybe that's the march we have to start and hope that those who come later will complete it.

That answer is simple, and one I have been shouting out all along:

Liberalism is not winning by its merit - it has no merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.

It is no small thing that the GOP is full of RINOs. That IS the problem. Those that are supposed to stand and defend do not.

[Cyber Liberty]

Point in fact: I am offended and more than a little uncomfortable that I may have to. I can think of MANY better hills to die upon.

You and me both, Brother Roamer.  Shalom.

[libertybele]

And what are those people doing other than amending the Constitution?  @libertybele

Yes they are amending the Constitution and each of those amendments must be ratified individually. An entire New Constitution would need to be ratified in its entirety as a completely new document.  Yes there would be tremendous risk. 

At the time I felt that this would be a good idea;  the majority of the state legislators were conservative --- obviously that conservative majority opted not to take the risk.  Would it have changed anything?  We'll never know.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/263/attachments/original/1448454713/Article_14-ArticleVConvention.pdf?1448454713

[HoustonSam]

Here is a Simulation of the Convention of States that took place in 2016. One-hundred and thirty-seven delegates representing every state in the nation convened in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept. 21-23, 2016.

https://conventionofstates.com/cos-simulation

I like the amendment ideas that were reported out.

If we're truly going to right the ship however, I think we need an impeachment procedure for Federal Officials in which *the states* impeach and *the states* convict.  If, say, 1/2 of the *state legislatures* passed a given resolution to impeach a SCOTUS Justice, and if a committee of *state legislators* were called specifically to serve as the jury and voted 2/3 to convict, then we'd be putting some teeth back into state sovereignty for the Reserved Powers.

You can probably see that I believe the 17th Amendment, which essentially divorced the Senators from the State Governments they were intended to represent, is a critical flaw in the current Constitution.  But we'll never get it repealed.

Of course this specific is just "pie in the sky", but I do wonder whether the state level is the battleground to choose.

[Bigun]

Courts have been using the matter of standing to dodge facing the facts, ...

  And it's total BS.  This court contrived BS is a direct affront to the Constitution and our form of government!

[Bigun]

That answer is simple, and one I have been shouting out all along:

Liberalism is not winning by its merit - it has no merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.

It is no small thing that the GOP is full of RINOs. That IS the problem. Those that are supposed to stand and defend do not.

it is NOT just the GOP @roamer_1 there is a reason why those people are REQUIRED by the Constitution itself to swear an oath of fidelity to the Constitution EVERY time they are sworn into office!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec



12:57 AM · Dec 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1337637634169057281


Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec

恭喜恭喜中国


12:53 AM · Dec 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1337636605046218753

[Cyber Liberty]

Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec



12:57 AM · Dec 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1337637634169057281

I am not going to blame foreign boogeymen for what we have allowed to happen to ourselves.  That includes George Soros.

[Bigun]

So government ignores the Constitution precisely because the Constitution limits the power of government.  I agree with that @skeeter.  Like all institutions, the US Government ultimately exists not to fulfill its original purpose (as delineated in The Preamble), but to perpetuate itself.

We talk of issues being "on both sides of the aisle" but I think we're missing where "the aisle" actually is : it isn't between Ds and Rs in the US Congress, it's between the people and the states, and the Federal Government.  More generally it's between the ruling class of political elites, primarily at the Federal level, whether elected or appointed, whether R or D, and all the rest of us.

Perhaps there is some remaining cause for hope in the R control of more state legislatures.  Certainly some - California, NY, Illinois - appear lost permanently, but more are majority R than majority D.  Can we believe that *at the state level* the R party can be re-claimed and re-purposed?  And if so, what specific things can be done *at the state level* to re-assert meaningful rule of law, or at least to free ourselves from illegitimate assertions of Federal authority?

 "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy

[Right_in_Virginia]

I am not going to blame foreign boogeymen for what we have allowed to happen to ourselves.  That includes George Soros.

I don't think Posobiec's blaming China.  I think he's saying they're celebrating the outcome of this court case.  @Cyber Liberty  ---

[skeeter]

So government ignores the Constitution precisely because the Constitution limits the power of government.  I agree with that @skeeter.  Like all institutions, the US Government ultimately exists not to fulfill its original purpose (as delineated in The Preamble), but to perpetuate itself.

We talk of issues being "on both sides of the aisle" but I think we're missing where "the aisle" actually is : it isn't between Ds and Rs in the US Congress, it's between the people and the states, and the Federal Government.  More generally it's between the ruling class of political elites, primarily at the Federal level, whether elected or appointed, whether R or D, and all the rest of us.

Perhaps there is some remaining cause for hope in the R control of more state legislatures.  Certainly some - California, NY, Illinois - appear lost permanently, but more are majority R than majority D.  Can we believe that *at the state level* the R party can be re-claimed and re-purposed?  And if so, what specific things can be done *at the state level* to re-assert meaningful rule of law, or at least to free ourselves from illegitimate assertions of Federal authority?

Socialists by definition are better suited for organizing and collaborating. As a group they run roughshod over the individual. Socialists seek control and are naturally drawn to positions of influence - teachers, clergy, lawyers, politicians, gov bureaucrats, reporters. The rest of us, wanting just to be left alone to live our lives, will always be on the defense against them.

In short, short of reconstituting HUAC, I don't know how we can prevail against them in the environment and on terms in which they thrive.