Time for a Coalition of Free American States

[Cyber Liberty]

A Convention of states can be called with 2/3 of the states.  FL joined in 2014 .... 7 years ago and still can't get as many states on board that is needed.

At this point in time I believe that's a good thing.

The liberals are acting and ignoring the Constitution.  What makes you think that they would acknowledge a Convention of States and secondly, just because state legislatures propose amendments to the Constitution doesn't mean that they will be beneficial. 

Do I think states' rights absorbed by the Feds should be returned?  Absolutely.  Do I see the Feds complying.  Not a snowballs chance!

This foole calls for an Article V convention, yet has no idea what is written about it in the Constitution he claims we are all too stupid to comprehend at his super-genius level of intellect.

[libertybele]

This foole calls for an Article V convention, yet has no idea what is written about it in the Constitution he claims we are all too stupid to comprehend at his super-genius level of intellect.

 

An Article V Convention of States has never been called for a reason;  one is that there is the possibility (and right now very likely temptation) to opt for changes beyond what was originally intended. IMHO, it make it a dangerous proposition.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Do I think states' rights absorbed by the Feds should be returned?  Absolutely.  Do I see the Feds complying.  Not a snowballs chance!

States rights are states rights, and can never by taken over by any federal government.  That is why they are caller rights.

These rights can be not asserted by the states, however, which is where we are at this time.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Democrats have destroyed the Constitution and now grab onto into it? Wow... this is an interesting thread. Blue states like California looked the federal government right in the eye and said "We will not follow your laws" when they declared themselves "sanctuary states/cities" for immigration and completely ignored federal immigration statutes. Now they have HR 1 on the table which places the responsibility for running federal election in the hands of the federal government, in clear violation of the Constitution. It is the Democrats who started this.

And now we see how this crack in the dam is growing and growing. Texas just declared itself a "sanctuary" for the Second Amendment, declaring it will not adhere to federal gun laws EXACTLY as immigration sanctuaries did with immigration laws. It is now an ACCEPTED TREND to ignore federal laws. And the Democrats started it.

As blue states require federal funds to remain afloat financially, this trend will continue. Federal taxes rise so that states can subsidize illegals from NY to CA. States like Texas that don't even have a state income tax find this mandatory federal support for illegals that overrun their state intolerable. This and many more "sanctuary" efforts on on the horizon. Buckle up.

Many states will join together in 2d Amendment and other common causes in defiance of the federal governemnt in the future, just as blues states coalesced to defy federal immigration laws. Buckle up.

Well spoken @AARguy

and welcome to TBR

[libertybele]

States rights are states rights, and can never by taken over by any federal government.  That is why they are caller rights.

These rights can be not asserted by the states, however, which is where we are at this time.

States rights should NOT be taken over by the FEDS , but slowly in some instances they have  ... overreach of power by the FEDS  and the FEDS infringing on states rights is where I believe we are at.

When the GOP held the majority in both Houses I became aware and interested in the Convention of States.  Since that time,  2/3 of the states still have not signed on. There are several states that have only one House that has signed on, some haven't signed on at all.  Over time I found it frustrating as the opportunity of success really lies on conservative State legislatures and since that time, obviously the number of conservatives states has decreased along with conservative legislatures.

The point that I am trying to make is that Congress is sidestepping the Constitution now, so how is one to believe that a Convention of States would change anything OR even worse a Convention of States could be used to further the liberal agenda by amendment(s).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

States rights should NOT be taken over by the FEDS , but slowly in some instances they have  ... overreach of power by the FEDS  and the FEDS infringing on states rights is where I believe we are at.

When the GOP held the majority in both Houses I became aware and interested in the Convention of States.  Since that time,  2/3 of the states still have not signed on. There are several states that have only one House that has signed on, some haven't signed on at all.  Over time I found it frustrating as the opportunity of success really lies on conservative State legislatures and since that time, obviously the number of conservatives states has decreased along with conservative legislatures.

The point that I am trying to make is that Congress is sidestepping the Constitution now, so how is one to believe that a Convention of States would change anything OR even worse a Convention of States could be used to further the liberal agenda by amendment(s).

Once again, a right cannot be taken over, period.  Any actions by the federal government which seemingly intrudes onto states rights do not take the place of states rights.  The state is simply not asserting their rights instead.

[libertybele]

Once again, a right cannot be taken over, period.  Any actions by the federal government which seemingly intrudes onto states rights do not take the place of states rights.  The state is simply not asserting their rights instead.

You are entitled to your opinion; any action by the FEDS shouldn't intrude on states right;  but IMHO in some instances and on some issues they have.

[roamer_1]

States rights are states rights, and can never by taken over by any federal government.  That is why they are caller rights.

These rights can be not asserted by the states, however, which is where we are at this time.

That is closer to the truth than anything else on this thread.
The state has the right - It OWNS the right. AND they own that right variously, so can exercise that right variously together. Nullification.

[Fishrrman]

I see the writer of this piece is finally coming around.

For months here, I've been posting that it's time for the traditional-freedom states to convene a "New Continental Congress".

NOT "a convention of the states" per Article V of the Constitution (the DC government would never consent to that), but something entirely independent of and "outside of" the Constitution.

"Unconstitutional", you say?
Not permitted, you claim?
Very well, it will be what it will be.

Will you tell me the original Continental Congress of the 1770's was sanctioned or approved by King George's government?

A newly-convened Continental Congress will be "free and unrestrained" to go in whatever directions the delegates take it.

Right up to that "When in the course of human events..." moment.

[libertybele]

I see the writer of this piece is finally coming around.

For months here, I've been posting that it's time for the traditional-freedom states to convene a "New Continental Congress".

NOT "a convention of the states" per Article V of the Constitution (the DC government would never consent to that), but something entirely independent of and "outside of" the Constitution.

"Unconstitutional", you say?
Not permitted, you claim?
Very well, it will be what it will be.

Will you tell me the original Continental Congress of the 1770's was sanctioned or approved by King George's government?

A newly-convened Continental Congress will be "free and unrestrained" to go in whatever directions the delegates take it.

Right up to that "When in the course of human events..." moment.

Free and unrestrained depending on the delegates...but doesn't it open the door for fraud?

Yes..."When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another....    Those words seem very appropriate for what we are experiencing as a nation.  We need a group of leaders for the millions that IMHO will absolutely follow.  Time is ticking.

[LegalAmerican]

Suddenly the Constitution means something to the people who are happy that the Rodents stole the Presidency by violating the Constitution?

"Lefty's", communist's, ALWAYS want to use our laws AGAINST US...when it suits them,  BUT DO NOT ADHERE TO ANY LAWS THEMSELVES.  Words used against us...'WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT'.   Right to our own death! 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0op4CCFUVck

[LegalAmerican]

States have rights under the 10th amendment. Both parties have slowly taken rights away from the states and are guilty of overreach.  The 2A is afforded to us under the Constitution. States are simply taking measures to protect that right that the Feds are trying to take away.

Much different than sanctuary cities for Illegals!  Where in the Constitution does it allow for illegal entry?  The Constitution applies to Citizens of the United States! Illegals don't have rights period.

Nowhere

Not correct and is a P.C. comment.  I disagree.  RINO'S and RATS have done this...not any real republicans.  Those you can count on both hands. 
----------------------
Both parties have slowly taken rights away from the states and are guilty of overreach. =Libertybelle

[libertybele]

Not correct and is a P.C. comment.  I disagree.  RINO'S and RATS have done this...not any real republicans.  Those you can count on both hands. 
----------------------
Both parties have slowly taken rights away from the states and are guilty of overreach. =Libertybelle

P.C . comment.  Baloney!  As long as the RINO's operate under the GOP umbrella, there WILL be overreach. Therefore, BOTH parties are guilty.  It is unfortunate that the RINO's keep getting voted in and we are seeing the results of that being the case for decades.

[Bigun]

Feel free to take your superiority complex and shove it up your azz.  I'll put Briefers understanding of the Constitution somewhere well above yours.

@Sled Dog  You are coming dangerously close to personal attacks on Briefers with this lie, and will lead to a time-out if you don't knock it TF off.

Thank you!  Saved me a bit of typing.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You are entitled to your opinion; any action by the FEDS shouldn't intrude on states right;  but IMHO in some instances and on some issues they have.

A fact, not an opinion.

A right can never be usurped, by definition.

[LegalAmerican]

We can argue all you want.  WE DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION ANYMORE AND ...ZERO RIGHTS.  Sled is correct.

[Free Vulcan]

This country has already broken up, we just are still in the Dead Man Walking phase.

I think its good to plan for the future.

[AARguy]

This conversation has gotten way out of hand. I think the issue is much more simple. I don't see any "annexation" or transfer of real estate at all. What I DO see is a state like Texas, ignoring federal gun laws... which is now TEXAS LAW. States which might develop similar laws like OK, ID, etc would simply form a "club" of 2d Amendment supporting states. As when faced with states ignoring federal immigration laws in the past few years, I don't believe the federal government will take any action at all. As seen in the past few years concerning immigration, when states assert their rights in violation of federal law, the federals rarely push back. As time goes on, other issues will emerge. Taxes and abortion come to mind. Here in Texas we don't want to subsidize states that give freebies to illegals, for example. That could emerge as the next problem with federal authorities enforcing unpopular laws. This trend can go a long way before things like "annexation" are discussed. Heck, there are still some states that have "dry counties" even though Prohibition was repealed. All this can go a long way before anything nasty happens.

And even if things got dicey and the feds called out military forces, can you see an 18 year old soldier from Brooklyn risking his life to conquer Dallas or Houston after being raised to laugh at the "redneck south" all his/her life. The concept is sort of ludicrous. I didn't see the feds take any action against states that ignored federal immigration laws and I can't think of what any such action would be except paperwork lawsuits that along with immigration regulations.... would be ignored.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This conversation has gotten way out of hand. I think the issue is much more simple. I don't see any "annexation" or transfer of real estate at all. What I DO see is a state like Texas, ignoring federal gun laws... which is now TEXAS LAW. States which might develop similar laws like OK, ID, etc would simply form a "club" of 2d Amendment supporting states. As when faced with states ignoring federal immigration laws in the past few years, I don't believe the federal government will take any action at all. As seen in the past few years concerning immigration, when states assert their rights in violation of federal law, the federals rarely push back. As time goes on, other issues will emerge. Taxes and abortion come to mind. Here in Texas we don't want to subsidize states that give freebies to illegals, for example. That could emerge as the next problem with federal authorities enforcing unpopular laws. This trend can go a long way before things like "annexation" are discussed. Heck, there are still some states that have "dry counties" even though Prohibition was repealed. All this can go a long way before anything nasty happens.

And even if things got dicey and the feds called out military forces, can you see an 18 year old soldier from Brooklyn risking his life to conquer Dallas or Houston after being raised to laugh at the "redneck south" all his/her life. The concept is sort of ludicrous. I didn't see the feds take any action against states that ignored federal immigration laws and I can't think of what any such action would be except paperwork lawsuits that along with immigration regulations.... would be ignored.

And that is how one asserts one's rights.  Do not permit others to take them over.

[Sled Dog]

A Convention of states can be called with 2/3 of the states.  FL joined in 2014 .... 7 years ago and still can't get as many states on board that is needed.

At this point in time I believe that's a good thing.

The liberals are acting and ignoring the Constitution.  What makes you think that they would acknowledge a Convention of States and secondly, just because state legislatures propose amendments to the Constitution doesn't mean that they will be beneficial. 

Do I think states' rights absorbed by the Feds should be returned?  Absolutely.  Do I see the Feds complying.  Not a snowballs chance!

Or you could try to READ Article V and discover that it still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify each and every Amendment issued.

[Sled Dog]

This conversation has gotten way out of hand. I think the issue is much more simple. I don't see any "annexation" or transfer of real estate at all. What I DO see is a state like Texas, ignoring federal gun laws... which is now TEXAS LAW. States which might develop similar laws like OK, ID, etc would simply form a "club" of 2d Amendment supporting states. As when faced with states ignoring federal immigration laws in the past few years, I don't believe the federal government will take any action at all. As seen in the past few years concerning immigration, when states assert their rights in violation of federal law, the federals rarely push back. As time goes on, other issues will emerge. Taxes and abortion come to mind. Here in Texas we don't want to subsidize states that give freebies to illegals, for example. That could emerge as the next problem with federal authorities enforcing unpopular laws. This trend can go a long way before things like "annexation" are discussed. Heck, there are still some states that have "dry counties" even though Prohibition was repealed. All this can go a long way before anything nasty happens.

And even if things got dicey and the feds called out military forces, can you see an 18 year old soldier from Brooklyn risking his life to conquer Dallas or Houston after being raised to laugh at the "redneck south" all his/her life. The concept is sort of ludicrous. I didn't see the feds take any action against states that ignored federal immigration laws and I can't think of what any such action would be except paperwork lawsuits that along with immigration regulations.... would be ignored.

Yes, I can see today's woke trans Marxist spawn in the military shooting US citizens trying to exercise the rights those brats have been taught in Woke School are racist and homophobic.   

[Sled Dog]

Feel free to take your superiority complex and shove it up your azz.  I'll put Briefers understanding of the Constitution somewhere well above yours.

@Sled Dog  You are coming dangerously close to personal attacks on Briefers with this lie, and will lead to a time-out if you don't knock it TF off.

It's not a lie if people don't understand that the Article V Convention of the States is the means by which the Founders provided to the states to override a tyrannical Congress which refuses to act to correct excesses of the Federal government.

Nor is it a lie to point out that an Amendment produced by the Article V Convention must follow the exact same ratification process as any Amendment produced by the Congress.   

And finally, it cannot be a lie to point out that people who don't understand this Constitutional process are people who do not understand the Constitution.  This will include forum moderators waving a big stick.

Or maybe people could take the time to read Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments" to get an understanding of a few of things that are wrong with the Constitution today and what might be done to repair them.   And at the same time get an education on Article V.

[Sled Dog]

I see the writer of this piece is finally coming around.

For months here, I've been posting that it's time for the traditional-freedom states to convene a "New Continental Congress".

NOT "a convention of the states" per Article V of the Constitution (the DC government would never consent to that), but something entirely independent of and "outside of" the Constitution.

"Unconstitutional", you say?
Not permitted, you claim?
Very well, it will be what it will be.

Will you tell me the original Continental Congress of the 1770's was sanctioned or approved by King George's government?

A newly-convened Continental Congress will be "free and unrestrained" to go in whatever directions the delegates take it.

Right up to that "When in the course of human events..." moment.

Secession requires war.

We should avoid war when legal alternatives still exist, such as Article V.

This is not 1776.

We are not a minor colony divorcing from a tyrannical empire with enemies to assist us.

And US conservative effort to divorce from NY and CA will be eagerly trounced by Mexico, China, Russia, Canada and the muslims.

The Americans will not win that war.   

You can't even trust that the US military will be on your side or that they won't shoot Americans.   Good luck with that.

Not to mention the fact that this isn't 1776, and even if by some miracle the secession nonsense succeeded....who's going to write the new Constitution?   

Oh.  Am I being chastised by people who are absolutely terrified of an Article V Convention of the States because there might be some Rodent-based Amendments passed that will still have to be ratified...and then being told by those same people that they can secede from the Union and then write their own new and special Constitution?

That's a joke, guys, is what secession is.  Do try to think deeper, hey?  Stop feeling, start thinking.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's not a lie if people don't understand that the Article V Convention of the States is the means by which the Founders provided to the states to override a tyrannical Congress which refuses to act to correct excesses of the Federal government.

Nor is it a lie to point out that an Amendment produced by the Article V Convention must follow the exact same ratification process as any Amendment produced by the Congress.   

And finally, it cannot be a lie to point out that people who don't understand this Constitutional process are people who do not understand the Constitution.  This will include forum moderators waving a big stick.

Or maybe people could take the time to read Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments" to get an understanding of a few of things that are wrong with the Constitution today and what might be done to repair them.   And at the same time get an education on Article V.

Ignore the Admin Warning in the post you quoted at your own peril.

[Sled Dog]

A fact, not an opinion.

A right can never be usurped, by definition.

Yes, that's true.  A right is a right.   

Except when rescinded by law.

A convict in prison does not have the right to keep and bear arms.  That right, along with the right to move freely, has been revoked because he's been adjudicated guilty of a crime.  This is what the Fifth Amendment is about.

There's a difference between having a right and being able to exercise that right.  And in the end, if the Rodents get their wish and every person with a gun (who isn't (b)LM or Aunty Fa)  is deprived of their property and thrown in prison for having a gun, then the right is effectively nullified because it wasn't properly exercised when it needed to be.