The Briefing Room
State Chapters => State Politics/Government => Topic started by: bigheadfred on September 28, 2016, 11:18:05 pm
-
http://www.cosaction.com/
I think a good way to be proactive in the face of Conservative annihilation would be for people to ride their respective state representatives into passing legislation in full support of a Convention. I am looking at the link above and it may be a good place to start. I am adding a mention to members and asking them to get involved. Please tell every one on your buddy lists. Please and thank you.
Be proactive with this. I feel it gives a person additional voice and a good venue. More so than a single vote. So get active.
Life doesn't come with a remote.
Get up and change it yourself.
@INVAR @Smokin Joe @RAT Patrol @sinkspur @Doug Loss @Oceander @geronl @AbaraXas @Idaho_Cowboy @roamer_1 @DB @TomSea @Right_in_Virginia @mystery-ak @RoosGirl @Machiavelli
@madmaximus @Suppressed @240B @Cyber Liberty @CatherineofAragon @musiclady @Victoria33 @HonestJohn @Maj. Bill Martin
Put in on Twitter, Facebook, TOS 888high58888 :silly: I am planning an e-mail assault on my state reps this weekend. I will continue it through the next year. Be able to get the attention of the noobs when they reconvene in January.
Regards
-
I doubt it will fix anything, but I'm willing to try.
-
Why? They don't follow the Constitution we have now, why would they follow a new one?
-
Why? They don't follow the Constitution we have now, why would they follow a new one?
So, what's your plan, @Cyber Liberty ?
:patriot:
-
Why? They don't follow the Constitution we have now, why would they follow a new one?
Well, if you want to start a new party or to get the one you want promoted then Identify yourself as such and hammer your reps. Or just hammer your reps. Just for the hell of it. Tell them I AM CYBER LIBERTY AND I DEMAND YOU DO WHAT I TELL YOU! Set up a couple or 25 e-mail accounts and spam all reps in all 57 states. Do it at work. Do it all day at work. Get those Chinese engineers to set you up a robo e-mail spamming program. Tell them I sent you. Just do it.
-
Mark Levin spent his first hour on the Constitutional convention idea. His depth of knowledge on our Constitution is amazing.
What else do we have?
-
Mark Levin spent his first hour on the Constitutional convention idea. His depth of knowledge on our Constitution is amazing.
What else do we have?
Fold our tents. Be a lost lonely voice crying meekly in the wilderness.
8888crybaby
Anyone know how Castle or Johnson stand on a convention?
-
Well, if you want to start a new party or to get the one you want promoted then Identify yourself as such and hammer your reps. Or just hammer your reps. Just for the hell of it. Tell them I AM CYBER LIBERTY AND I DEMAND YOU DO WHAT I TELL YOU! Set up a couple or 25 e-mail accounts and spam all reps in all 57 states. Do it at work. Do it all day at work. Get those Chinese engineers to set you up a robo e-mail spamming program. Tell them I sent you. Just do it.
I'm astonished. I really am. You listened to what I've said. :dropjaw:
-
I'm astonished. I really am. You listened to what I've said. :dropjaw:
I listen to every one. I have a hell of a time with my short term memory now though. Like @Doug Loss asked if I had trouble remembering what I posted a few hours earlier. Yeah. Actually. But I remember later. It is kinda like my life is one big Déjà vu.
Look at it this way. When the jackboots drag you from your bed one early a.m. you'll know you did something right. :tongue2:
-
I listen to every one. I have a hell of a time with my short term memory now though. Like @Doug Loss asked if I had trouble remembering what I posted a few hours earlier. Yeah. Actually. But I remember later. It is kinda like my life is one big Déjà vu.
Look at it this way. When the jackboots drag you from your bed one early a.m. you'll know you did something right. :tongue2:
No. That's how words like "premeditated" start get thrown around.....
-
No. That's how words like "premeditated" start get thrown around.....
What are you talking about? Premeditated liberty? Premeditated rights? It is Constitutional. Defend the Constitution. Defend yourself. Do it for my grandkids. I am.
-
Fold our tents. Be a lost lonely voice crying meekly in the wilderness.
8888crybaby
Anyone know how Castle or Johnson stand on a convention?
From the Constitution Party website:
https://www.constitutionparty.com/constitutional-convention/
We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation’s Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.
We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.
-
Why? They don't follow the Constitution we have now, why would they follow a new one?
exactly right, but it probably wouldn't hurt.
Anything that comes out of the AVC would have to pass states to be added anyway. Then again, it could be dominated by Trump supporters, lol.
-
From the Constitution Party website:
They are referring to an open convention. Even with an open convention 3/4 of states have to ratify. They are afraid the process will be superceded by a majority of liberal leaning states to adopt un Consitutional amendments or over ride existing ones. Buy like Cyber said. They ain't following it now. So how do you suggest they be made to toe the mark?
If it be that a states majority actually did ratify to the detriment of existing rights then you know for sure this country is lost and irretrievable. The backslide is quickly becoming a full slide off the edge into the abyss. If it isn't already there. Somehow hoping that will magically change is pretty unrealistic, IMO.
If there aren't enough lawmakers left out there to do something right they have made themselves obsolete. Get a new bunch that will.
-
Well, however it starts, whatever the case, where it starts is empowering from local on up.
If the counties and states are full of Conservative representatives, they are the natural bulwark against the fed.
Whatever happens, it all starts the same.
Eschew any loyalties to anything but Conservatism.
Do vet each and every person you give your vote to, and do not allow your vote to endorse anything under an 85% Conservative.
Preach it. Get your friends and relatives to do the same.
It necessarily starts at the bottom, and after all, that's what the TEA Party has been doing all along.
@bigheadfred , thx for the ping
-
Fold our tents. Be a lost lonely voice crying meekly in the wilderness.
8888crybaby
Anyone know how Castle or Johnson stand on a convention?
The Constitution Party Platform is against a convention and for a return to the Original Intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/resolution-opposing-calls-for-a-constitution-article-v-convention/ (http://www.constitutionparty.com/resolution-opposing-calls-for-a-constitution-article-v-convention/)
I am afraid I agree with this on two main points:
First, a government which does not follow the Constitution we have will ignore any amendment it does not desire to follow. More or different laws will not deal with the fundamental lawlessness which is the problem.
Second, it is not possible to limit the amendments to just those we would like. Especially in the present political climate, the process is likely to be hijacked.
Out of such could conceivably come an Amendment stating:
Strike all language after "We".
Replace with "are the Federal Government and own you and all you possess. You will do our bidding or be summarily shot."
That isn't saying that would necessarily come to pass, but is a hyperbolic illustration of the grim nature of the tampering possible.
-
Well, however it starts, whatever the case, where it starts is empowering from local on up.
If the counties and states are full of Conservative representatives, they are the natural bulwark against the fed.
Whatever happens, it all starts the same.
Eschew any loyalties to anything but Conservatism.
Do vet each and every person you give your vote to, and do not allow your vote to endorse anything under an 85% Conservative.
Preach it. Get your friends and relatives to do the same.
It necessarily starts at the bottom, and after all, that's what the TEA Party has been doing all along.
@bigheadfred , thx for the ping
My former boss always said that the local elections were more important than the national.
-
The Constitution Party Platform is against a convention and for a return to the Original Intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/resolution-opposing-calls-for-a-constitution-article-v-convention/ (http://www.constitutionparty.com/resolution-opposing-calls-for-a-constitution-article-v-convention/)
I am afraid I agree with this on two main points:
First, a government which does not follow the Constitution we have will ignore any amendment it does not desire to follow. More or different laws will not deal with the fundamental lawlessness which is the problem.
Second, it is not possible to limit the amendments to just those we would like. Especially in the present political climate, the process is likely to be hijacked.
Out of such could conceivably come an Amendment stating:
Strike all language after "We".
Replace with "are the Federal Government and own you and all you possess. You will do our bidding or be summarily shot."
That isn't saying that would necessarily come to pass, but is a hyperbolic illustration of the grim nature of the tampering possible.
I agree with you. To think that FedGov will follow some new "rules" when they won't follow the old doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And, if they do follow the new rules I would guarantee that the rules don't benefit us in the least.
-
I concur with what Joe stated.
The lawless are not going to abide new laws. Oligarchs are never going to submit to the will of the plebes they rule when they make law to suit themselves alone.
You cannot stop the lawless or tyrants via civil means.
Period.
That said, I endorse an Article V convention of states for the sole purpose of establishing the justification of what will be necessary to resist those that intend to rule on their own authority.
It will be the final justification for exercising uncivil means to stop and arrest the agenda tyrants have imposed and will impose, because at that point - every single means to avoid war will have been attempted.
And as I assume - they will all fail in a post Constitutional society where the rule of law is already dead.
-
My former boss always said that the local elections were more important than the national.
As far as the machinery goes, that's true - all those folks that make things go in DC and the state started at the local level and worked their way up... It's a long game, but if you want to really change things, it goes beyond the elected officials in the spotlight...
-
As far as the machinery goes, that's true - all those folks that make things go in DC and the state started at the local level and worked their way up... It's a long game, but if you want to really change things, it goes beyond the elected officials in the spotlight...
It's one reason Donnie is facing Hillary, not Bernie. She'd worked for years at the local level to lay a foundation.
-
Bookmarking for later when I'm more awake.,
8888spinning cat
I think I'm going to try to go back to bed for a few hours. Good night dearest peeps.
-
I concur with what Joe stated.
The lawless are not going to abide new laws. Oligarchs are never going to submit to the will of the plebes they rule when they make law to suit themselves alone.
You cannot stop the lawless or tyrants via civil means.
Period.
That said, I endorse an Article V convention of states for the sole purpose of establishing the justification of what will be necessary to resist those that intend to rule on their own authority.
It will be the final justification for exercising uncivil means to stop and arrest the agenda tyrants have imposed and will impose, because at that point - every single means to avoid war will have been attempted.
And as I assume - they will all fail in a post Constitutional society where the rule of law is already dead.
A couple of things. I think everyone's belief that any new amendments to the Constitution would be summarily ignored is a bit exaggerated. After all, the feral government doesn't quite flatly, baldly ignore the Constitutional limitations these days, it just horribly misinterprets the Constitution to claim it allows them to do whatever they want. Any new amendments that were written so as to not allow such wiggle room would have a reasonable chance of reining the feds in. I don't say they wouldn't ignore them, just that it isn't guaranteed.
And as I've said before, if you really support the Constitution, why would you not use the mechanism built into it for exactly this purpose, to rein in an out-of-control federal government, before tearing the country apart? If the convention didn't work, we can always tear the country apart afterwards.
The Convention of States held a simulated convention recently, to see how it might work and what might come out of it. Here are the results:
Convention of States Historic Simulation (http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim)
Final Convention Report with Votes (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/6429/attachments/original/1474994742/Final_Convention_Report_with_Votes.pdf?1474994742)
-
I'm very strongly opposed to this.
Thinking that today's politicians can improve on the Founder's work is delusional in my opinion... :chairbang:
-
A couple of things. I think everyone's belief that any new amendments to the Constitution would be summarily ignored is a bit exaggerated. After all, the feral government doesn't quite flatly, baldly ignore the Constitutional limitations these days, it just horribly misinterprets the Constitution to claim it allows them to do whatever they want. Any new amendments that were written so as to not allow such wiggle room would have a reasonable chance of reining the feds in. I don't say they wouldn't ignore them, just that it isn't guaranteed.
And as I've said before, if you really support the Constitution, why would you not use the mechanism built into it for exactly this purpose, to rein in an out-of-control federal government, before tearing the country apart? If the convention didn't work, we can always tear the country apart afterwards.
The Convention of States held a simulated convention recently, to see how it might work and what might come out of it. Here are the results:
Convention of States Historic Simulation (http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim)
Final Convention Report with Votes (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/6429/attachments/original/1474994742/Final_Convention_Report_with_Votes.pdf?1474994742)
That seems reasonable to me.
Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the
United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any
proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a
majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation.
Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation
shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into
effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or
regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Sect
ion 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
Too many agencies throwing out reams of regulations that do more damage than anything.
-
I'm very strongly opposed to this.
Thinking that today's politicians can improve on the Founder's work is delusional in my opinion... :chairbang:
Thinking that the original document is perfect in a dynamic society is also delusional, IMO. However, giving women the right to vote may have been a grievous error. ;-)
-
Thinking that the original document is perfect in a dynamic society is also delusional, IMO. However, giving women the right to vote may have been a grievous error. ;-)
I don't have a problem with women voting...its all the idiots voting that I have a problem with.....people should have to get a license to vote..they need to pass the written test first :laugh:
-
I don't have a problem with women voting...its all the idiots voting that I have a problem with.....people should have to get a license to vote..they need to pass the written test first :laugh:
For shore. The oral test sucks.
-
Bookmarking for later when I'm more awake.,
8888spinning cat
I think I'm going to try to go back to bed for a few hours. Good night dearest peeps.
Sweet dreams!
-
Sweet dreams!
Huh. I wonder what would happen if I was more awake? The world may never know.
-
For shore. The oral test sucks.
Yep and give the folks in Blue states learners permits...
-
A couple of things. I think everyone's belief that any new amendments to the Constitution would be summarily ignored is a bit exaggerated. After all, the feral government doesn't quite flatly, baldly ignore the Constitutional limitations these days, it just horribly misinterprets the Constitution to claim it allows them to do whatever they want. Any new amendments that were written so as to not allow such wiggle room would have a reasonable chance of reining the feds in. I don't say they wouldn't ignore them, just that it isn't guaranteed.
And as I've said before, if you really support the Constitution, why would you not use the mechanism built into it for exactly this purpose, to rein in an out-of-control federal government, before tearing the country apart? If the convention didn't work, we can always tear the country apart afterwards.
The Convention of States held a simulated convention recently, to see how it might work and what might come out of it. Here are the results:
Convention of States Historic Simulation (http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim)
Final Convention Report with Votes (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/6429/attachments/original/1474994742/Final_Convention_Report_with_Votes.pdf?1474994742)
I'm in no hurry to tear it apart. I don't want it torn apart, and that is why I am voting as I am at the top of the ticket. If it does come apart, I want to be able to tell my great grandkids I voted for the Constitution, for the Rule of Law, for America as we once knew it.
Unfortunately, one very possible scenario is that it will shred itself on the current course.
There is a limit to the amount of debt a country, any country can carry.
There is already sectional unrest, evidenced by widespread rioting, and by the widespread anger Trump has ridden to the nomination, some of which is very ugly. It varies from place to place, but in some places, it's a powder keg out there.
A hot summer, collapsing dollar, hyperinflation, a little starvation, a few riots in the wrong 'hood, and there will be blood in the streets, not just the drip, drip, drip that goes on in urban areas now, but rivers of it.
There will be only one way to control that--troops, who will be the best fed and supplied of anyone except the insider cadre in government, which they will protect first. The flow of goods and services will suffer some interruptions, perhaps minor and intermittent, perhaps major and extended, and those may well occur far from any unrest. Most people are only a couple of meals from desperation, and desperate people shed the veneer of civilization very quickly, for the most part.
FEMA won't have to have roundups, people will go to camp to feed their kids and be sorted out from there...
Maybe I'm wrong (I sure hope so), and that's just one dark possibility, but at that point we will have collectively sold our birthright for a mass of pottage.
The scary part is that I can see this happening with either of the two major candidates.
Congress gives me no faith that they will resist the continuation of ruinous fiscal policy, and if things fall apart, they will likely be just fine, whisked off to some safe zone.
A convention could go either way, accelerating the end of the Republic if the wrong people are in charge, or following the formalities, to check off one more attempt to get our Government to follow its own laws. While such might call attention to what needs to be done, that has already been done by economists, political theorists, ordinary folks, captains of industry, and gone unheeded.
So, I ask your pardon for not being very optimistic about the eventual outcome.
-
@Smokin Joe
I view it as something to do while waiting for the inevitable meltdown. Any real positive change is going to be radical compared to the status quo. Too many people who are unwilling to change anything. With many lacking in the knowledge or ability to survive for very long without the massive bureaucracy of the fedgov. The wife and I were just discussing restocking the larder. We don't get too fancy, but it is around time for the stores to have case sales.
-
@Smokin Joe
I view it as something to do while waiting for the inevitable meltdown. Any real positive change is going to be radical compared to the status quo. Too many people who are unwillingly to change anything. With many lacking in the knowledge or ability to survive for very long without the massive bureaucracy of the fedgov. The wife and I were just discussing restocking the larder. We don't get too fancy, but it is around time for the stores to have case sales.
We load up on loss leaders, fill the freezers, can a lot of what comes out of the garden, and buy cases of the stuff we use most when it comes on sale. You can get some deals. We don't eat fancy, as a rule, just a solid fairly basic diet..
I can't fault the idea of something to do, and who knows, something positive may come of it. I see building a third Party pretty much the same way, when the meltdown comes, someone is going to have to step in, and it is likely the two major parties are going to fare poorly if things get really ugly.
-
@Taxcontrol
To help the exodus along, I have switched to the Constitution Party and I will be voting for Castle. I encourage others to do the same.
Another of my useless gestures. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
My former boss always said that the local elections were more important than the national.
I think that was true in the past, but not so much now with an overly-intrusive federal government.
-
@Sanguine @RoosGirl @Smokin Joe
Following a party platform without enough dissent has gotten us into the current mess.
-
@Sanguine @RoosGirl @Smokin Joe
Following a party platform without enough dissent has gotten us into the current mess.
I've never been a big "joiner" of anything, but several years back I decided that I needed to committ and support the party that most closely aligned with constitutionalism and small-governmentism. I thought it was the Republicans.
-
I'm very strongly opposed to this.
Thinking that today's politicians can improve on the Founder's work is delusional in my opinion... :chairbang:
Actually, the Founders disagreed with you. Pretty much none of them were completely satisfied with the final draft, and figured it was the best they could do in the time available to them.
-
A couple of things. I think everyone's belief that any new amendments to the Constitution would be summarily ignored is a bit exaggerated. After all, the feral government doesn't quite flatly, baldly ignore the Constitutional limitations these days, it just horribly misinterprets the Constitution to claim it allows them to do whatever they want. Any new amendments that were written so as to not allow such wiggle room would have a reasonable chance of reining the feds in. I don't say they wouldn't ignore them, just that it isn't guaranteed.
And as I've said before, if you really support the Constitution, why would you not use the mechanism built into it for exactly this purpose, to rein in an out-of-control federal government, before tearing the country apart? If the convention didn't work, we can always tear the country apart afterwards.
You obviously missed what I wrote here:
I endorse an Article V convention of states for the sole purpose of establishing the justification of what will be necessary to resist those that intend to rule on their own authority.
I'm fine with attempting to pass new amendments to reign in a lawless Federal Beast. I doubt they will ever make it to ratification without being sabotaged, and even if so - the Oligarchy is never going to allow itself to be restrained. Tyranny never does.
Plus, those of us who want to restrain the Beast are in a growing minority.
But as far as the Government goes, it needs to be indicted - and attempting to restrain it using the method the Founders gave is a great way to showcase the fact that the government is wholly unmoored from authority and will not live within the limited bounds it must operate within, nor will it accede to the will of the people.
Not only that - but if by some miracle The Lord granted this people the victory over tyranny - those new Amendments would be the basis of establishing new guards for our future security.
But I have no hope or expectation that they would ever make it to the ratification process before being sabotaged.
-
@Sanguine @RoosGirl @Smokin Joe
Following a party platform without enough dissent has gotten us into the current mess.
True, that is part of the problem. Having a platform and not following it is the rest of it.
-
You obviously missed what I wrote here:
I endorse an Article V convention of states for the sole purpose of establishing the justification of what will be necessary to resist those that intend to rule on their own authority.
I'm fine with attempting to pass new amendments to reign in a lawless Federal Beast. I doubt they will ever make it to ratification without being sabotaged, and even if so - the Oligarchy is never going to allow itself to be restrained. Tyranny never does.
Plus, those of us who want to restrain the Beast are in a growing minority.
But as far as the Government goes, it needs to be indicted - and attempting to restrain it using the method the Founders gave is a great way to showcase the fact that the government is wholly unmoored from authority and will not live within the limited bounds it must operate within, nor will it accede to the will of the people.
Not only that - but if by some miracle The Lord granted this people the victory over tyranny - those new Amendments would be the basis of establishing new guards for our future security.
But I have no hope or expectation that they would ever make it to the ratification process before being sabotaged.
I didn't miss a thing you wrote. I agree with you. I'm perhaps not so pessimistic as you, but I certainly don't think an Article V Convention will automatically, instantly fix the problems we have. But it's very clear to me that we have to try this potential remedy before doing anything else to dissolve the ties that bind us.