Levin: Biggest News Yesterday Was Not Obamacare … and 'This Is Going to Be an Earthquake'

[Right_in_Virginia]

How would a CC give them that opportunity @Oceander ?

Is this a serious question?   

[Sanguine]

Obviously you have forgotten what occurred when a convention for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation was called.

@Bigun, the rules were different.  Not seeing the equivalence.

[Bigun]

@Bigun, the rules were different.  Not seeing the equivalence.

The rules were the rules and they were promptly ignored!  The ONLY person from the entire New York delegation who stayed was Alexander Hamilton and that was because the convention violated it's charter almost immediately.  What makes you think they wouldn't do it again?  What EXACTLY would prevent that?

[Cripplecreek]

The rules were the rules and they were promptly ignored!  The ONLY person from the entire New York delegation who stayed was Alexander Hamilton and that was because the convention violated it's charter almost immediately.  What makes you think they wouldn't do it again?  What EXACTLY would prevent that?

Deal making is the name of the game and nobody will get what they want.

People should be asking themselves what they're willing to risk rather than fantasizing about winning the lottery.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Obviously you have forgotten what occurred when a convention for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation was called.

I forgot my history.

What happened?  Something bad?

I thought we got the Constitution as a result which was a big improvement over the Articles.

[Doug Loss]

The rules were the rules and they were promptly ignored!  The ONLY person from the entire New York delegation who stayed was Alexander Hamilton and that was because the convention violated it's charter almost immediately.  What makes you think they wouldn't do it again?  What EXACTLY would prevent that?

The Articles had no specific provision for modification or amendment.  The only method was for a measure to amend the Articles to be placed before Congress. As with most items in the Articles, a unanimous vote of the 13 states (one state, one vote) was required. The only actual "amendment" that was passed was the motion to replace the Articles with the Constitution, and to send the Constitution to the 13 states for ratification.  And by this historically-documented fact we can see that the results of the original Constitutional Convention, even if you accept the questionable claim that the Convention violated it's charter, were accepted by the government in existence at the time and did not in fact constitute an overthrow of said government.

As for an Article V convention, that is specifically provided for in the existing Constitution (hence, "Article V").  Even if the convention "ran away," anything it came up with would have to be ratified by 38 states to take effect.  The claim that it could "run away" and somehow force it's conclusions on a resistant country is silly on its face.

Here is a detailed response to the claim that the original Constitutional Convention ignored it's rules:

Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Runaway Convention" Myth

[Cripplecreek]

I forgot my history.

What happened?  Something bad?

I thought we got the Constitution as a result which was a big improvement over the Articles.

Thanks to those particular men.

A quick scan of this thread proves without a doubt that those men are no more.

[Doug Loss]

Thanks to those particular men.

A quick scan of this thread proves without a doubt that those men are no more.

You have a strange idea of what "proof" means.

[Cripplecreek]

You have a strange idea of what "proof" means.

Take it up with the poster who wants an amendment to allow killing of people who disagree with him.

You and your little friends have driven me to opposition.

[Doug Loss]

Take it up with the poster who wants an amendment to allow killing of people who disagree with him.

You and your little friends have driven me to opposition.

And again, that doesn't constitute "proof" that people of the stature of the Framers no longer exist.  Whether you like it or not, that's the truth.

[Smokin Joe]

Ah, I see a flaw in your considerations.  When we talk about "the army we have," you seem to be talking almost exclusively about the federal government.  An Article V convention would not involve anyone in the federal government, at all.  And those feds could do damn all to stop it.  So yes, the federal government is compromised.  No one ever disputed that; it's the reason for the Article V convention, after all.  But those folks are also not the ones we're trying to get to rein in the feds.

No, when I refer to the Federal Government, even the State governments, the elected officials we have are the army we have, at least on the front lines. The former is proving to be a huge disappointment, and the latter is in cahoots with it.

I see where you seem to have missed my point, entirely. You would treat the current Federal Government as an isolated system. NO. It is not.

The same people who are the elected officials in the FedGov are the ones who rose through the ranks from local districts, through State Offices and were elected to those Federal offices. They have survived candidate selection/election processes and received backing along the way in the GOP at the local, state, and national levels during their climb to their present position. The State GOP backed them. The State GOP also figures heavily in who is nominated, supported, and elected to State offices. It is all the same. The farm team for Federal Office is the State level, and the farm team for the State level is in the counties and local offices, also nominated, selected, backed by the same GOP.

In all these different levels, the kingmakers, the people who decides who gets in the game with backing serious enough to have a solid chance at being elected, barring some sort of upset, are essentially the same people.

Because the State governments are beholden to the Feds for the distribution of funds the State governments can divvy up to buy the votes back home--funds which do not have the political downside of having to be raised at the State level--the whole scheme of Federal overreach plays just fine at many of the Statehouses because it gives the State Legislators money to divvy up without having to justify to their constituents the taxes needed to raise it.

Do you think the State GOPs are going to ditch that scheme for one in which they have to make (and justify) hard budget decisions or the taxes to fund programs, both of which just might be unpopular enough to cost them their office?

There might be a few, but for the most part, no. The GOP is every bit as comfortable with the status quo at the Federal level as the Democrats are, which means no matter who is selecting delegates, unless they are running at large on popular vote (and guess where the pool of candidates will come from, and who will receive the financial backing for that) they, too will support the status quo, and may even support entrenching it with Constitutional Amendments to that effect. We have already seen the deception carried out in the face of TEA party protests which got many elected to office who promptly forgot any obligation to carry out actions promised or implied to the same set of voters who put them in office, so it is evident that any who enter into the Article V convention as delegates may be equally capable of subverting that process as well on behalf of the GOP as it currently is.
From grassroots to the top of the tree, it is all connected, and it has to be changed from the bottom up. Failure to acknowledge those connections will result in failure to achieve the objectives of the Article V Convention, should such be held, and may lead to Amendments contrary to the intended purpose.

The district and State GOPs must be brought around to reliable conservative, Constitutional goals, in re: original intent, before the Convention delegates are selected. Otherwise, the "elites", ""Rockefeller Republicans", "the Oligarchy", "GOPe", whatever you want to call them can quietly support the whole process, and place delegates who will ensure that the current practice of ignoring the Constitution becomes compliant, not by changing the practices, but by altering the Constitution to agree with them. This would compound the present problem, because it would be a Constitutional requirement from then until such time as it could be changed, or the whole compact dissolved.
IF I were the GOP elites and wanted to subvert the process, I'd quietly get behind it whole hog, propel sympathetic delegate nominees through the selection process, and hijack the works, and the Dems who are happy with the way things are running would suddenly dive in and back it, too.
Our elected Federal officials may be a problem, but even more, they are a symptom of the deeper problem, that being an endemic lack of regard for the Constitution throughout both major political Parties at all levels.

[the_doc]

The Leadership Paradox is the principle which states that in our age, those who are least worthy to obtain power over others almost invariably are the ones who seek such power the most energetically and successfully.

I heartily agree that this is a problem, but I think that it is not limited to our age.  I think it has always been true.  In my opinion, the world is merely getting worse in weirdly deceptive ways.

In light of these discouraging conditions, I look to God for protection and support, not primarily to Mankind. In light of these two dominant principles, I figure if our fate as a species depends on the good works of our own species, we have considerable reason for concern.

Your concern is appropriate, but I would offer some encouragement from Daniel 4:17:

This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will, and sets up over it the lowliest of men.

I think that is a wonderfully scary revelation.  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.  

[Doug Loss]

No, when I refer to the Federal Government, even the State governments, the elected officials we have are the army we have, at least on the front lines. The former is proving to be a huge disappointment, and the latter is in cahoots with it.

I see where you seem to have missed my point, entirely. You would treat the current Federal Government as an isolated system. NO. It is not.

The same people who are the elected officials in the FedGov are the ones who rose through the ranks from local districts, through State Offices and were elected to those Federal offices. They have survived candidate selection/election processes and received backing along the way in the GOP at the local, state, and national levels during their climb to their present position. The State GOP backed them. The State GOP also figures heavily in who is nominated, supported, and elected to State offices. It is all the same. The farm team for Federal Office is the State level, and the farm team for the State level is in the counties and local offices, also nominated, selected, backed by the same GOP.

In all these different levels, the kingmakers, the people who decides who gets in the game with backing serious enough to have a solid chance at being elected, barring some sort of upset, are essentially the same people.

Because the State governments are beholden to the Feds for the distribution of funds the State governments can divvy up to buy the votes back home--funds which do not have the political downside of having to be raised at the State level--the whole scheme of Federal overreach plays just fine at many of the Statehouses because it gives the State Legislators money to divvy up without having to justify to their constituents the taxes needed to raise it.

Do you think the State GOPs are going to ditch that scheme for one in which they have to make (and justify) hard budget decisions or the taxes to fund programs, both of which just might be unpopular enough to cost them their office?

There might be a few, but for the most part, no. The GOP is every bit as comfortable with the status quo at the Federal level as the Democrats are, which means no matter who is selecting delegates, unless they are running at large on popular vote (and guess where the pool of candidates will come from, and who will receive the financial backing for that) they, too will support the status quo, and may even support entrenching it with Constitutional Amendments to that effect. We have already seen the deception carried out in the face of TEA party protests which got many elected to office who promptly forgot any obligation to carry out actions promised or implied to the same set of voters who put them in office, so it is evident that any who enter into the Article V convention as delegates may be equally capable of subverting that process as well on behalf of the GOP as it currently is.
From grassroots to the top of the tree, it is all connected, and it has to be changed from the bottom up. Failure to acknowledge those connections will result in failure to achieve the objectives of the Article V Convention, should such be held, and may lead to Amendments contrary to the intended purpose.

The district and State GOPs must be brought around to reliable conservative, Constitutional goals, in re: original intent, before the Convention delegates are selected. Otherwise, the "elites", ""Rockefeller Republicans", "the Oligarchy", "GOPe", whatever you want to call them can quietly support the whole process, and place delegates who will ensure that the current practice of ignoring the Constitution becomes compliant, not by changing the practices, but by altering the Constitution to agree with them. This would compound the present problem, because it would be a Constitutional requirement from then until such time as it could be changed, or the whole compact dissolved.
IF I were the GOP elites and wanted to subvert the process, I'd quietly get behind it whole hog, propel sympathetic delegate nominees through the selection process, and hijack the works, and the Dems who are happy with the way things are running would suddenly dive in and back it, too.
Our elected Federal officials may be a problem, but even more, they are a symptom of the deeper problem, that being an endemic lack of regard for the Constitution throughout both major political Parties at all levels.

No @Smokin Joe, I haven't missed your point.  I just disagree with it.  Here's my take on all this.  We're in the best position we've been in in many decades, and may ever be in, to rein in the federal government without a real civil war.  We have to make the attempt.  And this attempt can't be only for the benefit of those who think more or less like us, but for all Americans.  And therefore those Americans who disagree with us must also be able to voice their opinions.  If we fail, then the republic will continue to devolve into authoritarianism.  But if we succeed by forcing our beliefs on an unwilling and unreceptive populace, we will in fact have failed just as much as if we had failed outright.  You may think that there's no chance for success.  But the only way to guarantee failure is to not try at all.

[the_doc]

Here is a detailed response to the claim that the original Constitutional Convention ignored it's rules:

Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Runaway Convention" Myth

Thanks for the link, @Doug Loss.

[INVAR]

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

Absolutely, except in a majority of the land in the hearts and minds of the majority population - there is no longer any fear or respect for YVWH.  Even in this discussion, the suggestion of morality and religion as a necessary ingredient to the process is summarily dismissed and rejected out of hand. Thus that was stated in this thread.

As a society - I am watching wisdom and common sense itself evaporate.  My neighbors in rural bible-belt KY do not care a whit about liberty - they want a safety net they insist government must provide.  We are becoming a dumber and more imbecilic society.  That a people will look to men and their corrupted institutions first and foremost for solutions before even considering counseling before the Lord, dooms their effort to breathe liberty back into a discarded framework of government intended to protect liberty.

I find the correlation of shrinking Churches and synagogues symbiotic with the evaporation of liberty and the entrenchment of corruption and lawlessness as institutionalized by our rulers.

If this people think that lawlessness and corruption only exists at the Federal level and that a state Convention will achieve the correct results they seek, they are horribly mistaken.

Our nation is being overcome by beliefs hostile and corrosive to the existence of liberty itself and the lack of wisdom and discernment exacerbates our decline.   Wholesale ignorance of our history and heritage only seals our fate that each and every Republic before us was consumed by.

[Smokin Joe]

No @Smokin Joe, I haven't missed your point.  I just disagree with it.  Here's my take on all this.  We're in the best position we've been in in many decades, and may ever be in, to rein in the federal government without a real civil war.  We have to make the attempt.  And this attempt can't be only for the benefit of those who think more or less like us, but for all Americans.  And therefore those Americans who disagree with us must also be able to voice their opinions.  If we fail, then the republic will continue to devolve into authoritarianism.  But if we succeed by forcing our beliefs on an unwilling and unreceptive populace, we will in fact have failed just as much as if we had failed outright.  You may think that there's no chance for success.  But the only way to guarantee failure is to not try at all.

@Doug Loss I'm not saying not to try, but I am saying that attempting to do so with a populace more ignorant of our Constitution than at any time since WWII, and perhaps well before then, may well produce the opposite of the desired outcome.
You are free to disagree with that prediction, but there it is.
The Federal mess is only a symptom of a deeper problem. We can administer an analgesic for that headache, while the subdural hematoma continues to develop, or we can address the underlying condition.
Decades ago (Think back to Eisenhower), we were in a FAR better position to rein in the federal Government than today. We just didn't. We let the liberals infest our educational system from K through College, we let them dominate the Media, we didn't keep after the unAmerican activities which were going on, instead we not only tolerated them but institutionalized them in the time since.
That tide has only risen, especially with the apparent difficulty the GOP has rolling back the damage done by the various Democrat administrations since.
The system is corrupted from bottom to top with people who enjoy the benefits of the status quo, or it would not be there, whose interests are for gaining and increasing their personal wealth and power, and not the benefit of the country--and they are at every level from the hometown GOP meetings all the way up. The only reason people might have for voting that in is that those are the choices they were presented with, but the people who produced and supported those State and local (and ultimately, Federal) candidates at all levels are the same. They will exert a strong influence on who the delegates will be to any convention, and that will determine the outcome.
No, we are not in the best position of the last decades, we are in the worst, and, imho, that needs to be improved beforehand at the grass roots through State levels.

[INVAR]

if we succeed by forcing our beliefs on an unwilling and unreceptive populace, we will in fact have failed just as much as if we had failed outright.  You may think that there's no chance for success.  But the only way to guarantee failure is to not try at all.

So your position is simply to roll the dice and let them fall where they may among a majority population that has no desire shrink the feds, and only expand a federal beast?  Do you really think the machine of Statism is going to let the states effect restrictions on their lawlessness? How does your movement plan to counter the assaults and wholesale sabotage intended for the ears of an ignorant and indifferent population that are as certain to come as the sun rising tomorrow?

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." - James Madison

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." - John Adams

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt...when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." - Samuel Adams


Notice I did not quote scripture, but rather the words of men who wrote, framed and supported our foundational documents.  If they recognized the fundamental truths that you dismissed and rejected out of hand, why should any of us believe this effort of an Article V convention will do what you claim it will in terms of reining in the Feds without war?

[Doug Loss]

No, we are not in the best position of the last decades, we are in the worst, and, imho, that needs to be improved beforehand at the grass roots through State levels.

Just how do you imagine that position will be improved?  I understand your call, I just don't see any likely (or even proposed) mechanism for bringing it about.  And I also dispute your belief that we are in a worse position to rein in the federal government than we were 20 or 25 years ago.  Or 10, or even 5.  No, we're in a better position.  I don't see how you can believe otherwise.

[Smokin Joe]

Just how do you imagine that position will be improved?  I understand your call, I just don't see any likely (or even proposed) mechanism for bringing it about.  And I also dispute your belief that we are in a worse position to rein in the federal government than we were 20 or 25 years ago.  Or 10, or even 5.  No, we're in a better position.  I don't see how you can believe otherwise.

Because 60 years ago, no one would have tolerated some one searching their car/house/person without either arresting them for a crime or a warrant.
Because 60 years ago, while there were some corrupting influences in our society, they were not endemic in everything from "entertainment" to the government itself.
Because 60 years ago, kids in school still learned about the Constitution, and many of the 'rights' invented since had not been created to muddle the idea of what the Constitution stands for.
There was  no dependent society (AKA "Great Society"), and welfare as we know it did not exist. More people were focused on their opportunities and making the most of those rather than making the most off of other people making the most of their opportunities.
The rates of divorce, bastardy, and numerous other social ills were significantly lower, in a culture that had less interest in being dependent than independent.

It is the people who have either created/tolerated/or failed otherwise to stop the developing mess thus far. You may be able to argue you foresee no better time in the near future, but you really can't say that the past wasn't closer to what it should have been nor that having an electorate who demanded that would not be better, even now, to have than the mess we have.
Unless you consider having more federal government to rein in an improvement, we would have been better off to try to rein it in then with a better informed and more intelligent electorate.

Again, I have said that the key to this is to change things from the ground up. To infiltrate the educational system, to run for school boards, to influence the education of children who are not taught the foundational principles of this country. To run for State/local office, to get on district committees and overturn the policies which have led us here, and select candidates who are better grounded. That change has to come from the bottom, but once the selection of candidates can be affected, it may be possible to affect the makeup of the State government, the Party overall, and the quality of people who appear on the ticket. It must be done in every district, and pushed for at every level. Only an electorate who realizes they are being screwed out of their birthright will do that, so it's back to educating people.

I said when this discussion started it would be a long game. We didn't get in this mess overnight, the roots of the problem appear over 150 years ago. It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
I have stated my misgivings about such a convention, and the reasons I believe that convention can and will likely be hijacked to codify the perversions of the Constitution, rather than emphasize prohibitions thereon, and why that situation exists and will have substantial political inertia to remain in place. It must be uprooted at the foundation, and that means from the bottom up.
I do not believe placing further legal constraints, should that effort prove successful, on a government which is so determined to circumvent the existing law will have any effect, should those constraints be successfully emplaced.
I do see, however, given the current social trends, the level of understanding not only of English in general, but the Constitution in particular, the potential for the subversion of efforts to place those constraints as being a serious threat to the Republic.

How many Americans could pass an eighth grade civics test from 50 years ago today? That's what needs to change first.

[Cripplecreek]

Because 60 years ago, no one would have tolerated some one searching their car/house/person without either arresting them for a crime or a warrant.
Because 60 years ago, while there were some corrupting influences in our society, they were not endemic in everything from "entertainment" to the government itself.
Because 60 years ago, kids in school still learned about the Constitution, and many of the 'rights' invented since had not been created to muddle the idea of what the Constitution stands for.
There was  no dependent society (AKA "Great Society"), and welfare as we know it did not exist. More people were focused on their opportunities and making the most of those rather than making the most off of other people making the most of their opportunities.
The rates of divorce, bastardy, and numerous other social ills were significantly lower, in a culture that had less interest in being dependent than independent.

It is the people who have either created/tolerated/or failed otherwise to stop the developing mess thus far. You may be able to argue you foresee no better time in the near future, but you really can't say that the past wasn't closer to what it should have been nor that having an electorate who demanded that would not be better, even now, to have than the mess we have.
Unless you consider having more federal government to rein in an improvement, we would have been better off to try to rein it in then with a better informed and more intelligent electorate.

Again, I have said that the key to this is to change things from the ground up. To infiltrate the educational system, to run for school boards, to influence the education of children who are not taught the foundational principles of this country. To run for State/local office, to get on district committees and overturn the policies which have led us here, and select candidates who are better grounded. That change has to come from the bottom, but once the selection of candidates can be affected, it may be possible to affect the makeup of the State government, the Party overall, and the quality of people who appear on the ticket. It must be done in every district, and pushed for at every level. Only an electorate who realizes they are being screwed out of their birthright will do that, so it's back to educating people.

I said when this discussion started it would be a long game. We didn't get in this mess overnight, the roots of the problem appear over 150 years ago. It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
I have stated my misgivings about such a convention, and the reasons I believe that convention can and will likely be hijacked to codify the perversions of the Constitution, rather than emphasize prohibitions thereon, and why that situation exists and will have substantial political inertia to remain in place. It must be uprooted at the foundation, and that means from the bottom up.
I do not believe placing further legal constraints, should that effort prove successful, on a government which is so determined to circumvent the existing law will have any effect, should those constraints be successfully emplaced.
I do see, however, given the current social trends, the level of understanding not only of English in general, but the Constitution in particular, the potential for the subversion of efforts to place those constraints as being a serious threat to the Republic.

How many Americans could pass an eighth grade civics test from 50 years ago today? That's what needs to change first.

 

[Doug Loss]

Because 60 years ago, no one would have tolerated some one searching their car/house/person without either arresting them for a crime or a warrant.
Because 60 years ago, while there were some corrupting influences in our society, they were not endemic in everything from "entertainment" to the government itself.
Because 60 years ago, kids in school still learned about the Constitution, and many of the 'rights' invented since had not been created to muddle the idea of what the Constitution stands for.
There was  no dependent society (AKA "Great Society"), and welfare as we know it did not exist. More people were focused on their opportunities and making the most of those rather than making the most off of other people making the most of their opportunities.
The rates of divorce, bastardy, and numerous other social ills were significantly lower, in a culture that had less interest in being dependent than independent.

It is the people who have either created/tolerated/or failed otherwise to stop the developing mess thus far. You may be able to argue you foresee no better time in the near future, but you really can't say that the past wasn't closer to what it should have been nor that having an electorate who demanded that would not be better, even now, to have than the mess we have.
Unless you consider having more federal government to rein in an improvement, we would have been better off to try to rein it in then with a better informed and more intelligent electorate.

Again, I have said that the key to this is to change things from the ground up. To infiltrate the educational system, to run for school boards, to influence the education of children who are not taught the foundational principles of this country. To run for State/local office, to get on district committees and overturn the policies which have led us here, and select candidates who are better grounded. That change has to come from the bottom, but once the selection of candidates can be affected, it may be possible to affect the makeup of the State government, the Party overall, and the quality of people who appear on the ticket. It must be done in every district, and pushed for at every level. Only an electorate who realizes they are being screwed out of their birthright will do that, so it's back to educating people.

I said when this discussion started it would be a long game. We didn't get in this mess overnight, the roots of the problem appear over 150 years ago. It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
I have stated my misgivings about such a convention, and the reasons I believe that convention can and will likely be hijacked to codify the perversions of the Constitution, rather than emphasize prohibitions thereon, and why that situation exists and will have substantial political inertia to remain in place. It must be uprooted at the foundation, and that means from the bottom up.
I do not believe placing further legal constraints, should that effort prove successful, on a government which is so determined to circumvent the existing law will have any effect, should those constraints be successfully emplaced.
I do see, however, given the current social trends, the level of understanding not only of English in general, but the Constitution in particular, the potential for the subversion of efforts to place those constraints as being a serious threat to the Republic.

How many Americans could pass an eighth grade civics test from 50 years ago today? That's what needs to change first.

You have noticed the difference in the time scales we're talking about, I hope.  You talk about 50-60 years ago, I talk about perhaps 25 years ago.  50-60 years ago, no one tried to rein in the federal government because it wasn't so onerously controlling society as much as it is now.  You state, "It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever."  That may be true, but it isn't any reason whatsoever to not try to start the fix now, when the conditions are as good as they've been in a while and are unlikely to get better.  And "if ever?"  If you believe there's little or no chance of regaining our liberty, then what's the point of even debating the issue?  We believe we have the chance, and are willing and able to fight for it.  Joe, I do appreciate your thoughts, but I just can't agree with your negativity.  We may fail, but at least we will have tried rather than given up.

[INVAR]

Because 60 years ago, no one would have tolerated some one searching their car/house/person without either arresting them for a crime or a warrant.
Because 60 years ago, while there were some corrupting influences in our society, they were not endemic in everything from "entertainment" to the government itself.
Because 60 years ago, kids in school still learned about the Constitution, and many of the 'rights' invented since had not been created to muddle the idea of what the Constitution stands for.
There was  no dependent society (AKA "Great Society"), and welfare as we know it did not exist. More people were focused on their opportunities and making the most of those rather than making the most off of other people making the most of their opportunities.
The rates of divorce, bastardy, and numerous other social ills were significantly lower, in a culture that had less interest in being dependent than independent.

What I am noticing exists within the Article V Advocacy is the same kind of thing we saw last year with Christian Conservatives and the pro-Trump movement.  Social Conservative concerns regarding Trump were summarily dismissed as irrelevant and unpatriotic.  Stop Hillary at all costs including the demand to surrender principles engendered hostility upon anyone expressing reservations of Trump's effect on Conservatism to the point that a lot of us ended up voting third party or sat on the sidelines.

I'm watching the same exact thing take shape over this effort.  The 'Either-you-are-for-us-or-against-us' mindset seems to be the prevailing attitude of the Advocates and we are hearing a very familiar tune of 'Don't get in our way - get on the train or shut up'.   Apparently they intend to do it for the sake of saying they did it without any concerns whatsoever as to whether or not they are going to achieve the results they say new Amendments will accomplish. They have convinced themselves that this is the solution.  They demand to try, convinced that this is the silver bullet to fix everything.

The Advocacy movement does not seem interested in persuading or addressing any issues regarding the root causes that led to wanting an Article V Convention to propose Amendments to begin with.  They are (as has been said on this very thread) 'summarily dismissed and rejected out of hand'.  'Negativity' that must be rejected.  Rather than address the concerns or advisement from Religious Conservatives, we are being marginalized and rejected yet again.  I think like last year, they would prefer cheerleaders rather than constructive coalitions to build the effort on solid and good ground rather than on the shifting sands of a population no longer rooted in foundational principles.

Rejecting natural allies to push forward for new Amendments without stopping to even consider our concerns or advice (being that they are dismissed and rejected out of hand) is beyond foolhardy.   They are giving us no reason whatsoever to support their agenda for new Amendments and it appears they do not want our support anyway. This does not bode well for what they will have to do to convince an ignorant electorate of what they must press their legislatures to ratify or reject.  For if they will reject our points of contention and concerns, what makes anyone think they can do so with those who want a Socialist State?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thanks to those particular men.

A quick scan of this thread proves without a doubt that those men are no more.

Please elucidate, as your meanings escape me.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Because 60 years ago, no one would have tolerated some one searching their car/house/person without either arresting them for a crime or a warrant.
Because 60 years ago, while there were some corrupting influences in our society, they were not endemic in everything from "entertainment" to the government itself.
Because 60 years ago, kids in school still learned about the Constitution, and many of the 'rights' invented since had not been created to muddle the idea of what the Constitution stands for.
There was  no dependent society (AKA "Great Society"), and welfare as we know it did not exist. More people were focused on their opportunities and making the most of those rather than making the most off of other people making the most of their opportunities.
The rates of divorce, bastardy, and numerous other social ills were significantly lower, in a culture that had less interest in being dependent than independent.

It is the people who have either created/tolerated/or failed otherwise to stop the developing mess thus far. You may be able to argue you foresee no better time in the near future, but you really can't say that the past wasn't closer to what it should have been nor that having an electorate who demanded that would not be better, even now, to have than the mess we have.
Unless you consider having more federal government to rein in an improvement, we would have been better off to try to rein it in then with a better informed and more intelligent electorate.

Again, I have said that the key to this is to change things from the ground up. To infiltrate the educational system, to run for school boards, to influence the education of children who are not taught the foundational principles of this country. To run for State/local office, to get on district committees and overturn the policies which have led us here, and select candidates who are better grounded. That change has to come from the bottom, but once the selection of candidates can be affected, it may be possible to affect the makeup of the State government, the Party overall, and the quality of people who appear on the ticket. It must be done in every district, and pushed for at every level. Only an electorate who realizes they are being screwed out of their birthright will do that, so it's back to educating people.

I said when this discussion started it would be a long game. We didn't get in this mess overnight, the roots of the problem appear over 150 years ago. It will take time to fix and that may not happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
I have stated my misgivings about such a convention, and the reasons I believe that convention can and will likely be hijacked to codify the perversions of the Constitution, rather than emphasize prohibitions thereon, and why that situation exists and will have substantial political inertia to remain in place. It must be uprooted at the foundation, and that means from the bottom up.
I do not believe placing further legal constraints, should that effort prove successful, on a government which is so determined to circumvent the existing law will have any effect, should those constraints be successfully emplaced.
I do see, however, given the current social trends, the level of understanding not only of English in general, but the Constitution in particular, the potential for the subversion of efforts to place those constraints as being a serious threat to the Republic.

How many Americans could pass an eighth grade civics test from 50 years ago today? That's what needs to change first.

You continue to pound the misgivings of a hijacked convention. Why?

If 2/3 of the states call for a convention, is it your opinion they these same states who call for improvements do not really mean it and will 180 degree turn about to subvert it?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm watching the same exact thing take shape over this effort.  The 'Either-you-are-for-us-or-against-us' mindset seems to be the prevailing attitude of the Advocates and we are hearing a very familiar tune of 'Don't get in our way - get on the train or shut up'.   Apparently they intend to do it for the sake of saying they did it without any concerns whatsoever as to whether or not they are going to achieve the results they say new Amendments will accomplish. They have convinced themselves that this is the solution.  They demand to try, convinced that this is the silver bullet to fix everything.

Ridiculous rationale.

You are advocating us NOT to execute one of the Constitution's fundamental provisions for keeping this country on the path it was intended.

Yes, the Constitution is the solution.  You must be thinking we live in some land that does not have that document to try to prevent citizens of this country from honoring it and using what the Founders made available to us to use.

And your condemnation of others in using that document as it was intended to be used helps nothing.  Seems you would never approved of any Amendments with the reasoning you invoke.