Convention of States

[poisonspyder]

https://conventionofstates.com/

Wondering what ingo thinks of this? Looks like 12 of the 34 required states have joined. I’m Not sure we could ever get all required states on board. Has this been a active group for a long time, just getting some movement now, or am I late to the party?


“WHAT’S A CONVENTION OF STATES ANYWAY?

[FONT=&amp]Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”[/FONT]

 

[HoughMade]

Once you get the convention formed, there is no Constitutional limit on what can be discussed, proposed or become an amendment.

 

[snorko]

Once you get the convention formed, there is no Constitutional limit on what can be discussed, proposed or become an amendment.

Elimination of 2nd A, elimination of electoral college...heck, they could eliminate the third amendment and then we'd be stuck housing and feeding all manner of folk.

 

[Ingomike]

I would love for it to succeed on what I want, live in abject terror over what actually might get changed...

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah, I wasn't really commenting on whether having one is a good idea, but it's pretty important to know what can​ happen before making it happen.

 

[ziggy]

To answer some questions that have been asked: This Convention of States project began in 2012. The call for a convention specifically limits the topics of the requested meeting of delegates from the 50 states to 1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, 2) limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, 3) limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of congress. The people behind this movement realize that the government is too big, too powerful, and really out of control. Only the states can re-impose some limits to the federal leviathan.
Full Disclosure: I am an activist in this project. Yes, I believe it is a good idea. What exactly is the alternative? We have problems that cannot be solved with elections. The deep state is in nearly full control of the swamp. This is a way for "we the people" to re-assert some limits to the federal government.
Neither Trump nor any other president can do it alone. Elect more Republicans? How did that work out when the GOP controlled congress and the White House? Under Bush spending went nuts. Under Trump, between Ryan and McConnell, nothing much was done about illegal immigration, deficit spending, etc.
Go to the convention of states website and you can get your questions answered. If not, post there here and I will do my best to answer them.

 

[Ingomike]

To answer some questions that have been asked: This Convention of States project began in 2012. The call for a convention specifically limits the topics of the requested meeting of delegates from the 50 states to 1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, 2) limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, 3) limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of congress. The people behind this movement realize that the government is too big, too powerful, and really out of control. Only the states can re-impose some limits to the federal leviathan.
Full Disclosure: I am an activist in this project. Yes, I believe it is a good idea. What exactly is the alternative? We have problems that cannot be solved with elections. The deep state is in nearly full control of the swamp. This is a way for "we the people" to re-assert some limits to the federal government.
Neither Trump nor any other president can do it alone. Elect more Republicans? How did that work out when the GOP controlled congress and the White House? Under Bush spending went nuts. Under Trump, between Ryan and McConnell, nothing much was done about illegal immigration, deficit spending, etc.
Go to the convention of states website and you can get your questions answered. If not, post there here and I will do my best to answer them.

I would love to add to that Congress cannot legislate its authority and duty to create law to other parties.

ie. Congress sets pollution levels, not unelected EPA employees...

MM

 

[HoughMade]

I'm intrigued. What's the enforcement mechanism if the delegates show up and decide to go "off script"?

 

[ziggy]

While there is almost no "constitutional" limit on what can be discussed, there are very real limits on what the delegates are going to discuss because they will only have authority to discuss the things the various states have given them permission to discuss.

 

[ziggy]

The chairman of the convention (meeting) would rule any other topics "out of order". Remember, even if the convention meeting went off script and proposed something outside of the topics in the call for a convention, the proposal would have to ratified by 38 state legislatures. As a practical matter, just one house (lower or upper) of a mere 13 states could stop anything by refusing to ratify the proposed amendment.

 

[ziggy]

Right now there is, in effect, a constitutional convention going on any time congress is in session. The commerce clause is treated as justification for almost anything congress does, even if it ignores other parts of Article I. We can only stop this by having the states re-insert themselves into the discussion. The states, as sovereign entities, lost their voices when the 17th Amendment was ratified. Prior to that, the Senate was known as the graveyard of progressive ideas, because the Senators repeatedly defeated proposals coming from the House. The discussion was typically "that is a state function" when the progressives proposals for growing government found their way into the Senate.

 

[ziggy]

The 17th Amendment began the direct election of senators. Senators, who used to answer to their home state legislators, now answer to the special interests who finance their campaigns. You may know your state legislator and you can certainly call him or her and get a face-to-face meeting if you want to. Try getting a meeting with Senator Todd Young or Mike Braun, or with the CEO of one of their major corporate backers. Good luck! You will need it.

 

[ziggy]

Until the ratification of the 17th amendment (and the 16th - income tax) the federal government typically spent 2-2.5% of our GDP annually, and it was all financed with import duties and excise taxes. Now the federal government spends 20-25% of GDP annually. The federal government is literally ten times the size that it was about 110 years ago in relation to the overall economy. The framers of our constitution never dreamed such a thing would be possible under the Constitution they had written.

 

[Ddillard]

Once you get the convention formed, there is no Constitutional limit on what can be discussed, proposed or become an amendment.

I agree! An example of such would be the transformation from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution as it is. The delegates of the states were sent to fix certain elements of the Articles. These same delegates ended up trashing the Articles and rewrote the laws of the land.

 

[poisonspyder]

I appreciate the input. I am torn with this decision. I have found 3 different article v proposals.
[h=3]Wolf PAC Effort[/h][h=3]The Balanced Budget Amendment Effort[/h][h=3]The Convention of States[/h]
I fear it could be used against us as well. Will 38 states really take our 1st or 2nd away? The ones I saw proposed seem to be for the better. I too want to know what repercussions there are for the group if they sway from there original interest. Lots of what ifs for me still.

 

[ditcherman]

To answer some questions that have been asked: This Convention of States project began in 2012. The call for a convention specifically limits the topics of the requested meeting of delegates from the 50 states to 1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, 2) limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, 3) limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of congress. The people behind this movement realize that the government is too big, too powerful, and really out of control. Only the states can re-impose some limits to the federal leviathan.
Full Disclosure: I am an activist in this project. Yes, I believe it is a good idea. What exactly is the alternative? We have problems that cannot be solved with elections. The deep state is in nearly full control of the swamp. This is a way for "we the people" to re-assert some limits to the federal government.
Neither Trump nor any other president can do it alone. Elect more Republicans? How did that work out when the GOP controlled congress and the White House? Under Bush spending went nuts. Under Trump, between Ryan and McConnell, nothing much was done about illegal immigration, deficit spending, etc.
Go to the convention of states website and you can get your questions answered. If not, post there here and I will do my best to answer them.

Thanks for all the info!
Interested in this, but my impression was the last time it gained steam (2012ish?) the detractors, even if for the ideas, were able to kill it because they said it could get out of control.

 

[Thor]

The entrenched bureaucracies would be very very afraid.

 

[ziggy]

By the way, 15 states have now signed on the Convention of States project. (Three subjects for the meeting.) Wolf Pac has a very vague proposal that, as far as I can see, does not say exactly how they propose to accomplish their goal. The Balanced Budget Amendment only says the budget must be balanced. How? Higher taxes?
Only the Convention of States seeks to limit federal power, and limit spending, and impose term limits.
(Lets say Wolf Pac succeeds in getting money out of elections. The progressives are not spending money on Google or Facebook, and yet they are affecting the outcome of elections. When we can not spend money, how do we counter their message?)

 

[dcr465]

 

[Thor]