Thread: NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION PUSH NOW UNDERWAY!!

No No No
This started as a plan to Amend the Constitution to give the States clearer power over immigration..
Now it is to divide the US into regions..

No Thanks..this is not going to fly..It does belong on some lunatic fringe site..and not here..
The general public is going to think we are loons or worse
This is not what McConnel was proposing and what McConnel was proposing could be a Constitutional Amendment..not balkanization or districts or ripping the current Constitution apart..

Pure fantasy.....remember the civil war?

Originally Posted by xyz

No No No
This started as a plan to Amend the Constitution to give the States clearer power over immigration..
Now it is to divide the US into regions..

No Thanks..this is not going to fly..It does belong on some lunatic fringe site..and not here..
The general public is going to think we are loons or worse
This is not what McConnel was proposing and what McConnel was proposing could be a Constitutional Amendment..not balkanization or districts or ripping the current Constitution apart..

I am giving you an ovation xyz, very well said. I agree 1000000000%

Proposal If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment. All 50 current states have passed binding acts calling for a constitutional convention; however, on the questionable assumption that only state requests addressing the same possible amendment are to be counted by Congress, which is not stated in Article V as a condition for the applicability of this stipulation, the requisite number of states never made such a request although two proposals have come just two states shy of the required number. However, over 500 state requests for an Article V convention have been made and some believe that Congress should have already called a convention, in accordance with the "shall call" imperative of the article.[citation needed] There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions.[citation needed] The state legislatures have, in times past, taken advantage of the fear of the unknown by using their power to apply for a national convention in order to frighten Congress into proposing the desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.[citation needed]

Since Article Five does not make clear how the amendment-proposing convention is to be composed and operated, Congress—presumably through enactment of a Federal statute—could determine how the delegates are chosen and to provide for other procedural details.[citation needed]

The President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process. Article One provides, "every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives." As previously stated, the Constitution requires the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the members present of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to a joint resolution which proposes a constitutional amendment. In Hollingsworth v. Virginia (179, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the President for signature and, by the same logic, the President is powerless to veto a proposed constitutional amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Fi ... nstitution

I thought this would be a good idea when I read about it the other day, so I went searching for info. and now I am not so sure, we would not want them messing with the constitution.

If they were going to call a conventiion to make tougher immigration laws I would not mind, but as far as I can tell I'm not sure what there is to stop them from messing with the constitution as a whole...am still looking for information. Our forefather put in article V incase of a sitution like we have now but don't see where they put in any rules, and at this point we don't know who is trust worthy

I thought this would be a good idea when I read about it the other day, so I went searching for info. and now I am not so sure, we would not want them messing with the constitution.

If they were going to call a conventiion to make tougher immigration laws I would not mind, but as far as I can tell I'm not sure what there is to stop them from messing with the constitution as a whole...am still looking for information. Our forefather put in article V incase of a sitution like we have now but don't see where they put in and rules, and at this point we don't know who is trust worthy

I agree totally

Under my proposal, captainiron, there would be regional defense departments. In addition, each regional government would participate in a NATO-like defense force for defense of the continent. I would leave the decision as to who gets the nukes, up to the military. I suspect that they would largely remain where they are already.

My sentiments totally patriotofpast.

i thought the reason they were talking about a constitution convention was to clarify the 14th amendment before the anchors sink the ship.

Sounds like "eric 1" is talking about something different than invoking article V, I think he is talkin about spliting up the states...people will never go for that..."United we Stand" Divided we fall" or "Divide and conquer".

Something must be done and according to the polls on Real Clear Politics 78% of Americans think Congress is going in the wrong direction.

Interestingly more Dems are blamed then Repubs if I read the polls correctly.

Americans are truely FEDUP and will no longer put up with Business as Usual in our Government.I fear for our country if we do not or are prevented from electing politicians who will serve "We The People". Citizens are being pushed to the brink.........

Eric1 I disagree with you,we need to strengthen our Union NOT devide it and immigration has a lot to do with the devision IMHO.