Article 5 convention gaining steam

[Imawhosure]

For many of us, we believe the federal government has gotten waaaaaay out of hand, and have exceeded their powers that the constitution allows. On many political boards I view, it may surprise many to discover that it is not only the conservatives and libertarians holding this opinion, but many democrats also.

 

States rights were the foundation of our constitution, and in fact if they were not as strong as they were in our founding documents, the United States never would have been formed. Over the years these rights have been eroded to where centralized governing power has moved to Washington where lobbyists, special interest groups, and others from across the globe mold our domestic policy with the use of money; leaving of course the regular working American like all of us, holding the bag paying for both partys grand schemes. Washington elites love this power, they love staying in power, mainly because it makes them rich! While most of us are partisan, we tend to blame the OTHER party for what ails the country; but truth be told that both partys are to blame for this disaster. It is not that either party does not have men/women of good will, but rather that both partys keep them in line where they must go out on a limb to do what is best for the people, instead of what is best for the party. For the partys, it is all about the next election, how do we get in power, how do we keep power, and how do we get rich in the process.

 

The reason we talk about the democrats so much today, is because they are in power. They are right in front of our faces, blatantly screwing us to death. But what if the rinos were in power? Does anyone think they would somehow not be screwing us too? Or maybe they wouldn't, but they sure would be screwing someone over in retaliation for the screwing they got earlier.

 

Point is, the massive power in Washington has to be removed and returned to the States. Without the massive power they hold, their ability to screw everyone would no longer exist, and who gets elected as President would not be anywhere near as important as it is today. I for one believe that if Washington only did what it was supposed to do, the vitriol we get nationally would stop. If they can't impose all of this crap on you, your anger towards the Whitehouse/administration/congress/Washington would lessen dramatically.

 

Enter article 5 of our United States Constitution! As of this writing, over 30 states are meeting on Dec 7th at Mount Vernon to see about the viability of an article 5 convention, removing power from Washington under our constitution, and returning it to the states. The lead state in this endeavor is Indiana, but as I said, at least 29 more states are sending a representative, and not all are red states as many blue states are not happy either. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/indiana-senate-leader-working-toward-u-s-constitutional-convention/article_21f801b9-2ea4-56a5-b0d4-e3ea00b10968.html

 

The point is, this meeting could/should/would set the groundwork for red states to NEVER have to worry about an Obama like figure again, and blue states to go their merry way if a Reaganesque President was ever elected again. The states would also put in term limits for congress, making it less likely that their partys could exert undue influence upon them by withholding funds for re-election campaigns if they did not toe the party line. (a novel concept, I know)

 

They could/would/should/probably will/ put in some sort of states over ride to supreme court decisions, meaning that rinos/progressives alike can no longer go to the robes to MAKE the population do what they think is right, even when you think it is wrong.

 

I urge all of you to look this up, and get involved if you believe it is the right way to go. Send the Washington elites, K-street, and lobbyists a message----------->this is our country, and spend all the money you want, but we are going to take the power away from those you spend it on to do your bidding!

 

Other articles you may be interested in addressing this issue http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c2f_1384695404

 

http://miltonga.blogspot.com/2013/11/rep-jason-spencer-to-attend-mount.html

Edited November 29, 2013 by Imawhosure

[Langston Hughes]

That's great but there's a huuuuuuge bit of revisionist history in there.

 

The Constitution was adopted to give the Federal government more power over the preceding form of government, the Articles of Confederation.

 

You guys might one day want to read the Anti-Federalist papers and realize that the Federalists were not the protectors of states rights, the Anti-Federalists were. The Constitution gave the federal government more power than had been previous allotted to it.

[Imawhosure]

makes no difference what the names of the parties were.....bottomline.......without the states rights that were granted in the constitution, the states would never have signed it, and that is proven by the archives.

 

Agree, or disagree, that is the bottomline, and we can go from there.

[Langston Hughes]

Two points.

 

1. The Constitution didn't grant rights to states, it enumerated the rights of the Federal government and affirmed rights for people and states.

 

2. The Constitution did reaffirm some states rights but it also restricted rights previously affirmed. Stop thinking of the Constitution in the conservative vaccuum and understand it was merely the evolution of a government.

[TomServo92]

As I understand it, the Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because it did not specifically enumerate individual rights which, as we all know, was addressed in the Bill Of Rights. Many of the Federalists opposed a Bill Of Rights only because they were afraid it would later be interpreted as the ONLY individual rights by a tyrannical government.

 

The Constitution addressed a need for a central government since the Articles Of Confederation were severely lacking as a basis of government. However, one must note that the clearly defined separation of powers and enumeration of Federal power were intentionally limiting boundaries. Over the years, those boundaries have been pushed. Whether the expansion of Federal power is good or bad is the debate as it stands today.

 

Should an Article V convention be called? HEALTHY debate is a good thing and if enough states call into question the scope of Federal powers, then it should be debated. It's why Article V exists.

[the_spaniard]

Healthy debate is a good thing. How many Blue states are on board for this? If it is less than 1/3, how can this NOT be seen as yet another case of sour grapes? I would hope that there would be an equal number of historically democratic and republican states represented.

I don't want states to have complete power. Ever. Were that the case I am thoroughly convinced states such as West Virginia would deny minorities, homosexuals. etc basic rights afforded by the constitution. There would also be no standards or regulations at all for clean air/water or environmental protection of any kind. One only needs to look at the environmental disaster Kentucky has become under Rand Paul. Before anyone jumps on me half of my family is from West VA, and I have spent time in Appalchia with a team examining the human/environmental impacts of various coal-mining practices there. It's a terrible scene.

How would giving states control over social and environmental issues NOT fragment this country even further?

Edited December 1, 2013 by the_spaniard

[TomServo92]

I don't think anyone is saying turn it all over to the states. The debate is over where the lines should be between state and federal governments. Over time, the lines have become blurred.

[fmccap]

One only needs to look at the environmental disaster Kentucky has become under Rand Paul.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I have to laugh because that statement just shows you are caught up in the GAME.

 

What is he? The King of Kentucky? LOL He is a US Senator from Kentucky, that's it. He has nothing to do with what the state decides they want to do.

[Langston Hughes]

As I understand it, the Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because it did not specifically enumerate individual rights which, as we all know, was addressed in the Bill Of Rights. Many of the Federalists opposed a Bill Of Rights only because they were afraid it would later be interpreted as the ONLY individual rights by a tyrannical government.

 

The Constitution addressed a need for a central government since the Articles Of Confederation were severely lacking as a basis of government. However, one must note that the clearly defined separation of powers and enumeration of Federal power were intentionally limiting boundaries. Over the years, those boundaries have been pushed. Whether the expansion of Federal power is good or bad is the debate as it stands today.

 

Should an Article V convention be called? HEALTHY debate is a good thing and if enough states call into question the scope of Federal powers, then it should be debated. It's why Article V exists.

 

They did oppose the Constitution for that reason and the Bill of rights were specifically targeted to remove their opposition, and your right that the Constitution was called for because of two major issues, among others, in which the Federal government was lacking, the ability for the federal government to tax and to call for war. At that time, the well-regulated militias were state controlled and as such under the terms of the Articles, states could refuse to send troops.

 

So when we discuss the constitution as limiting government that's not really true because it basically granted a series of new powers to the federal government, including nationalizing our military. It continued to cover some of the same grounds as the Articles but mostly it expanded and allowed for an expansion of federal powers over the articles.

 

While I as a liberal generally prefer a larger federal government as it even's the playing field in many respects, I don't understand the rights views on the Constitution as I see it as a very liberal document that increased federal government power exponentially in it's simplest form. The edition of an executor, the President and the whole executive branch is a huge addition, as is the national court system.

 

The US went from a truly small government to one that was remarkably larger and going to continue to grow with the founders holding offices in the new government, which it did.

[TomServo92]

You're correct that the Constitution granted powers to the federal government since it's very purpose was to establish a functional central government, mainly to perform the the two basic functions you mention. However, by granting those powers, the states also placed limitations. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not enumerated in the Constitution for the Fed to the states. In US vs Lopez, SCOTUS upheld that Congress had exceed its enumerated powers.

 

I think an important fact here is that the enumerated powers were granted to the Feds by the states. Article V gives the states the power to alter those powers if they deem it prudent.

[the_spaniard]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I have to laugh because that statement just shows you are caught up in the GAME.

 

What is he? The King of Kentucky? LOL He is a US Senator from Kentucky, that's it. He has nothing to do with what the state decides they want to do.

 

Please, laugh away.

 

Rand Paul is NOT anti-EPA? He is not attempting to weaken the Clean Air Act, being the representative of the state with not only the worst polluting power plant, but the worst air pollution in the country?

 

Rand Paul the guy that said "I don't think anyone is going to be missing a hill", referencing the most environmentally destructive coal mining practice (mountain-top removal) there is? You know, the practice that scientific studies have shown for years to be destructive to the environment AND the people in it?

That Rand Paul? The guy that big oil has in their back pocket? The guy currently selling out the health of his own people for profit?

 

I'm caught up in the game? No, I am in the field - for the last two years...living among and studying the people of Appalachia and the environmental effects of coal mining in places you read about - Kentucky, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

 

Rand Paul is just like his father; an overrated snake-oil salesman.

Edited December 2, 2013 by the_spaniard

[napfirst]

 

Please, laugh away.

 

Rand Paul is NOT anti-EPA? He is not attempting to weaken the Clean Air Act, being the representative of the state with not only the worst polluting power plant, but the worst air pollution in the country?

 

Rand Paul the guy that said "I don't think anyone is going to be missing a hill", referencing the most environmentally destructive coal mining practice (mountain-top removal) there is? You know, the practice that scientific studies have shown for years to be destructive to the environment AND the people in it?

That Rand Paul? The guy that big oil has in their back pocket?

 

I'm caught up in the game? No, I am in the field - for the last two years...living among and studying the people of Appalachia and the environmental effects of coal mining in places you read about - Kentucky, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

 

Rand Paul is just like his father; an overrated snake-oil salesman.

I see a lot of accusations but no links supporting them......got any?

[fmccap]

 

Please, laugh away.

 

Rand Paul is NOT anti-EPA? He is not attempting to weaken the Clean Air Act, being the representative of the state with not only the worst polluting power plant, but the worst air pollution in the country?

 

Rand Paul the guy that said "I don't think anyone is going to be missing a hill", referencing the most environmentally destructive coal mining practice (mountain-top removal) there is? You know, the practice that scientific studies have shown for years to be destructive to the environment AND the people in it?

That Rand Paul? The guy that big oil has in their back pocket? The guy currently selling out the health of his own people for profit?

 

I'm caught up in the game? No, I am in the field - for the last two years...living among and studying the people of Appalachia and the environmental effects of coal mining in places you read about - Kentucky, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

 

Rand Paul is just like his father; an overrated snake-oil salesman.

You can say all you want but he is a US Senator FROM Kentucky. He has nothing to do with what Kentucky does internally. He is elected to the Senate to represent Kentucky on the US Senate.

 

I will keep laughing away as long as you believe he is the cause of what you dislike about Kentucky.

 

You might be in the field but may I suggest you take you head out of the field and see what's going on?

[Langston Hughes]

I see a lot of accusations but no links supporting them......got any?

I see a lot of denial but no critical thinking...going to do any?

[napfirst]

I see a lot of denial but no critical thinking...going to do any?

Are you speaking for spaniard now?

[NickF1011]

You can say all you want but he is a US Senator FROM Kentucky. He has nothing to do with what Kentucky does internally. He is elected to the Senate to represent Kentucky on the US Senate.

 

I will keep laughing away as long as you believe he is the cause of what you dislike about Kentucky.

 

You might be in the field but may I suggest you take you head out of the field and see what's going on?

 

I suppose Barbara Mikulski is responsible for the continued pollution in the Chesapeake Bay then.

[Imawhosure]

I suppose Barbara Mikulski is responsible for the continued pollution in the Chesapeake Bay then.

Good one Nick!

 

The point of this going forward is simple--------->most people do not think it is soley the progressives; they include the rinos in this vast problem.

 

The states......if you look at history.....would never have signed the formation of These United States, if in doing so, they had lost their power for individuality. Progressives, and many rinos see themselves as the victims of an article 5 convention, but in all actuality it is the Washington elite that are put on notice.

 

While it is an exaggeration, consider this------->suppose the federal government wanted to turn a state because of its climate, into a bio fuel grower to promote US green energy. Let us say that because of the loss of private property, the loss of other business, along with everything else the transformation to this new technology entailed, 85% of the residents of that state voted against the Presidential candidate that made this idea the centerpiece of his election campaign....but, that candidate still got elected. Should big government be allowed to go ahead with this grand plan?

 

Republicanism (with a little r) was made specifically to protect the minority in our republic. It doesn't make a difference if you are a democrat, a republican, libertarian, or anything else you claim to be. The problem is------>Washington no longer represents the minority; and in fact, it really doesn't represent the majority. No, all Washington represents, is the elite in Washington so as by their deals, they can get re-elected.

 

It is plainly obvious to every American regardless of their party affiliation, that our federal government is out of control with regards especially to states rights. I could list numerous examples of imposition, but I am sure each of you is aware of these impositions locally.

 

Who am I/we/us to tell Montana what to do? Who are they to tell us? As long as they comply with reasonable federal law, pay the tax rate required, do they not know what is best for Montana? Why does anyone think Washington knows better for everyone? Don't our Presidents come from the states to start with?

 

I really don't like to debate a ridiculous point, but I seen my friend Mr Cap being told that Kentuckys problem (paraphrasing here) shows Rand Paul is incompetent, or some such nonsense because he is a senator from that great state.

 

So using that wonderful logic, we should cast our political eye at that charming and delightful state of Illinois, from where our Commander and Chief came from as yes, a senator. I won't go into Illinois massive debt or total dysfunction after being governed by a senator (hey, if Rand runs Kentucky, then I guess Obama ran Illinois)who is now President. The linkage between Obama and Illinois, is just as crazy as it is between Paul and Kentucky.

 

Sometimes though, that is all people have in their bag of hate, try and get you with linkage, where there is no linkage.

 

And so I ask, what happens when someone campaigns and tells everyone who is eligible to vote for them exactly what they are going to do, then do it? Well, the Washington elite from both partys call them out of touch, arsonists, crazy, don't know what they are doing, stupid, etc.

 

And what do the constituents who voted for these type of people think of them? Oh, I dunno, you tell me!

[FiredMotorCompany]

And so I ask, what happens when someone campaigns and tells everyone who is eligible to vote for them exactly what they are going to do, then do it? Well, the Washington elite from both partys call them out of touch, arsonists, crazy, don't know what they are doing, stupid, etc.

 

And what do the constituents who voted for these type of people think of them?

What a heretical concept!

 

A politician who promises to do and then does it.

 

I could even accept a democrat candidate...given his promises are acceptable compared to the opposition....and presuming he is THE ONLY SUCH TRUTHFUL CANDIDATE.

 

Alas, we find ourselves buying into the lies both candidates tell us and then defend them after being mislead on their true agenda.

 

Give me an honest man......and beat his brains out so he will agree to run for office.....that seems to be the status quo.

[Imawhosure]

What a heretical concept!

 

A politician who promises to do and then does it.

 

I could even accept a democrat candidate...given his promises are acceptable compared to the opposition....and presuming he is THE ONLY SUCH TRUTHFUL CANDIDATE.

 

Alas, we find ourselves buying into the lies both candidates tell us and then defend them after being mislead on their true agenda.

 

Give me an honest man......and beat his brains out so he will agree to run for office.....that seems to be the status quo.

Truth is Fired, whenever Washington (both partys) really jumps on somebody, it is not because they absolutely disagree with them, it is because they fear them.

 

Ted Cruz got more grief in 10 days, then Ron Paul got in his whole campaign for President. I kinda laughed, as I seen the same thing pulled on Reagan; not that Cruz is Reagan, but rather that anyone who changes how the reins of power are pulled in Washington is feared by both partys. This also explains why Obama is reviled by both partys, it is just the democrats have to support one of their own. Truth be told, every democrat in Washington is waiting for Hillary to be anointed so as things can go back to the way they used to be.

 

You gotta hand it to Obama, no matter how much you dislike him. He threw everyone/anyone under the bus to get his legislation done, and if it doesn't work, to bad, to sad. He even throws Americans under the bus, as by an overwhelming margin, they want Obysmalcare to go away. So much for we are their boss I suppose.

 

In the end, the only supposed good thing is that Repubs might control congress. I say, "big deal." Unless someone like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or a small host of others get the Presidency with an agreeable congress, we are going to be screwed for years to come; if not longer.

 

That is why many of the states want to use article 5, and Washington is not happy. Look into it, you might like what you see.

[Langston Hughes]

Are you speaking for spaniard now?

 

I'm talking to you. You don't like when more than one person talks to you about a subject. I'd imagine that you'd hate to be in my shoes.

[napfirst]

 

I'm talking to you. You don't like when more than one person talks to you about a subject. I'd imagine that you'd hate to be in my shoes.

Ok, then you provide the links for spaniard.....since you feel the need to respond...maybe if you didn't try to answer for all the liberals on here, you're "shoes" wouldn't be so uncomfortable ......but we all know that your ego would allow it

[Langston Hughes]

Ok, then you provide the links for spaniard.....since you feel the need to respond...maybe if you didn't try to answer for all the liberals on here, you're "shoes" wouldn't be so uncomfortable ......but we all know that your ego would allow it

 

Do you consider it ego when you jump in on posts between others and myself and add your two cents?

[napfirst]

 

Do you consider it ego when you jump in on posts between others and myself and add your two cents?

No I don't....I asked him to provide links for the accusations....that's all.....I did not offer an opinion, I just asked a question....I saw no need for your comment....except your need to feed your ego....

[Langston Hughes]

No I don't....I asked him to provide links for the accusations....that's all.....I did not offer an opinion, I just asked a question....I saw no need for your comment....except your need to feed your ego....

 

I see no need for most of your comments towards me, but there they are none the less.

[napfirst]

 

I see no need for most of your comments towards me, but there they are none the less.

The feelings are mutual.....