There’s a resurgence of the call for a convention of the states - a procedure stated in the Constitution for amending the Constitution.

Having seen a failure in fair elections and the belief that stollen elections will now be perpetual, people seeking to redress our non-constitutional condition in a legal manner will turn to a convention of the states.

Yes, there are those who want, like the Congregationalist Puritans, to reform the system from within. But, the steps away from the constitutional order have long roots - roots that can only be reached by a deeper review of the state of our union. For those coming to that conclusion, the convention of the states offers a legal means to address what has so deeply driven a wedge between the constitutional order that left power at the state and local level and an order that seeks to federalize everything.

A convention of the states can address patriotic pubic education, errant court decisions, term limits, state and local power, taxes, the administrative state, states’ rights, and the future of the union - scary stuff. It is not clear what would result.

But, in the grand scheme of things, it is who we are to not let fear decide our collective course of action. They asked Benjamin Franklin when he stepped from the Constitutional Convention whether we had a monarch or something else. He replied that we had a republic if we can keep it. It was often said that the 56th chair at the Constitutional Convention was occupied by fear. Fear did not stop them from taking bold action to address the inappropriate governance of their day.

Today, we have a legal and scary method available to, within the system, fix what has gone so awry. It will be interesting to see if the idea of a convention gains steam in light of what looks like a system that has to be installed by razor wire and troops. It is hard to see how that is what we set out to become.

For all the pending suits out there, what is the remedy? Nothing that doesn’t lead to violence. What is the remedy sought by those seeking to take over government buildings? Yes. Violence and then maybe a change of actors in the same overly centralized system. What is the remedy for those wanting fair elections for the future? Nothing because the left will only persecute and seek to consolidate their stollen power - if their course holds.

I only mention this issue because I’m not convinced that even our beloved President Trump can get the change we need through election reform and replacing representatives. The people may need to be looking past those reforms alone.

Just a thought . . .

(That was “public” education. Maybe Schumer is contagious.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tubetone,

I agree with Tubetone that a convention may be the way to go. I would add one thing. Several years a go Mark Levin was suggesting this with the goal of abolishing the 17th amendment. I think the time has come to really push for this. Before this amendment, the state houses picked who our Senators would be. It was changed because people thought it would put more power into the hands of the people but it has had the opposite effect.

I live in Michigan, both the state house and senate are republican, but both our senators are dems., why is this? One reason is K-street. The lobbyist poor a ton of money into my state to elect these senators. If they were picked by the state house that money wouldn't have nearly the influence. And in my case they would both be reps.

Once my senators get elected they don't give a damn about the people here. If I call them to complain they don't care. If they were selected by the state houses I could call my local reps. And if enough people did this they could be removed.

This would negate the need for term limits, at last in the senate, if they are doing what the people want great, keep them, if not get them out. And not with a six year term, no terms, serve at the will of the people.

I'm sure that there were several valid reasons for the 17th when it was written. I don't think they envisioned the mess it has caused with people being in the senate forever.

Jim

quote:

A convention of the states can address patriotic pubic education, errant court decisions, term limits, state and local power, taxes, the administrative state, states’ rights, and the future of the union - scary stuff. It is not clear what would result.

Not fear as hinted, but rather evidence au courant, gives ample warning that any such process would be as strongly polluted by trickery as the recent election.

Hastening to willingly expose what will surely be an unequal process with illegitimate accounting is unacceptable to many.

The pretense compromise will generate a New Order somehow more legitimate and workable than the Old New Order, is either naive or supreme treachery.

Does anyone else here think Roberts is running afoul of the Const. by refusing to preside over the trial? Seems to me, if Roberts or the whole SCOTUS want to rule the impeachment of a private citizen to be an unconstitutional sham, they'd need to wait until a case is filed and the Court agrees to hear it.

What if some Dem senators were able to bring a case to the SCOTUS that eventually rules Roberts must preside over the trial? I mean the Const. doesn't qualify the procedure with words like "at his discretion" or "if he feels like it."

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Impeachment trials of the President are presided over by the Chief Justice. No Chief justice, no impeachment trial. There is no Constitutional provision for a Senator on the majority side to preside. They are making this up as they go, and as such they are not upholding their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.

the progs do not care nor do they believe in the Constitution....this is the main difference between a "liberal" and a prog.

The progs know they don't have the votes, this is political theater ....bread and circuses to their base.

Any republican who supports this unconstitutional scam needs recalled or primaried.

Rather surprised turtle grew a pair, maybe the people of Kentucky reminded him where his loyalties should lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Does anyone else here think Roberts is running afoul of the Const. by refusing to preside over the trial? Seems to me, if Roberts or the whole SCOTUS want to rule the impeachment of a private citizen to be an unconstitutional sham, they'd need to wait until a case is filed and the Court agrees to hear it.

No. In fact he's doing the absolute correct thing by declining to participate. The Constitution clearly states such a trial is to determine whether or not to remove a SITTING President. The pending "trial" does NOT conform to the Constitution and therefore Roberts is under no obligation to involve himself in such. Further by staying silent and uninvolved he does not jeopardize his vote should this fiasco end up before SCOTUS. No recusal necessary or warranted.

The notion that he should or must preside is simply a DEM / MSM / DNC talking point, which, like most of their utterances, is pure unadulterated garbage.

I hope you're right, but I don't trust Roberts one iota. Whenever he does the right thing, it's not because it's the right thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I hope you're right, but I don't trust Roberts one iota. Whenever he does the right thing, it's not because it's the right thing to do.

Yeah he's a snake. But here, this situation is so clear, that for him to do otherwise would send up flags all over the place.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Does anyone else here think Roberts is running afoul of the Const. by refusing to preside over the trial?

An interesting question that prompts me to offer an opinion rather than simply ignoring much of the other unending mental masturbation concerning topics most people know literally nothing about.

I read a recent opinion piece explaining in some detail why the impeachment process was clearly intended to be used to remove a serving official from office, nothing more, and the plain language of the Constitution convinces me that that analysis is correct. Yes, others have argued otherwise, but we have heard official arguments over the meaning of the word “is,” so arguments can be advanced to support virtually any position. In fact, Roberts’ refusal didn’t surprise me in the slightest because I expected it.

Many people here argue that individual police officers should decide on the spot whether an order or statute is unconstitutional and thereby decide on their own whether they will obey their oaths to enforce the laws as they were hired to do. They are supposedly supposed to do that regardless of any contrary guidance or directives they may receive from elected officials, agency heads, or legal advisers. Other people, especially military veterans, will point out that a private soldier is required to disobey patently illegal orders: “Sorry, general, I can’t do that.”

If all those beliefs are valid, how much more obligation does someone like a Supreme Court justice have to refuse to obey a request or demand that appears to be unconstitutional on its face even to someone like me? Like anything else, his refusal could be challenged in court and subject to formal judicial review—up to and including the entire Supreme Court. What’s more, if Donald Trump committed crimes that are subject to the normal process of our criminal justice system, he could be charged normally. If he did things that the electorate merely found reprehensible rather than criminal, they can demonstrate their displeasure by never voting for him ever again.

The impeachment farce is nothing more than blatant corruption of a vital constitutional process for partisan political purposes and like so many things we have seen in recent times merely demonstrates how much closer the nation is to becoming a third world cesspit. If this sort of thing is allowed to become the norm, where does it end? Why not impeach Hillary Clinton for the national security crimes she committed as Secretary of State so that she would be disqualified from ever holding Federal office again? That would actually tickle me pink, except for the horrible political precedent it would set.

Good info and viewpoints - thanks.

Stating the obvious but its good to shout it from the rooftops.

Spot on! But the demonrats can't handle the truth.


New Trump slogan: SAVE AMERICA

All this effort in 2nd impeachment and trail for conviction of said impeachment proves, is that Trump Derangement Syndrome is stronger and more lasting in its effects upon a person than the Chicom virus.

The tin foil hat crowd is physiologically healthier than the TDS crowd.

Chief Justice Roberts not participating in this circus is interesting indeed. It appears even he as a swampish creature, seems to have limits as to unconstitutional behavior by some legislative creatures.

It's almost if the Chief Justice is sending the TDS crowd a message of "You will need to come to the Courts to force me to participate at which point we, the court, can declare this charade unconstitutional."

2021 is going to be a nuts as 2020. Maybe our soaring Eagle friend needs to start a new thread:

The Office of the Trump Presidency : Year I

OK, now to go hide, cause I once saw a Raptor bird of prey snatch a squirrel with its talons - happened so fast I had to do a double take to realize what I had witnessed.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
[QUOTE] would be as strongly polluted by trickery as the recent election.

Republicans control a majority of state legislatures. State legislatures control how “commissioners” are chosen. Commissioners are only allowed to make suggestions. State legislatures must ratify any resulting suggestions to amend the Constitution. Every swing State legislature joined the Texas lawsuit, complaining that the election was unconstitutionally stollen.

Don’t like the word fear? How about apprehension?

What path do you advocate as a path forward? It seems to me that other paths are less viable but maybe you see a better path?

The ship of state is not only off course, it is taking on water. How do you propose to fix that in your confident, non-naive view of things?

Maybe you haven’t determined one yet. Is this a case of “there’s something bad about this path but all other paths are worse?”

I know of no one stronger and more resilient than President Trump. He couldn’t prevail over the administrative state and I don’t see election integrity as fixing the problems. Isn’t it high time to lend him a hand?

This is just my opinion and my opinion only, I am actually enjoying and having fun with Trump not in office right now. With all the FRACK UPS that Biden is making, I am enjoying pointing it out to my Biden loving and voting friends. Most of them do not know what to say or are speechless LOL !!! God Bless !!!

^^^Honestly, no matter how much enjoyment you may be experiencing, I'd much have your TDS afflicted, 'Biden loving and voting friends' freaking out/heads exploding due to whatever Trumps was saying/doing in his second term rather that them being speechless as Biden destroys the republic one EO at a time....

quote:

I don’t see election integrity as fixing the problems

-Whatever the successor to the GOP may be, it will have to step up its own efforts considerably.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

I don’t see election integrity as fixing the problems

-Whatever the successor to the GOP may be, it will have to step up its own efforts considerably.

Leads to the question that’s a constant companion: When is it the citizen’s time to step up? It’s OUR country.

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
This is just my opinion and my opinion only, I am actually enjoying and having fun with Trump not in office right now. With all the FRACK UPS that Biden is making, I am enjoying pointing it out to my Biden loving and voting friends. Most of them do not know what to say or are speechless LOL !!! God Bless !!!

in my wife's office before the election the dems were just talking it up counting down the days, now none of them are saying a word. completely speechless.

quote:

Originally posted by XLT:

quote:

Originally posted by VBVAGUY:
This is just my opinion and my opinion only, I am actually enjoying and having fun with Trump not in office right now. With all the FRACK UPS that Biden is making, I am enjoying pointing it out to my Biden loving and voting friends. Most of them do not know what to say or are speechless LOL !!! God Bless !!!

in my wife's office before the election the dems were just talking it up counting down the days, now none of them are saying a word. completely speechless.

I predict a lot of "voter remorse" very soon, including among the Democrats.

flashguy