• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Convention of states

B

bythoughts

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2025
Messages
951
Reaction score
506
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump is threatening to impose "harsh measures" on Colorado if they don't pardon a prisoner who happened to back him being elected undemocratically. Troops are being sent into unwilling cities of unwilling states to impose something increasingly similar to martial law. The Supreme Court is no longer holding back clearly unconstitutional measures. The budget deficit is ballooning on giveaways to the upper caste, the IRS is a contemned branch of law enforcement, and economists are fired for giving honest statistics.

Is it time for the states to take "harsh measures"?

There is a longstanding conservative proposal - and I do mean conservative in a sense that is rarely used nowadays - called "Convention of States". It has collected calls for a constitutional convention from mostly (formerly) Republican states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. It calls for "a national movement to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress."

In the past, liberal states might have been concerned by fiscal restraints ... but is that true now that money is being spent in hundreds of billions on masked ICE agents and in the trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, but not on scientific research or humanitarian aid? They might have been concerned by limits on federal power and jurisdiction, but perhaps that ship has sailed also. And term limits? Well, there are some Supreme Court members who may be hard to dislodge any other way.

There are reasons to bemoan such a movement, perhaps - it might lead to (or at least slightly accentuate) a whore war between states looking to site polluting factories in their borders or hand over money. And it's not a proposal for the complete and irrevocable dissolution of the United States and all its debts and treaty obligations, which might be a more convincing way to fix the problems. But, well, is it something?
 
It's sure going to be interesting seeing how far Trump fans are willing to follow him into dictatorship and an authoritarian nightmare.

How much of the constitution are they willing to sacrifice to own the libs?
 
reinaert said:
They are trying to provoke it.
Click to expand...
I think so but I also don't think these guys have the stomach for the fallout. Trump, Miller, and Vance are massive cowards.
 
The Brad Dad said:
I think so but I also don't think these guys have the stomach for the fallout. Trump, Miller, and Vance are massive cowards.
Click to expand...
Physical and moral cowards, yes. That's why all the murder larping. And soldiers to Chicago, next.

Cowards need violence. People with courage do not.
 
The democrats are working hard to get the political arm of violence rising again, looking for social causes for excuses for the violence, calling it needed to "protect democracy"......haven't we seen this before, lol?

Get ready for the midterms and the leftist violence coming......it's the new political strategy of democrats. Will you remain willfully ignorant?
 

Are you saying that liberals should just sit by as Trump demolishes democracy?
 
Absolutely not.

Once the convention is in session there is nothing to prevent it from voting to expand beyond it's proposed limits. An Article 5 Convention can suspend the Constitution and start all over.


While there have been calls for an Article V Convention based on a single issue such as the balanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit", whereas law professor Michael Rappaport and attorney-at-law Robert Kellybelieve that a limited convention is possible.
wiki

This organization is leading the fight:

Citizens for Self-Governance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
Do you want these people ****ing with the constitution?


Even though the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on some occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments, as well as the Twenty-seventh Amendment, were proposed in part because of a Convention application by the New York and Virginia legislatures at the suggestion of a letter from the New York State Convention to ratify the Constitution. The convention would have been limited to those changes discussed at the various State ratifying Conventions. At least four other amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention, bringing the total to 15 out of 27, a majority of the Amendments.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
Loulit01 said:
Once the convention is in session there is nothing to prevent it from voting to expand beyond it's proposed limits. An Article 5 Convention can suspend the Constitution and start all over.
Click to expand...
That was a far greater terror when it seemed like the "Constitution" was good for something. Don't get me wrong - I very strongly believe in the First Amendment and in freedom of expression in a generic sense that extends well beyond it. But nowadays Tiktok relies on 90-day reprieves to be allowed to have a video forum. Most web forums have shut down under legal threats. Newspapers and TV outlets are firing whoever Trump doesn't like and forking over however much money he asks for just to stay functioning. There are 55 million visa holders now subject to "continuous vetting" -- which is to say, an AI computer, not even a police informer, goes over every word they say that gets recorded on any microphone in a country studded with secret and careless microphones, and if ever once they say "the wrong thing" as redefined daily they are out of here. And I'd have to be pretty naive to think such a system, once tested on 55 million people, isn't going to be used on more.

So no, I don't really worry all that much if they get out of hand. They could give Trump a dictatorship -- one he can take anyway, with all his handpicked people in charge of the military and the others loyalty-tested by two years of imposing martial law. Or they could just plain dissolve the U.S., allowing a few states to perhaps make countries more to our liking. I don't know.
 
TikTok should not be allowed to have this forum as they are a Chinese owned intelligence gathering network
bythoughts said:
Most web forums have shut down under legal threats.
Click to expand...
Hunh?
bythoughts said:
Newspapers and TV outlets are firing whoever Trump doesn't like and forking over however much money he asks for just to stay functioning.
Click to expand...
Example?
What makes you think a convention will strip Trump of power instead of giving him more power? The group pushing for the convention is far far far right.
Yeah, that I don't know part is far to dangerous.
 
redbeer said:
Get ready for the midterms and the leftist violence coming......it's the new political strategy of democrats. Will you remain willfully ignorant?
Click to expand...
Leftist violence is absolutely stupid. It is doomed in the practical sense of looter/rioter vs. Army being a rigged battle. It is ideologically inconsistent with a leftist message. And above all, it is so unnecessary! The most violent thing a leftist can possibly do is sit down and shut up. I mean, do you know how to, or have the resources to, dump radioactive contamination all over Denver and shut down the city? Nope. But Trump does. Rah-rah, Make America Great Again! Alright, maybe Denver you should protest a little because it is slightly liberal - though it is still part of the U.S. regime's infrastructure, if you're thinking like a military fighter - but there will be the most of those portable nuclear disasters in the reddest states. Of course, that's nothing compared to sitting down and shutting up while mRNA vaccine readiness is cut... maybe losing 10 or 20 million will shock the U.S. into another way of thinking. It's like paddles in an ER, or Lotto: "you never know."
 
Dumpletits has no authority to do any such thing.
 
If a new constitution was to be written, I can think of a lot of changes.

So many that I have actually drafted a new constitution.

One that starts by severely weakening the President and dividing up the executive branch, which would be weakened across the board.

Congress would be redesigned so as to weaken the Senate and make it more in line with upper houses around the world. They could delay but not stop legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the House would have sole authority over appropriations and the budget.

Judges would be nominated by bipartisan selection commissions, with a 2/3rds majority required for nomination and appointed by the President, both to keep extremists of both sides off the courts and ensure the ones who do make it are the best minds in the legal field.

Tariffs could only be enacted by Congress and only under very limited scenarios and would have to be renewed every 90 days. Outside of the limited scenarios, the United States would be required to abide by a policy of unconditional free trade.

Just for starters.
 
Peter said:
Are you saying that liberals should just sit by as Trump demolishes democracy?
Click to expand...

Get some actual leaders, run on actual policies, stop obstructing, cease the crazy cultural wars and begin acting with some common sense. There's no need for such drama/theatrics or use violence......just act like a democratic political party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…