In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
The key to reclaiming America
tallcharlie
Member Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭
An amendment changing one sentence of the Constitution would completely correct the problems we are now having with the runaway Congress.
Article I, Section 6:quote: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.Change to:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, including expenses incurred, to be ascertained and paid by their respective State.
Article I, Section 6:quote: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.Change to:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, including expenses incurred, to be ascertained and paid by their respective State.
Comments
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Repeal the 17th amendment.
Bingo, we have a winner!
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
Repeal the 17th amendment.
My suggestion would accomplish the same thing, and more.
By the way, the Amendment XVII does not specify how the candidates for Senator are chosen, only that they must be elected. Food for thought.
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
Repeal the 17th amendment.
My suggestion would accomplish the same thing, and more.
By the way, the Amendment XVII does not specify how the candidates for Senator are chosen, only that they must be elected. Food for thought.
This would definitely work much better. Particularly expenses. State would approve expenses. Not approved, they don't spend the money, spend the money, not approved they don't get reimbursed.
Works in business. Eliminates a lot of company paid "boondoggles?
I agree the salary and pension ( which is not an enumerated item but self endowed) should be paid by the States. It would create a bond of sorts to the State legislators. And that is the original intent. As it should be.
But do not discount the damage the 17th did to the Republic. It removed the accountability of Senators to the State legislators. It made the Senate nothing more than House light. Senate candidates appeal to the voters on the same issues as Congressmen, get their contributions and owe their allegiance to the same people.
I see the original design for the Senate was a slower impact of the current political attitudes. With 1/3 of the Senators up every 2 years and the State Legislators on a different schedule the political environment of a State, as well as the party balance, would not mirror the House. And the allegiance and accountability would be to the State Government not the voters or doners for a particular election.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
LOL! Talking about yourself? Look, Congress doesn't acknowledge the contents of the Constitution the way it's written. Why would they start with some new amendment?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
LOL! Talking about yourself? Look, Congress doesn't acknowledge the contents of the Constitution the way it's written. Why would they start with some new amendment?
That is not true. The majority, if not all, of the unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government are the work of either the SCOTUS or POTUS, not Congress. You are obviously woefully ignorant of the workings and machinations of Congress.
The point that the 17th does not specify how candidates are chosen is completely irrelevant as to the damage it did to the Republic. Have the candidates been chosen in any manner other than primaries in the past 100+ years, not that I know of. The problem is popular election.
I agree the salary and pension ( which is not an enumerated item but self endowed) should be paid by the States. It would create a bond of sorts to the State legislators. And that is the original intent. As it should be.
But do not discount the damage the 17th did to the Republic. It removed the accountability of Senators to the State legislators. It made the Senate nothing more than House light. Senate candidates appeal to the voters on the same issues as Congressmen, get their contributions and owe their allegiance to the same people.
I see the original design for the Senate was a slower impact of the current political attitudes. With 1/3 of the Senators up every 2 years and the State Legislators on a different schedule the political environment of a State, as well as the party balance, would not mirror the House. And the allegiance and accountability would be to the State Government not the voters or doners for a particular election.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I believe one or two states have tumbled to the solution to this weakness in the Constitution. To wit, their legislatures select the candidates. This method, of course, is the prerogative of the States to determine, not the federal government and thus is not subject to judicial review (unless the SCOTUS usurps that power).
My suggestion, taking control of the purse strings, would return a power to the voters that they have lost because of the seventeenth: the power to recall. Food for thought.
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
The point that the 17th does not specify how candidates are chosen is completely irrelevant as to the damage it did to the Republic. Have the candidates been chosen in any manner other than primaries in the past 100+ years, not that I know of. The problem is popular election.
I agree the salary and pension ( which is not an enumerated item but self endowed) should be paid by the States. It would create a bond of sorts to the State legislators. And that is the original intent. As it should be.
But do not discount the damage the 17th did to the Republic. It removed the accountability of Senators to the State legislators. It made the Senate nothing more than House light. Senate candidates appeal to the voters on the same issues as Congressmen, get their contributions and owe their allegiance to the same people.
I see the original design for the Senate was a slower impact of the current political attitudes. With 1/3 of the Senators up every 2 years and the State Legislators on a different schedule the political environment of a State, as well as the party balance, would not mirror the House. And the allegiance and accountability would be to the State Government not the voters or doners for a particular election.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I believe one or two states have tumbled to the solution to this weakness in the Constitution. To wit, their legislatures select the candidates. This method, of course, is the prerogative of the States to determine, not the federal government and thus is not subject to judicial review (unless the SCOTUS usurps that power).
My suggestion, taking control of the purse strings, would return a power to the voters that they have lost because of the seventeenth: the power to recall. Food for thought.
I agree with making states responsible for the financial support of their Congressman. Only expenses are enumerated.
I am a little confused, what you described is the method set by the Constitution before 1913. There were problems there but the fix was not the 17th. " ..elected by the people thereof,"
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
The point that the 17th does not specify how candidates are chosen is completely irrelevant as to the damage it did to the Republic. Have the candidates been chosen in any manner other than primaries in the past 100+ years, not that I know of. The problem is popular election.
I agree the salary and pension ( which is not an enumerated item but self endowed) should be paid by the States. It would create a bond of sorts to the State legislators. And that is the original intent. As it should be.
But do not discount the damage the 17th did to the Republic. It removed the accountability of Senators to the State legislators. It made the Senate nothing more than House light. Senate candidates appeal to the voters on the same issues as Congressmen, get their contributions and owe their allegiance to the same people.
I see the original design for the Senate was a slower impact of the current political attitudes. With 1/3 of the Senators up every 2 years and the State Legislators on a different schedule the political environment of a State, as well as the party balance, would not mirror the House. And the allegiance and accountability would be to the State Government not the voters or doners for a particular election.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I believe one or two states have tumbled to the solution to this weakness in the Constitution. To wit, their legislatures select the candidates. This method, of course, is the prerogative of the States to determine, not the federal government and thus is not subject to judicial review (unless the SCOTUS usurps that power).
My suggestion, taking control of the purse strings, would return a power to the voters that they have lost because of the seventeenth: the power to recall. Food for thought.
I agree with making states responsible for the financial support of their Congressman. Only expenses are enumerated.
I am a little confused, what you described is the method set by the Constitution before 1913. There were problems there but the fix was not the 17th. " ..elected by the people thereof,"
No, casper, prior to the 17th, the legislatures selected the Senators, not the candidates because there were no elections, thus no candidates.
Under the scheme I described, the Senators would still be elected by the people by popular vote, but they would be limited to the candidates chosen by the legislature, not the primaries, a.k.a. the political parties.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
LOL! Talking about yourself? Look, Congress doesn't acknowledge the contents of the Constitution the way it's written. Why would they start with some new amendment?
That is not true. The majority, if not all, of the unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government are the work of either the SCOTUS or POTUS, not Congress. You are obviously woefully ignorant of the workings and machinations of Congress.
So, you've never heard of... Obamacare?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
LOL! Talking about yourself? Look, Congress doesn't acknowledge the contents of the Constitution the way it's written. Why would they start with some new amendment?
That is not true. The majority, if not all, of the unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government are the work of either the SCOTUS or POTUS, not Congress. You are obviously woefully ignorant of the workings and machinations of Congress.
So, you've never heard of... Obamacare?
Chief Justice John Roberts of the...wait for it...Supreme Court of the United States cast the deciding vote finding that Obamacare was really a tax and therefore constitutional. So either Obamacare IS constitutional, in which case you have no argument, or the SCOTUS is responsible for supporting an unconstitutional law, in which case my assertion is correct.
Either way you lose.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
You think they'd notice?
Oh, they'd notice. It would change everything for them.
I doubt it.
Then you don't know very much about Congress.
LOL! Talking about yourself? Look, Congress doesn't acknowledge the contents of the Constitution the way it's written. Why would they start with some new amendment?
That is not true. The majority, if not all, of the unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government are the work of either the SCOTUS or POTUS, not Congress. You are obviously woefully ignorant of the workings and machinations of Congress.
So, you've never heard of... Obamacare?
Chief Justice John Roberts of the...wait for it...Supreme Court of the United States cast the deciding vote finding that Obamacare was really a tax and therefore constitutional. So either Obamacare IS constitutional, in which case you have no argument, or the SCOTUS is responsible for supporting an unconstitutional law, in which case my assertion is correct.
Either way you lose.
Oh please. You do know that the unconstitutional law was written and passed in Congress before the SCOTUS had any say about it. And it was never intended to be a tax, the assertion by Roberts is completely baseless. It's as much horse pucky as your knowledge of how the system works. I have this bridge I'd like to sell you, Congress built it.[:D]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The only thing is, that was not the argument. As usual you've lost sight of the subject and have run off on some obscure tangent.
The point was my suggestion that Congress-critters become state employees rather than federal employees as they are now, and your foolish opinion that they would not even notice the change.
So obviously you don't know how the system works, but rather than ask for clarification, you simply run your mouth thus proving your ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
The point that the 17th does not specify how candidates are chosen is completely irrelevant as to the damage it did to the Republic. Have the candidates been chosen in any manner other than primaries in the past 100+ years, not that I know of. The problem is popular election.
I agree the salary and pension ( which is not an enumerated item but self endowed) should be paid by the States. It would create a bond of sorts to the State legislators. And that is the original intent. As it should be.
But do not discount the damage the 17th did to the Republic. It removed the accountability of Senators to the State legislators. It made the Senate nothing more than House light. Senate candidates appeal to the voters on the same issues as Congressmen, get their contributions and owe their allegiance to the same people.
I see the original design for the Senate was a slower impact of the current political attitudes. With 1/3 of the Senators up every 2 years and the State Legislators on a different schedule the political environment of a State, as well as the party balance, would not mirror the House. And the allegiance and accountability would be to the State Government not the voters or doners for a particular election.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I believe one or two states have tumbled to the solution to this weakness in the Constitution. To wit, their legislatures select the candidates. This method, of course, is the prerogative of the States to determine, not the federal government and thus is not subject to judicial review (unless the SCOTUS usurps that power).
My suggestion, taking control of the purse strings, would return a power to the voters that they have lost because of the seventeenth: the power to recall. Food for thought.
I agree with making states responsible for the financial support of their Congressman. Only expenses are enumerated.
I am a little confused, what you described is the method set by the Constitution before 1913. There were problems there but the fix was not the 17th. " ..elected by the people thereof,"
No, casper, prior to the 17th, the legislatures selected the Senators, not the candidates because there were no elections, thus no candidates.
Under the scheme I described, the Senators would still be elected by the people by popular vote, but they would be limited to the candidates chosen by the legislature, not the primaries, a.k.a. the political parties.
I agree with your original post on reimbursement of Senators. I don't think anyone, especially politicians, should have the ability to approve their own raises.
But somehow I missed in your original post "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, including expenses incurred, to be ascertained and paid by their respective State.", the suggestions that ONLY candidates approved by State legislators would be submitted to the people and eliminate the party primaries.
So you now purpose that the political parties make the candidate selection, A(this Democrat) or B(this Republican) to the people. So NO independents could run for Senate (at least that would eliminate Sanders I-VT). Ted Cruz would never have been considered, your suggestion would limit the peoples choices to party favorites.
I see court challenges to this process on an unlimited scale.
Prior to the 17th there were recalls and the rate of incumbents returning was about 75% after the 17th it is over 90%.
"No, casper, prior to the 17th, the legislatures selected the Senators, not the candidates because there were no elections, thus no candidates."
And there were candidates within the State houses (or house) to select from. Just not thru popular election.
I am not aware of any states that limit the candidates for Senate to those presented by their State Legislators.
Regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, Mr. Perfect, all three branches of the federal government say you are wrong. However, you are correct about Obamacare; it is unconstitutional.
The only thing is, that was not the argument. As usual you've lost sight of the subject and have run off on some obscure tangent.
The point was my suggestion that Congress-critters become state employees rather than federal employees as they are now, and your foolish opinion that they would not even notice the change.
So obviously you don't know how the system works, but rather than ask for clarification, you simply run your mouth thus proving your ignorance.
Give it a rest will ya? As I said from the outset, your proposal is not something Congress would even acknowledge, if one uses history as their guide, but, you prefer to live in fairy tale land. Just how do you suppose constitutional amendments get added? Had you even considered that? You expect Congress to approve an amendment that further limits their power... when they already ignore restrictions on their power placed on them by the Constitution? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Pay Congressmen MINIMUM WAGE????????
So you want to see a $ 175,000.00 minimum wage?
Methinks that may apply inflationary pressures to our somewhat fragile economy.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, Mr. Perfect, all three branches of the federal government say you are wrong. However, you are correct about Obamacare; it is unconstitutional.
The only thing is, that was not the argument. As usual you've lost sight of the subject and have run off on some obscure tangent.
The point was my suggestion that Congress-critters become state employees rather than federal employees as they are now, and your foolish opinion that they would not even notice the change.
So obviously you don't know how the system works, but rather than ask for clarification, you simply run your mouth thus proving your ignorance.
Give it a rest will ya? As I said from the outset, your proposal is not something Congress would even acknowledge, if one uses history as their guide, but, you prefer to live in fairy tale land. Just how do you suppose constitutional amendments get added? Had you even considered that? You expect Congress to approve an amendment that further limits their power... when they already ignore restrictions on their power placed on them by the Constitution? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Are you real? Have you ever even read the Constitution? When you finally do, pay particular attention to Article V.
My OP wasquote:An amendment changing one sentence of the Constitution would completely correct the problems we are now having with the runaway Congress.
Article I, Section 6:
quote:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
Change to:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, including expenses incurred, to be ascertained and paid by their respective State.Try to debate the post rather than hijacking the thread with your idiotic and pointless ideas.
I see court challenges to this process on an unlimited scale.
Prior to the 17th there were recalls and the rate of incumbents returning was about 75% after the 17th it is over 90%.Recalls, not re-elections.
A recall occurs when the voting public becomes dissatisfied with the performance of an elected official and votes him or her out of office.
You do know, don't you, that Congressmen are considered to be federal employees, thus not subject to recall by their states? In other words, they do not work for the people they supposedly represent, but for the US government.
How serious is this? Well, would you hire a lawyer that is paid by the court to represent you rather than one that has to work and perform to get paid? One who cannot be fired no matter how good or bad he is? A lawyer you couldn't fire if he committed some unethical act?
That's what we have now with the situation the way it is. quote:quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie"No, casper, prior to the 17th, the legislatures selected the Senators, not the candidates because there were no elections, thus no candidates."And there were candidates within the State houses (or house) to select from. Just not thru popular election.Casper, you know exactly what I meant. Quit with the word games, okay?quote:I am not aware of any states that limit the candidates for Senate to those presented by their State Legislators.I heard the suggestion in passing, and did not note if any particular states were named, only that it was being considered by a couple.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, Mr. Perfect, all three branches of the federal government say you are wrong. However, you are correct about Obamacare; it is unconstitutional.
The only thing is, that was not the argument. As usual you've lost sight of the subject and have run off on some obscure tangent.
The point was my suggestion that Congress-critters become state employees rather than federal employees as they are now, and your foolish opinion that they would not even notice the change.
So obviously you don't know how the system works, but rather than ask for clarification, you simply run your mouth thus proving your ignorance.
Give it a rest will ya? As I said from the outset, your proposal is not something Congress would even acknowledge, if one uses history as their guide, but, you prefer to live in fairy tale land. Just how do you suppose constitutional amendments get added? Had you even considered that? You expect Congress to approve an amendment that further limits their power... when they already ignore restrictions on their power placed on them by the Constitution? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Are you real? Have you ever even read the Constitution? When you finally do, pay particular attention to Article V.
My OP wasquote:An amendment changing one sentence of the Constitution would completely correct the problems we are now having with the runaway Congress.
Article I, Section 6:
quote:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
Change to:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, including expenses incurred, to be ascertained and paid by their respective State.Try to debate the post rather than hijacking the thread with your idiotic and pointless ideas.
Somehow you think congress isn't involved in the amendment process I get that. I'm not sure why you keep using that to hammer home some point. Here's article V just for you. Maybe now you'll get it (have someone read it to you, if necessary):
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Once you wake up to the fact that the sort of amendment you're proposing will never, ever, ever, ever happen, and even if it somehow did, would be wholly ignored by congress, then perhaps, I'll humor the finer points of it with you. Until then, I'll just keep laughing at your idiocy.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The OP is not about whether or not Congress will pass the suggested amendment. It is about the suggested amendment and what its effects would be.
You got that? Can you comprehend that simple concept?
Your prediction of the future is irrelevant. It is not germane to the subject.
You got that. It's a simple concept.
Basically, what you are droning on about is not relevant except to you, your inflated ego, and your deficient intellect.
On another matter, your erroneous concept of Article V.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Which reads, in whole or in part:quote:
The Problem
The federal government has overreached its constitutionally-established boundaries and has its hands in almost every area of our lives. Our children and grandchildren will inherit a bankrupt nation run by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
The Solution
Article V of the United States Constitution allows us to call a Convention of States to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, effectively returning the citizens' rightful power over the ruling elite.
The Strategy
Working together, state legislators and American citizens can restore the checks and balances on federal power that were put in place by our founding fathers to protect our liberty from the abuses in Washington DC.Summary for the wimpy, little girly-men that think Congress is all powerful: there is nothing Congress can do to stop an Article V convention.
Okay, Mr. Perfect, you seem to be about as dense as the decorative rock in my backyard.
The OP is not about whether or not Congress will pass the suggested amendment. It is about the suggested amendment and what its effects would be.
You got that? Can you comprehend that simple concept?
Your prediction of the future is irrelevant. It is not germane to the subject.
You got that. It's a simple concept.
Basically, what you are droning on about is not relevant except to you, your inflated ego, and your deficient intellect.
On another matter, your erroneous concept of Article V.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Which reads, in whole or in part:quote:
The Problem
The federal government has overreached its constitutionally-established boundaries and has its hands in almost every area of our lives. Our children and grandchildren will inherit a bankrupt nation run by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
The Solution
Article V of the United States Constitution allows us to call a Convention of States to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, effectively returning the citizens' rightful power over the ruling elite.
The Strategy
Working together, state legislators and American citizens can restore the checks and balances on federal power that were put in place by our founding fathers to protect our liberty from the abuses in Washington DC.Summary for the wimpy, little girly-men that think Congress is all powerful: there is nothing Congress can do to stop an Article V convention.
Ok. You win. I concede defeat to your obviously superior intellect. You run with that princess. See where it gets you.[:D][:D]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
While it took long enough for you to realize the error of your ways, just look at that event think as merely the first step on the long (and admittedly uphill) road to your enlightenment.
Stick with it.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Yes, yes. Obviously the key to reclaiming America is "An amendment changing one sentence of the Constitution would completely correct the problems we are now having with the runaway Congress."
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Not a damned thing.
It would just perpetuate the "good old boy" system on a different level.
The sentence from the Constitution that I quoted has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that Congressmen are federal employees responsible to the federal government, not the states and citizens they are supposed to represent.
The court has also decided that because Congressmen are not employed by their states, they cannot be recalled by their constituents, they cannot be made to actually represent their states. Indeed, so long as they do not turn on their own kind, they represent only themselves.
The change I proposed would make them state employees, beholden to their states and constituents, and ultimately responsible to them.
They would not be able to vote themselves perks, salary increases, unlimited expense accounts, lavish retirement benefits, and on and on.
A Senator or Representative that ignores the wishes of his constituents, as did nearly all of those that voted for say Obamacare, could be swiftly and surely * out of Washington and consigned to the political scrap heap.
That threat, I believe, would make our Congressmen far more concerned with the well-being of their constituents rather than themselves and their parties.
cbyerly, if you believe otherwise, I invite you to explain your position and put forward your argument in detail, if you can.