Right now, thanks to Mark Levin, it is rather regular to hear the call of the new States Convention, or more accurately called an Article V Convention. You can read it and the whole Constitution here.
While you are at it you can read the list of proposed amendments here.
Many tend to think this process and these Amendments will right the ship. The concept is to get power back in the hands of the States…
You know… Because the State governments aren’t as corrupt as the Federal government, even though it’s all run by the same parties…
The movement behind it is like a pack of rabid religious zealots.
My tone may seem harsh, but try to explain to these people why this process is dangerous, or the obvious lack of impact it will have and they shut you out just like the Federalists did when they stole the nation through the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Oh! Did you not know about this? Most people do not understand the current Constitution is technically illegal. There is a sickness in society that we tell ourselves as long as everybody agrees on something that makes it true, and the reality. Oddly enough this is a sentiment held mainly by people who desire to keep their perception in power over others. As prove us examine a part of the main dissent from the minority of the Convention of Philadelphia:
“With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia… “for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union.” This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose… none of them extended their ideas at that time further than “revising and amending the present articles of confederation.”
Their point isn’t that the confederation wasn’t flawed. It’s that they were not authorized to draft a whole new system.
So, begins my concerns with this psychotic idea of an Article V Convention. By holding an Article V Convention you open the Constitution to alteration. Levin and others in the movement have claimed this isn’t a problem, because the convention has to stick to the reason you called for it. Say to pass an amendment for Term Limits. It really doesn’t matter where, or who they’re quoting to get this claim, because the Constitution says “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” that’s all it says… That’s the only requirement.
Usurpers of the Convention could also easily follow the rules at the start and then hi-jack the whole thing forcing any legitimate voices out of the meeting, possibly under arrest for treason Stalin style. Then restructure the entire legal system of the nation.
My confusion lies in the proposed Amendments. Why does anyone think a Term Limit on elected officials will work?
This is a main focus of Convention supporters. We’ve seen in the current system, which still has term limits just not cycle limits –like going from Senate to the House and back-and-forth for instance- there’s a slow game to install improper legislation.
If the theory is that this way the usurpers would have to do things faster, forcing the goal into the open, that thought disproved by the fact it’s a two party system constantly prepping the next candidate and assuring through party indoctrination, adherence, and platform that the new seat holder will continue to push for the illicit program/power, which is most of the time implemented in parts over multiple bills, riders and regulations.
Term limits won’t change this.
A few of the excess Amendments are geared to confront this possibility that term limits won’t end slow implementations, which is admission in itself it won’t work, but NONE of them call for actual punishments; from what I’ve seen, if the new Amendment(s) aren’t adhere too, and even if they did; the current Amendments not being adhere to have a punishment requirement already CALLED TREASON! Clearly you can tell they don’t enforce this.
So what in the wide, wide world of sports makes anyone think they’ll enforce the new ones, and if they did… for how long do you really think they would?
The truth is, so long as parties are the order of the day none of them are going to look to properly prosecute the other.
Because they’re spiteful little children and they know they’d just prosecute back and forth.
But they’d also be putting each other in prison, because they are all criminals illegally using the system towards improper political gains for illicit social and moral control.