alleghany

WE ALREADY HAVE TERM LIMITS. IT'S CALLED ELECTIONS. WE HAVE THEM EVERY TWO YEARS.

BESIDES, YOU NUTCASES WANT TERM LIMITS BUT KEEP SENDING VIRGINIA FOXX TO THE HOUSE FOR FIVE TERMS NOW. NOW, YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.

We need an amendment setting term limits. Two consecutive terms is quite enough for any federal level office. Let em run again after sitting one cycle out.

While we are at it, limit federal judges to ten years on the bench.

And while we're at it, restrict officeholders lobbying activities. No lobbying for five years after you leave office.

WHAT SECTION ON TERM LIMITS? THE ONLY MENTIONING OF TERM LIMITS IN THE CONSTITUTION DEALS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

Let's chum the waters and see what strikes.

I'm surprised you folk are so concerned with the continuity of the republic. Many of you eschew any notion of American Exceptionalism. You've tried to weaken the nation as a world leader and seem to want us to take our place as one of many former great European powers.

The arena of ideas seems closed to any dissent. This could lead to the death of our Republic :'(
http://www.usnews.com/news/...a-bad-idea

Good post there, Sparklin'! The reasoning is sound and succinct and it will be interesting to see what the LDLP come back with this time. The arena of ideas awaits.

It would be a dangerous waste of time and money
http://reason.com/archives/...ew-constit

Perspective from the COS website:

Why It Will Succeed
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the "runaway convention" objection.

It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.

Here are the facts:

1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson's handbook).

2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote "no" to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.

3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG's Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation�the last major Article V case in U.S. history.

4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See "Can we Trust the Constitution?" by Michael Farris).

American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.

QUESTION:

Many Citizens in our state fear that the Convention of States will not succeed because our state's politicians are just as corrupt and indifferent to the voice of the people as our federal politicians. How can a Convention of States succeed in this kind of environment?

ANSWER:

In a word, ACCOUNTABILITY.

Yes, state politicians are corrupt, but at the end of the day, the voters are in control, particularly the ORGANIZED voters...Unlike our Congress, our state representatives are voted into office by a very small number of people.

State representatives have little or no support from lobbyists, PACs, and "big-money" like the National Offices. If you look at the typical state district for example, elections are decided by a small number of voters.

So why do politicians get away with their corruption? "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"...The citizens in your state, like the rest of our country, are not ORGANIZED.

If the politicians do not toe-the-line and represent the people, and the people of your state are ORGANIZED, EDUCATED and ENGAGED, they have the power to remove any one of the CORRUPT state representatives!

If the citizens in your state are focused and target the corrupt politicians who do not listen to the people, the word will get out to all of your state legislators that the PEOPLE MEAN BUSINESS.

The citizens of your state need to:

1. Identify and target the corrupt politicians
2. Raise a grassroots team in each of those districts
3. Engage the politician often and regularly...To be most effective, they should send the same, consistent, clear message to the legislators of what they expect.
4. If the legislators do not listen, fire them!

The problem is not the politicians, but the citizens of your state for not holding your state legislators accountable to you, the PEOPLE!

We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.

God Fearing Patriots?

All the GFPs are wanting the Convention.

The only necessity for a convention is so people like the Kochs can write a new Constitution to serve their own purposes. All God-fearing Patriots should be firmly against this treachery!

To any right-thinking American the need for this action is absolutely necessary and momentum is building. The ratification process will insure the outcome is acceptable for 3/4 of the states so let's get 'er done!

Note from GoNC: a portion of this post was removed for trolling.

The Repubs use a lot of fear tactics themselves. I think its just common sense that ratifying amendments by the states us much safer than risking a convention. It has worked for over 200 years now.

I agree Sparklin', The LDLP has yet to state a coherent and factual reason not to open a convention of the States, without the scare tactics and fear- mongering. It's not so much their fear of honest communication as it is their inability to compete in the arena of ideas.

Note from GoNC: a portion of this post was removed for trolling.

I DID NOT IMPLY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THAT I WANTED TO KEEP THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. THAT IS JUST YOUR WAY OF TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN SOMEONES MOUTH TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD. SORT OF LIKE YOU DID ON THAT BET YOU LOST.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE DANGER OF THE PROPOSED CONVENTION ON DOING SOMETHING THAT ISNOT AAUTHORIZED.

Note from GoNC: a portion of this post was removed for trolling.

I'm starting to think that the liberals are afraid of honest communication. They seem to prefer the currently developing tyranny of the beurocracy.

A suggested reading for this topic is Plain Honest Men, the making of the U S Constitution by Richard Beeman. This work sums up the reasoning behind the document and gives inspiration for Convention of the States.

BTW, I'm right pleased with their results. The new and improved document would only need 27 revisions over the next 2 centuries. It only needs a few revisions now.

So, are you pissed that they changed governing documents?

ON FEBRUARY 21, 1787, THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION, NOT THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AS YOU STATE, CALLED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

"FOR THE SOLE AND EXPRESS PURPOSE OF REVISING THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION."

NOT FOR WRITING A NEW CONSTITUTION.