We need to amend the US Constitution

[Lougotzz]

Where did you look this up?

I remember reading it on arfcom a while back. After I wrote this tonight I googled how many more states needed for a constitutional convention.

This has been discussed in depth on ar15.com

[dosequis]

C) the goal is for the States to take power FROM the Federal government and give power to themselves. I'm not a lawyer and not sure how that would be worded, but the States are tired of being bossed around by Washington. The original idea (of our Founding Fathers) was not for Washington to rule the land. It was for the States to rule themselves, for each to be like it's own little country; I think they termed it as each State would be an experiment in government.

What "new" ammendment would you write now that could be more clear than what the 10th ammendment already says?

The words you need are already there in the original Constitution, and they are not being followed. How many more words will it take to fix that ?

[BSH]

Think about who would get to be delegates at a con con. I'm skeptical anything good would come of it. It could result in the final dissolution of the late USA.

That said, I think we need to just about double the number of amendments to get the gov caught up with our modern needs.

[Remington788]

Think about who would get to be delegates at a con con. I'm skeptical anything good would come of it. It could result in the final dissolution of the late USA.

That said, I think we need to just about double the number of amendments to get the gov caught up with our modern needs.

We could end up with our state's top law enforcement officer and the mayor of the state's biggest city as our delegates.

Careful what you wish for.

[phillyd2]

I for one hope this NEVER EVER happens.

There is not a damn thing wrong with our current Constitution and not its fault that most of our fellow citizens don't care enough to get involved within the current system.

Everything that is wrong today is nobody's fault but our own, including many of our fellow members here as well as our so called Association.

There is no THEM screwing us - we have willingly screwed ourselves for decades.

[kadar]

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2...ot-amendments/

Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!
By Publius Huldah

What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.1

On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will. We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. This is how they “support” the Constitution!

We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone. The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.

We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right – and it is a duty.

We have read original writings of our Framers and know what our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies – not one of which is “amendment of the Constitution”. 3

It is already proved in James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers, that our Framers endorsed nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed it up as follows:

“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act”4 is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” 5

The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false. To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible. So why don’t they apologize to the public and recant their errors?

Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a “convention of the States” (which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by Article V of the Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that this is the only way out.

Yes, they tell us, the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is …. to amend the Constitution!

Do you see how silly that is?

More at the link at the top.

Trust no one. You must check everything out for yourself.

[VRH]

Check this page…I went through at least a dozen names, and all Republican. I stopped checking. http://redmillennial.com/2013/12/08/...rnon-assembly/

That is a start, but woefully incomplete. No roster available, which is not a good sign. One can not really determine the character of the effort without clearly knowing who is really involved.

I also noticed that the purpose for the CoS was not specified. Only that some sample topics/purpose could be brought forward. This seems really odd to me.

It is also odd that none of the sample topics were firearms related.

I shall be looking at this much closer as it matures.

[PSUWaz00]

To me, this is as simple an arguement as is used against the anti's.....and has already been expressed in this thread.

We don't need more words, we need more action. The framework in place needs to be enforced and adhered to. Adding more laws, or in this case, amendments, will do nothing if they are followed with the same level of vigor as the ones we already have.


Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

[Brick]

The framework in place needs to be enforced and adhered to.

You are correct. AFAIC Obama committed perjury (by swearing a false oath) when he took his oath of office. And so have many other politicians at all levels of government.

[kadar]

That is a start, but woefully incomplete. No roster available, which is not a good sign. One can not really determine the character of the effort without clearly knowing who is really involved.

I also noticed that the purpose for the CoS was not specified. Only that some sample topics/purpose could be brought forward. This seems really odd to me.

It is also odd that none of the sample topics were firearms related.

I shall be looking at this much closer as it matures.

A roster of who attended a conference really has no meaning. Neither do the rules that they set for the Con Con at the conference. The Delegates at the Con Con get to set the rules. All CoS and others can do is to propose what should be done.

A roster of CoS and its connections is interesting.
http://securetherepublic.com/main/ex...al-convention/

Odd that they only want to show sample topics and not what they want proposed? Yes. Take a look what was proposed back in the 70's for the Con Con push that was in the 80's:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
The above was the work of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
Check out Article 1, B, Section 8