Cutting Off Congress and Saving Our Country

 

Watching the floundering and fecklessness of our Congress, observing their throwing fiscal responsibility to the wind, and realizing that the most important agenda they have is to be re-elected, I wanted to help find a way to help transform Congress and its effects on this country. And I think I’ve found a way.

For months, I have been struggling with a decision. It’s about getting involved with an organization, and I am not a joiner. Nor do I like to make commitments that I might not be able to keep. I also want there to be a likelihood of the organization’s success.

I’ve written a bit before about the Convention of States. Initially I was skeptical about their goals, and their chances of success. But the more I read about them, the more impressed I was with not only their plans, but also with their anticipation of roadblocks and ways to overcome them.

If you haven’t heard of them, the organization was formed based on Article V of the Constitution:

Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a convention to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, ‘limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.’

I was especially impressed with their strategies for keeping the COS from going off the rails. They’ve designed an orderly and practical process for initiating, conducting and completing the process.

But in spite of my initial enthusiasm, I began to have questions that weren’t being answered by the FAQ’s of the organization. So instead of continuing to dither around, I decided to ask about the questions I was struggling with.

One of my biggest concerns was that Congress would simply ignore or table the application completed for a COS. I learned that Article V has already been addressed in the courts, including United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), so if Congress tries to sabotage or ignore the process, it will be sued.

When I asked how a lawsuit would be pursued, I was told the following by COS staff:

This is settled law and that quote came from Michael Farris who is one of our co-founders and a constitutional attorney who practices before the Supreme Court.  In fact, he is the only living attorney who has argued Article V case law before the court and is an authority in such matters.  Generally, a state attorney general would file suit and the other 33 states would then join the suit, but that is highly unlikely that Congress would act in such a way because too many members know this and are endorsers of our project.  The current Speaker of the House is a supporter and was in the LA state legislature when we passed our application there.

To date, 19 states have approved the Convention of States, and at the beginning of 2024, at least 11 more states have presented the resolution to their state legislatures.

*     *     *     *

So, I’ve made my decision, in spite of my reservations about group-joining, and I officially joined. I crossed over the finish line when I saw the jobs they offer volunteers—they needed writers! I felt I was a good fit for the kinds of writers they needed.

I hope they agree.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 144 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    That was a two-part issue. A large number of people may have not supported the “stimulus” payments, if not for the shutdowns. But once the shutdowns are mandated, there’s an argument for compensation.

    Of course there’s an arguent for it. There always is. Argument or no argument, it’s the building of socialism.

    My take: The government ordered businesses to close. (Some will dispute this, but they’re wrong.) Having done so, the government had to ensure those people thrown out of work didn’t lose their homes and could eat. That’s the entire argument, and I find no fault with it.

    Of course, the government shouldn’t have had the power to order those businesses to close, but that’s an entirely different point.

    It’s still the building of socialism. Two steps forward, one step back. 

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    That was a two-part issue. A large number of people may have not supported the “stimulus” payments, if not for the shutdowns. But once the shutdowns are mandated, there’s an argument for compensation.

    Of course there’s an arguent for it. There always is. Argument or no argument, it’s the building of socialism.

    My take: The government ordered businesses to close. (Some will dispute this, but they’re wrong.) Having done so, the government had to ensure those people thrown out of work didn’t lose their homes and could eat. That’s the entire argument, and I find no fault with it.

    Of course, the government shouldn’t have had the power to order those businesses to close, but that’s an entirely different point.

    And it might be argued that government DIDN’T have that power, but they asserted it anyway, and if you weren’t in a position to maybe sit in jail and/or go bankrupt taking it to court, you went along.

    • #32
  3. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    • #33
  4. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    That was a two-part issue. A large number of people may have not supported the “stimulus” payments, if not for the shutdowns. But once the shutdowns are mandated, there’s an argument for compensation.

    Of course there’s an arguent for it. There always is. Argument or no argument, it’s the building of socialism.

    My take: The government ordered businesses to close. (Some will dispute this, but they’re wrong.) Having done so, the government had to ensure those people thrown out of work didn’t lose their homes and could eat. That’s the entire argument, and I find no fault with it.

    Of course, the government shouldn’t have had the power to order those businesses to close, but that’s an entirely different point.

    Since the federal government didn’t order everyone to close and it was largely states that did it, it was my argument that states needed to pay out, not the federal government.

    but that’s so far and away from how America 2.0 operates, it was always a pipe dream.

    • #34
  5. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And it might be argued that government DIDN’T have that power, but they asserted it anyway, and if you weren’t in a position to maybe sit in jail and/or go bankrupt taking it to court, you went along.

     

    This relates to my comment #33; they had no right to do it.

    • #35
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    And it might be argued that government DIDN’T have that power, but they asserted it anyway, and if you weren’t in a position to maybe sit in jail and/or go bankrupt taking it to court, you went along.

     

    This relates to my comment #33; they had no right to do it.

    The Process Is The Punishment.

    • #36
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    That was a two-part issue. A large number of people may have not supported the “stimulus” payments, if not for the shutdowns. But once the shutdowns are mandated, there’s an argument for compensation.

    Of course there’s an arguent for it. There always is. Argument or no argument, it’s the building of socialism.

    My take: The government ordered businesses to close. (Some will dispute this, but they’re wrong.) Having done so, the government had to ensure those people thrown out of work didn’t lose their homes and could eat. That’s the entire argument, and I find no fault with it.

    Of course, the government shouldn’t have had the power to order those businesses to close, but that’s an entirely different point.

    And it might be argued that government DIDN’T have that power, but they asserted it anyway, and if you weren’t in a position to maybe sit in jail and/or go bankrupt taking it to court, you went along.

    How else do you expect to build socialism?   You think it’s going to be labeled socialism, and that we’re going to vote on it? 

    • #37
  8. Rodin Moderator
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The thing is, if 33 states wanted this, Congress would already be moving in the direction we want them too.

    I don’t understand your comment, Bryan. Could you elaborate?

    If the people of enough states wanted to restore liberty and limit the Federal Government it would be popular enough for it to happen.

    The problem is, half the nation wants socialism. There are not 3/4 of states who want liberty. Enough The People want things to remain the same, so they do.

    Does that help?

    I understand; I’m not sure that I agree. I’m not certain that half of the nation wants socialism.

    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    See my comment #9. 

    • #38
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Rodin (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The thing is, if 33 states wanted this, Congress would already be moving in the direction we want them too.

    I don’t understand your comment, Bryan. Could you elaborate?

    If the people of enough states wanted to restore liberty and limit the Federal Government it would be popular enough for it to happen.

    The problem is, half the nation wants socialism. There are not 3/4 of states who want liberty. Enough The People want things to remain the same, so they do.

    Does that help?

    I understand; I’m not sure that I agree. I’m not certain that half of the nation wants socialism.

    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    See my comment #9.

    True. It was the payments to businesses more than individuals that did the most to take control of the means of production.  

    • #39
  10. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The thing is, if 33 states wanted this, Congress would already be moving in the direction we want them too.

    I don’t understand your comment, Bryan. Could you elaborate?

    If the people of enough states wanted to restore liberty and limit the Federal Government it would be popular enough for it to happen.

    The problem is, half the nation wants socialism. There are not 3/4 of states who want liberty. Enough The People want things to remain the same, so they do.

    Does that help?

    I understand; I’m not sure that I agree. I’m not certain that half of the nation wants socialism.

    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    See my comment #9.

    I think the topic of socialism should be part of the school curriculum, and not in the way they’ve been teaching it, but rather the debilitating and disempowering effect it has on our schools and society. The current teachers may be resistant, but we need to get this started and soon!

    • #40
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Inactive
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    I hope the COS can get enough applications that Congress has to call an Article V Convention. As I said before, I’m skeptical that Congress can be forced to act, but the States need to use their powers under the Constitution to restrain the Federal government. If it works, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

    • #41
  12. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I hope the COS can get enough applications that Congress has to call an Article V Convention. As I said before, I’m skeptical that Congress can be forced to act, but the States need to use their powers under the Constitution to restrain the Federal government. If it works, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

    I remember our discussing the COS and our concerns, MWD. After communicating with them, I was sufficiently satisfied that it could happen. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen.

    • #42
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    The thing is, if 33 states wanted this, Congress would already be moving in the direction we want them too.

    I don’t understand your comment, Bryan. Could you elaborate?

    If the people of enough states wanted to restore liberty and limit the Federal Government it would be popular enough for it to happen.

    The problem is, half the nation wants socialism. There are not 3/4 of states who want liberty. Enough The People want things to remain the same, so they do.

    Does that help?

    I don’t really agree and I was just talking about this with my husband just now…

    Our House of Reps is a lot more reflective of the citizenry of the country than the Senate and President are.

    Presidents are representative of state popular votes… most electors are awarded based on majority of popular vote in a state. The senate is won by popular vote in a state.

    Both of those are heavily influenced by highly dense urban centers with questionable election integrity.

    Which means your state legislature is going to be a better representation of the state than US senators and presidents are.

    And since congress needs the senate and president to pass anything (and that has notoriously been the massive hangup in national politics), it is possible state legislatures would come to a different result than US Congress will.

    The 17th Amendment broke this country’s politics and it needs repealing before even looking at term limits.

    The Presidential Electors, as a slate, are picked by a popular vote statewide in each state. So are Senators when on the ballot. This is where major fraud in high density urban areas happens. I doubt seriously if the Republican state government in Georgia has a very firm grip on election integrity in Fulton County and that can easily shift the state’s popular vote preference for Electors. The rest of the state may be fine in vote integrity but the damage is done in Fulton County.

    While it will take a repeal of a Constitutional Amendment to put Senator selection back where it should be, the popular vote to pick Presidential Electors can be stopped by state legislators just reserving that duty to themselves again. That can be done this year before November if the state legislature meets.

    • #43
  14. MWD B612 "Dawg" Inactive
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    I hope the COS can get enough applications that Congress has to call an Article V Convention. As I said before, I’m skeptical that Congress can be forced to act, but the States need to use their powers under the Constitution to restrain the Federal government. If it works, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

    I remember our discussing the COS and our concerns, MWD. After communicating with them, I was sufficiently satisfied that it could happen. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen.

    I remember as well, Susan. I hope you’ll update us on successes. Who knows, I may end up joining as well.

    • #44
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    If the Fed runs with *** d e f l a t I o n ***, nobody needs anything from the government except basic public goods. 

    • #45
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn: I was especially impressed with their strategies for keeping the COS from going off the rails. They’ve designed an orderly and practical process for initiating, conducting and completing the process.

    The COS process is rigorous enough that even if going off the rails was possible, states would refuse to ratify bad amendments and they would fail.  However, the cry of “They’ll go crazy!” has been used to falsely portray the process as dangerous . . .

    Update:  The other way to attack the COS process is to say, “But it’s never been done before!”  True, but there’s always a first time . . .

    • #46
  17. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: I was especially impressed with their strategies for keeping the COS from going off the rails. They’ve designed an orderly and practical process for initiating, conducting and completing the process.

    The COS process is rigorous enough that even if going off the rails was possible, states would refuse to ratify bad amendments and they would fail. However, the cry of “They’ll go crazy!” has been used to falsely portray the process as dangerous . . .

    Update: The other way to attack the COS process is to say, “But it’s never been done before!” True, but there’s always a first time . . .

    True! And I’m all for giving it a go!

    • #47
  18. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    I see a difference. During Covid, the government made it illegal for people to earn a living so it tried to replace the income of workers.

    In our government socialism, the payments to “lift people up” and to have a “liveable wage” discourage work and productivity.

    One could argue that on incompetent government trying to do the former increased the latter. That would be fair. We should never again allow the government to shut down productivity, no matter the reason.

    • #48
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    • #49
  20. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    • #50
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How many people supported the Trump/Biden covid payments? That was a huge socialist leap.

    Ret, would you clarify what you mean by “covid payments”?

    Payments to individuals, businesses, and other entities. But it was the first two that were doing the most to build socialism.

    I see a difference. During Covid, the government made it illegal for people to earn a living so it tried to replace the income of workers.

    In our government socialism, the payments to “lift people up” and to have a “liveable wage” discourage work and productivity.

    One could argue that on incompetent government trying to do the former increased the latter. That would be fair. We should never again allow the government to shut down productivity, no matter the reason.

    The difference doesn’t matter.  It’s all building socialism.  If people didn’t want shutdowns, they shouldn’t have undermined their own message by throwing in untrue, lazy nonsense about the virus and vaccines. They’ll probably do it again next time.  

    • #51
  22. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    • #52
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

     She didn’t say impossible. But have you polled the public on this issue lately?   

    • #53
  24. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible to amend, RH. Just very difficult. What rationale would we use to persuade the people that they should give up their right to directly elect Senators? I agree that we are violating the Constitution, left and right, but doing it officially will be a challenge.

    • #54
  25. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible to amend, RH. Just very difficult. What rationale would we use to persuade the people that they should give up their right to directly elect Senators? I agree that we are violating the Constitution, left and right, but doing it officially will be a challenge.

    The framer’s intentionally made it difficult to amend. People must be convinced.

    • #55
  26. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    She didn’t say impossible. But have you polled the public on this issue lately?

    Polled what? Having a convention to amend how many years a senator can serve? All the discussion is over whether we should have a convention. No, states should draft a specific amendment, get other states to sign on to having a convention to debate pros and cons, then vote.

    • #56
  27. MWD B612 "Dawg" Inactive
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    If COS is successful and an Article V Amendment Convention is called, I suspect the repeal of the 17th would be one proposed amendment coming out of the Convention and sent to the States.

    • #57
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    She didn’t say impossible. But have you polled the public on this issue lately?

    Polled what? Having a convention to amend how many years a senator can serve? All the discussion is over whether we should have a convention. No, states should draft a specific amendment, get other states to sign on to having a convention to debate pros and cons, then vote.

    You think people’s opinions won’t influence what happens?  

    • #58
  29. MWD B612 "Dawg" Inactive
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    She didn’t say impossible. But have you polled the public on this issue lately?

    Polled what? Having a convention to amend how many years a senator can serve? All the discussion is over whether we should have a convention. No, states should draft a specific amendment, get other states to sign on to having a convention to debate pros and cons, then vote.

    Public opinion would have to be taken into account, as any proposed Amendments coming out of an Article V Convention would still need to be sent to the States for ratification.

    • #59
  30. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I think we may have drifted off track. I’m not sure what covid payments or socialism have to do with setting term limits, spending limits (which is one reason our taxes are so high) and limit the power of the federal government. The last could stop the feds from the obscene lockdowns and therefore the spending that followed.

    We have drifted in this direction because of the 17th.

    Unfortunately, I have a hard time imagining that will be revoked.

    Isn’t it funny… all those amendments to the Constitution and now we think it is impossible to amend it. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be the 50/50 country? With half of it altering the Constitution through other means already? Our country barely operates now as designed by it.

    She didn’t say impossible. But have you polled the public on this issue lately?

    Polled what? Having a convention to amend how many years a senator can serve? All the discussion is over whether we should have a convention. No, states should draft a specific amendment, get other states to sign on to having a convention to debate pros and cons, then vote.

    You think people’s opinions won’t influence what happens?

    No, I think you have a point known only to you.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.