Convention of States

[MLentz]

Is this something that NFOA members would get behind? I feel we need to petition the Nebraska legislature to vote on an application. Check out the website and decide for yourself, then make a comment.

http://action.conventionofstates.com/movements/convention

[bkoenig]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but my personal viewpoint is that our Constitution is fine already.  The problem is that the Federal government ignores it.  Just following the 10th Amendment would fix an awful lot of our problems.  I don't know that any additional amendments would help - they would just be ignored like all the others.

[NE Bull]

Yes. On the surface, it sounds like a GREAT idea.  But after some thoughts, it might be a dangerous way to go.  IF we were to open it up in this current political climate, there is a good chance of unintentional outcomes.

[Dan W]

I am wondering how a different set of constitutional restrictions would work any better than the set being violated now.

The people need to have the political will to take back the reins and drive the wagon or get used to the weight of the shackles.

If I was convinced that the convention of states would end up in an era of renewed reverence for the constitution and the rule of law, I would go all in.

[thirtydaZe]

I do a lot of the drudge report, the blaze, fox news, andrew wilkow, hannity, glen beck, levin.  it does seem more and more that people are fed up all over the place.  Then again maybe its just the places i hang out.

[MLentz]

Great comments from everyone. I'm still reading how this would work and I assumed that the Convention of States would take control away from the Senate and Congress and give it to a committee of state elected reps.

[RedDot]

I don't see a State's Convention being worth the time or effort.  Taking power from the Senate/Congress?  That would be like robbing an empty house.  They've already been neutered by the executive branch and the alphabet soup federal agencies.  Cut their funding?  Executive Order would see that they continue to get or take what they need to "maintain order".  I may not have the answer to the problem but I know for damn sure another "conversation" is useless when one side does not recognize any authority but it's own.

[Sandhillian]

I posted this in another thread on the same topic:

For those of you interested in this topic, I would suggest reading Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments."  I just started reading the book, and the few suggested amendments I have read about seem to be a good solution to many of the problems this country is facing.

They seem to be amendments that would really have an impact on the way the federal government operates.

[ejeviking]

I posted this in another thread on the same topic:

For those of you interested in this topic, I would suggest reading Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments."  I just started reading the book, and the few suggested amendments I have read about seem to be a good solution to many of the problems this country is facing.

They seem to be amendments that would really have an impact on the way the federal government operates.

This.

[Poor Man]

Opening up the Constitution  " Constitutional Convention " or as you say " Convention
of States " would open up a gigantic can of worms.  Every single article in the Constitution would be subject to change if a large enough group felt they had enough sentiment to persuade enough representatives to accept their ideas.  It's possible the procedure
could turn us into a "banana republic".  We only need to put the current Constitution to use and enforce everything within.

[Kodiak]

I'm with the majority on this one.  The government is jacked up, so we should use the government to fix it.

[Sandhillian]

Levin addresses the fear of a runaway convention in the opening pages of "The Liberty Amendments."  Also, with a convention, we're not relying on the federal government to try to fix anything.  Delegates to the convention would be selected from the states.  Three-fourths of the states would then have to approve any changes.

Saying that the Constitution in its current form is fine the way it is, it only needs to be enforced, leads to the status quo.  I agree, the Constitution needs to be adhered to and enforced, but really, none of the branches are doing that now.  Why do we expect that to change without forcing the change?  Our republic is broken, not the Constitution, but something needs to be done to get us back on the right track.  Talking about a convention of the states at least gets the discussion going.

I know we're primarily focused on the 2nd Amendment on this forum, but there are other parts of the Constitution that could really stand to be changed.  The 17th Amendment stands out as one example.  The enactment of that amendment directly overrode the Founders' construction of the U.S. Senate, and now look at how that body operates.  The 16th Amendment would make that list, too.  That authorizes the federal income tax, without any sort of limitation.  The 18th Amendment was a flop, so the 21st Amendment repealed it.  Ideally, I guess restoring the Constitution to the form the Founders' intended it to have would be great, but how do we do it?  The reality is that wishing the Constitution was enough has proven to be ineffective against the statists that occupy the federal government.

The amendments Levin proposes touch on these significant issues:

Repeal of the 17th Amendment and restoration of state legislatures choosing U.S. Senators;
Term limits for Congress and the judiciary;
Balanced budget and spending cap;
Taxation cap;
Reigning in the bloated federal bureaucracy;
Congressional super-majority override of Supreme Court decisions;
State super-majority override of federal law.

You'll be hard-pressed not to find at least one amendment you agree with in that book.  Give some thought to this process instead of just disregarding it outright and hoping the federal government will miraculously return to the Constitutional principles we hold so dear.