A Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea

[Little-Acorn]

The author leaves out a pertinent fact: A national Constitutional Convention (ConCon) cannot change the Constitution. The only thing it can do, is PROPOSE amendments, just as Congress can propose them by passing them with a 2/3 vote of each house. Anything that a ConCon (or Congress) puts out, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can.

That said, I agree with the author that it is still dangerous to have a ConCon. As he points out, some of the screwiest people you ever heard of, can gain access to it and/or send their favorite representatives. And unlike Congress, the people who participate in a ConCon don't have to worry about satifying large segments of the population or worry about getting re-elected. There is NO restriction on what people in a ConCon can do... except worry that the states might not ratify their work.

I prefer using the tried-and-true method of letting Congress propose and the states dispose, as has been used to enact all amendments so far. Even though Congress seems reluctant to do such straightforward things as propose inserting the word "explicitly" into the 10th amendment before the word "delegated", or removing the first thirteen words of the 2nd - changes which would have no actual effect on the original meaning of either of those amendments, but would cut down a lot on silly and frivolous debate and diversion. Still, letting Congress propose amendments instead of a ConCon doing it, would be safer IMHO.

----------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2011/06/21/a_constitutional_convention_is_a_dangerous_idea/page/full/

A Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea

by David Limbaugh
6/21/2011

The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.

Recently, CNN's Fareed Zakaria spoke admiringly of how "Iceland is actually junking its own constitution and starting anew and ... soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens, with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube."

Zakaria beamed as he ticked off some of the wonderful ideas proposed by Icelanders, such as "guaranteed good health care" and "campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal."

Putting aside the obvious question of how Barack Obama, Russ Feingold and John McCain managed to get on Iceland's social networks, I hope idealistic Americans don't get any ideas from this tiny nation's dubious project.

Oh, wait. Our geniuses are already well ahead of Iceland's. A friend called me in February to tell me of a proposed resolution circulating in the Missouri House in support of a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She asked me to help discourage the Republican leadership from pursuing this ill-considered idea. She didn't have to convince me.

I could have understood if just Democrats were behind it, but I was surprised that Republicans were also involved. Another highway to hell paved with good intentions, I assumed. I'm thankful that the initiative lost steam.

I understand the frustration conservatives feel about the federal government's virtually unchecked growth over the past 75 years and how this is destroying our liberties and bankrupting our nation. But the Constitution isn't the problem. Rewriting it isn't the solution.

Proponents of a constitutional convention might protest that their goals are far more modest than a new constitution. Well, so were the Framers' plans when they met in Philadelphia to (SET ITAL) amend (END ITAL) the Articles of Confederation. Fortunately, they drafted an entirely new constitution instead, which would be, in the words of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone, "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

Don't ever make the mistake of believing that such a miracle of constitutional craftsmanship will ever occur again in this nation, especially considering the social, cultural, demographic, political and, yes, spiritual changes that have since occurred.

We can certainly support tweaking the Constitution through limited amendments, but a convention would open the floodgates to the nefarious devices of what Ann Coulter -- in her new book, "Demonic" -- describes as "the mob."

There is no surer way to turn over the fate of our structure of government to the left's formidable forces of populism and demagoguery. Just think of the groups that would descend on such a convention, along with the pointy-headed professors dedicated to indoctrinating our kids on the "evils" of America: the Service Employees International Union, Rainbow/PUSH, the armies of militant homosexual and feminist activists, environmentalist loons, Soros socialists dressed as free market champions, the Shariah lobby, Code Pink and Greenpeace. This would be their chance to work their revolutionary magic in one fell swoop. You couldn't give them a better gift.

Consider the untold damage the enemies of liberty have visited on our Constitution despite its formidable institutional safeguards against such assaults. Imagine what mischief they would concoct if they were allowed to directly reframe the entire system.

The Constitution, as written, is nothing if not a document designed to maximize liberty and prevent tyranny by limiting the unrestrained powers of government. The disparate leftist groups doubtlessly salivating at the prospect of a new constitutional convention are united in their contempt for the founding concept of limited government and the constitutional scheme of checks and balances designed to ensure it. If you think you've seen community organizing and activist thuggery -- just you wait.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Kathianne]

Seems to me that the danger is the same that the Annapolis Convention brought to the Articles of Confederation. LOL! Be careful what you wish for.

[Little-Acorn]

Seems to me that the danger is the same that the Annapolis Convention brought to the Articles of Confederation. LOL! Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly. Although you might have meant the Philadelphia convention - the Annapolis convention never ultimately did anything, aside from writing a report recommending that a larger group hold what turned out to the the Philadelphia convention. Even the Philly one was originally intended only to make "a few necessary changes" to the AoC. But as history reflects, once it was assembled, its delegate decided to go WAY beyond that charter. They tossed out the "Constitution" of that day (the AoC) completely, and wrote a brand-new document!

Thank the Lord that they had the sense to require that their work be ratified by 3/4 of the states, even then.

With the huge infusion of leftists, socialists, and other such blinders-on ignoramouses into this country, I doubt that a Constitutional Convention would produce anything that the U.S. population at large could stomach, and a 3/4 ratification by the states would be impossible. Or if it were somehow done, it would probably mean the end of the country, and a dissolution into battling factions that would let the world slide into another Dark Age.

"Dangerous ideas" don't mean ideas that should be somehow banned.. It means ideas that should be treatd very carefully, and explored with clear heads, seasoned knowledge, and good common sense - something that leftists signally lack.

[Kathianne]

Exactly. Although you might have meant the Philadelphia convention - the Annapolis convention never ultimately did anything, aside from writing a report recommending that a larger group hold what turned out to the the Philadelphia convention. Even the Philly one was originally intended only to make "a few necessary changes" to the AoC. But as history reflects, once it was assembled, its delegate decided to go WAY beyond that charter. They tossed out the "Constitution" of that day (the AoC) completely, and wrote a brand-new document!

Thank the Lord that they had the sense to require that their work be ratified by 3/4 of the states, even then.

With the huge infusion of leftists, socialists, and other such blinders-on ignoramouses into this country, I doubt that a Constitutional Convention would produce anything that the U.S. population at large could stomach, and a 3/4 ratification by the states would be impossible. Or if it were somehow done, it would probably mean the end of the country, and a dissolution into battling factions that would let the world slide into another Dark Age.

"Dangerous ideas" don't mean ideas that should be somehow banned.. It means ideas that should be treatd very carefully, and explored with clear heads, seasoned knowledge, and good common sense - something that leftists signally lack.

Actually it brought together those who recognized reform was impossible and that a constitution would have to be written-thus leading to Philadelphia.

[LuvRPgrl]

It wouldn't make any difference.

We no longer operate under the Constitution anyways, the Supreme court has made sure of that

Even if some amendments were passed, the high court would change it back somehow, govt officials would sidetrack it, and get what they want via agencies using rules and regulations instead of laws, and the feds using income taxes to influence peoples choices, and control states by dispersing funds to those states that comply.

EX: Texas did NOT want to pass a seat belt law. The feds witheld federal highway funds until they did. Feds take over power that the COTUS says should belong to the States, hence, COTUS no longer effective.

[fj1200]

It wouldn't make any difference.

We no longer operate under the Constitution anyways...

Bingo. Like we need more rules that would be debated/litigated ad infinitum. Any ConCon should discuss returning to original interpretations.

[LuvRPgrl]

Bingo. Like we need more rules that would be debated/litigated ad infinitum. Any ConCon should discuss returning to original interpretations.

Yea, I'm on board for that. Unfortunately there are so many idiot voters these days that make their voting choice by 30 second clips they see on tv, and aren't even smart enough to punch out a chad.

[Little-Acorn]

Yea, I'm on board for that. Unfortunately there are so many idiot voters these days that make their voting choice by 30 second clips they see on tv, and aren't even smart enough to punch out a chad.

There were a higher percentage of those in the late 1700s than there are today. Though you are right, there is a distressing number of them today.

Even in the days of the American Revolution, there were more people who didn't want to form their own country, than did. The minority pushed ahead and made it happen anyway, and the others went along for the ride.

Things are no different today. As you correctly point out, most people don't pay the slightest attention to politics until the day of the election. Then the contientious ones grab the Voter's Guide, make a decision, and mark the ballot on the way to work, or going home. Then they return to the task of trying to feed their families. The rest vote for Obama. ;)

Politics is the art of getting people who aren't paying attention, to vote for you anyway. How else do you think the leftists get away with such outrageous lies, election after election? They shouldn't have even 5% of the vote. But most people don't even know they're lying, because they aren't watching.

And the left knows it, and structures their entire campaign around that fact. And their entire agenda, for that matter: A plan for complete government domination of every facet of life (based on the belief that the results will be better than individual, unguided freedom and responsibility), and disguised under a patina of "wouldn't you like the goodies we're offering you?" and "Oh, don't you WANT health care?" - fatuous pronouncements that 3rd graders know better than to accept, but distracted voters don't.

My point, LuvRPgrl, is that the "idiot voters" you are anguished about, are nothing new, and have been with us since government was conceived... and in the same proportions. Voters elect politicians the same way they hire garbagemen, and for the same reasons: to take care of necessary but distasteful jobs the voters don't want to be bothered with.

Except that they don't turn over legislative power of life or death, and the firepower of armies, over to garbagemen.

But they give them to politicians, and with no more oversight or concern than they pick garbagemen. Ironically, the garbagemen are probably more trustworthy.

And this has always been true. And it is directly responsible for most of the catastrophes and holocausts that have engulfed mankind since government was conceived: The voters weren't paying attention.

So, now that you know the problems you face are no different, and no worse, than those that faced George Washington, or Pontius Pilate, will you stand up and face them as Washington did (and Pilate didn't)? Or keep whining that it's all useless and isn't worth trying to fix?

[avatar4321]

It is a dangerous idea. Especially right now when the people aren't prepared to make correct decisions.

[Little-Acorn]

It is a dangerous idea. Especially right now when the people aren't prepared to make correct decisions.

Ahem. The fundamental idea behind the Great American Experiment, was that the people WERE prepared to make correct decisions.

At least, more prepared than any cobbled-together government was. Nobody ever expected them to be perfect, or to make decisions without errors. But their average performance was expected to be better than a king's, or a politburo's. And so it has proven over the years... despite their frequent errors.

The problem with a Constitutional Convention, is that (at least within the Convention) it is NOT the people who are making the decisions. It is a select, elite group... and one NOT selected directly by the people. The chances of fanatical leftists and others who don't have the people's common sense and self-motivation getting into the Convention are high. And the likelihood of its producing anything worth ratifying, are correspondingly low. Fortunately the ratification requirement is a good check and balance on the Convention's output - a requirement that was deliberately kept as far from the halls of Washington DC as possible. Still the notion of exposing yourself to (likely) hostile fire is always daunting.

I said a Constitutional Convention was a dangerous idea. I didn't say it was a BAD idea. It is merely a source of proposed amendments (or even a proposed all-new document). The possibility that the other source (Congress) might become corrupted is always there... and so a ConCon is a good thing to keep in reserve, just in case.

Such weapons are always dangerous, no matter who wields them or why. But sometimes they are necessary. Hell, LIFE is dangerous. A ConCon is something we may someday need, to deal with it. Imperfect though the people who staff it, may be.

[LuvRPgrl]

There were a higher percentage of those in the late 1700s than there are today. Though you are right, there is a distressing number of them today.

Even in the days of the American Revolution, there were more people who didn't want to form their own country, than did. The minority pushed ahead and made it happen anyway, and the others went along for the ride.

Things are no different today. As you correctly point out, most people don't pay the slightest attention to politics until the day of the election. Then the contientious ones grab the Voter's Guide, make a decision, and mark the ballot on the way to work, or going home. Then they return to the task of trying to feed their families. The rest vote for Obama. ;)

Politics is the art of getting people who aren't paying attention, to vote for you anyway. How else do you think the leftists get away with such outrageous lies, election after election? They shouldn't have even 5% of the vote. But most people don't even know they're lying, because they aren't watching.

And the left knows it, and structures their entire campaign around that fact. And their entire agenda, for that matter: A plan for complete government domination of every facet of life (based on the belief that the results will be better than individual, unguided freedom and responsibility), and disguised under a patina of "wouldn't you like the goodies we're offering you?" and "Oh, don't you WANT health care?" - fatuous pronouncements that 3rd graders know better than to accept, but distracted voters don't.

My point, LuvRPgrl, is that the "idiot voters" you are anguished about, are nothing new, and have been with us since government was conceived... and in the same proportions. Voters elect politicians the same way they hire garbagemen, and for the same reasons: to take care of necessary but distasteful jobs the voters don't want to be bothered with.

Except that they don't turn over legislative power of life or death, and the firepower of armies, over to garbagemen.

But they give them to politicians, and with no more oversight or concern than they pick garbagemen. Ironically, the garbagemen are probably more trustworthy.

And this has always been true. And it is directly responsible for most of the catastrophes and holocausts that have engulfed mankind since government was conceived: The voters weren't paying attention.

So, now that you know the problems you face are no different, and no worse, than those that faced George Washington, or Pontius Pilate, will you stand up and face them as Washington did (and Pilate didn't)? Or keep whining that it's all useless and isn't worth trying to fix?

Well, actually, its my understanding that at the beginning era of our country, only land owners could vote.
That combined with the major influence upon the idiiots is the boob tube which didnt exist back then, obviously. I'm not sure any one thing had as much influence as the tv does today.

[J.T]

As he points out, some of the screwiest people you ever heard of, can gain access to it and/or send their favorite representatives. And unlike Congress, the people who participate in a ConCon don't have to worry about satifying large segments of the population or worry about getting re-elected. There is NO restriction on what people in a ConCon can do...

wait for it



except worry that the states might not ratify their work.



There ya go. To reject the CC on your grounds, you must assume the People in every State are too fucking stupid to elect people who would reject anything at all ever under any circumstances.


I prefer using the tried-and-true method of letting Congress propose and the states dispose, as has been used to enact all amendments so far
It's also the means by which much-needed amendments die, preventing te sweeping reform this country needs.

The CC option exists for a reason.


I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post.

[J.T]

It is a dangerous idea. Especially right now when the people aren't prepared to make correct decisions.

People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



When did you become a fan of the elites ruling over the idiot masses, avatar?

[Little-Acorn]

To reject the CC on your grounds, you must assume the People in every State are too fucking stupid

See post#10 (yawn)


I see no reason to bother with the rest of your post.

I do. But I can only lead a mule to water.

[TheShadowKNows]

The author leaves out a pertinent fact: A national Constitutional Convention (ConCon) cannot change the Constitution. The only thing it can do, is PROPOSE amendments, just as Congress can propose them by passing them with a 2/3 vote of each house. Anything that a ConCon (or Congress) puts out, must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can.

That said, I agree with the author that it is still dangerous to have a ConCon. As he points out, some of the screwiest people you ever heard of, can gain access to it and/or send their favorite representatives. And unlike Congress, the people who participate in a ConCon don't have to worry about satifying large segments of the population or worry about getting re-elected. There is NO restriction on what people in a ConCon can do... except worry that the states might not ratify their work.

I prefer using the tried-and-true method of letting Congress propose and the states dispose, as has been used to enact all amendments so far. Even though Congress seems reluctant to do such straightforward things as propose inserting the word "explicitly" into the 10th amendment before the word "delegated", or removing the first thirteen words of the 2nd - changes which would have no actual effect on the original meaning of either of those amendments, but would cut down a lot on silly and frivolous debate and diversion. Still, letting Congress propose amendments instead of a ConCon doing it, would be safer IMHO.

----------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2011/06/21/a_constitutional_convention_is_a_dangerous_idea/page/full/

A Constitutional Convention Is a Dangerous Idea

by David Limbaugh
6/21/2011

The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.

Recently, CNN's Fareed Zakaria spoke admiringly of how "Iceland is actually junking its own constitution and starting anew and ... soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens, with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube."

Zakaria beamed as he ticked off some of the wonderful ideas proposed by Icelanders, such as "guaranteed good health care" and "campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal."

Putting aside the obvious question of how Barack Obama, Russ Feingold and John McCain managed to get on Iceland's social networks, I hope idealistic Americans don't get any ideas from this tiny nation's dubious project.

Oh, wait. Our geniuses are already well ahead of Iceland's. A friend called me in February to tell me of a proposed resolution circulating in the Missouri House in support of a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She asked me to help discourage the Republican leadership from pursuing this ill-considered idea. She didn't have to convince me.

I could have understood if just Democrats were behind it, but I was surprised that Republicans were also involved. Another highway to hell paved with good intentions, I assumed. I'm thankful that the initiative lost steam.

I understand the frustration conservatives feel about the federal government's virtually unchecked growth over the past 75 years and how this is destroying our liberties and bankrupting our nation. But the Constitution isn't the problem. Rewriting it isn't the solution.

Proponents of a constitutional convention might protest that their goals are far more modest than a new constitution. Well, so were the Framers' plans when they met in Philadelphia to (SET ITAL) amend (END ITAL) the Articles of Confederation. Fortunately, they drafted an entirely new constitution instead, which would be, in the words of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone, "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

Don't ever make the mistake of believing that such a miracle of constitutional craftsmanship will ever occur again in this nation, especially considering the social, cultural, demographic, political and, yes, spiritual changes that have since occurred.

We can certainly support tweaking the Constitution through limited amendments, but a convention would open the floodgates to the nefarious devices of what Ann Coulter -- in her new book, "Demonic" -- describes as "the mob."

There is no surer way to turn over the fate of our structure of government to the left's formidable forces of populism and demagoguery. Just think of the groups that would descend on such a convention, along with the pointy-headed professors dedicated to indoctrinating our kids on the "evils" of America: the Service Employees International Union, Rainbow/PUSH, the armies of militant homosexual and feminist activists, environmentalist loons, Soros socialists dressed as free market champions, the Shariah lobby, Code Pink and Greenpeace. This would be their chance to work their revolutionary magic in one fell swoop. You couldn't give them a better gift.

Consider the untold damage the enemies of liberty have visited on our Constitution despite its formidable institutional safeguards against such assaults. Imagine what mischief they would concoct if they were allowed to directly reframe the entire system.

The Constitution, as written, is nothing if not a document designed to maximize liberty and prevent tyranny by limiting the unrestrained powers of government. The disparate leftist groups doubtlessly salivating at the prospect of a new constitutional convention are united in their contempt for the founding concept of limited government and the constitutional scheme of checks and balances designed to ensure it. If you think you've seen community organizing and activist thuggery -- just you wait.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Every word emitting from the pen of David Limbaugh is Golden. While elaborating on each point would be redundant, as the entire text is readily understandable to anyone capable of "seeing" past the paranoid perceptions that run rampant through the mindset of socially maligned misfits.
The leftist mentality has at it's systemic core an "emotional" need for bigger Government ( the ultimate result of a Constitutional Convention ), ostensibly seeing it as a patriarchal panacea that will secure them through the turbulence of Life's uncertainties.
While borderline psychotic as you may believe that that may be, it doesn't in any way deter them from their effectiveness in obsessively pursuing their unrealistic goals of unattainable security. But rather just the opposite, in so much as premising them in a "manic" predisposition not unlife a "substance Abuse" addiction.
Bigger Government is a total disaster to a free Republic, when examined from a coherently objective view of "sustainable Properties". In plain words it Will NOT Endure as a positive course of action.
As bigger Government is not only ineffective in it's pursuit of governing ( inept bureaucracies ), but costly as well ( Higher Taxes ), while ultimately becoming oppressive ( disregard for personal freedoms ).

[avatar4321]

Who said anything about elites ruling over the masses?

The people aren't prepared for a Constitutional Convention because as of right now, the masses are ignorant of the Constitution and why the provisions were in it. We aren't a people that govern ourselves. Too much of society has been corrupted by the entitlement mentality.

[Kathianne]

OMG! There are times I just throw up my hands and shake my head. As alluded to very early in this thread, the Philadelphia Convention followed the Annapolis Convention, where all efforts at addressing the most grievous wrongs of the Articles of Confederation failed.

At this meeting, some extremely intelligent and knowledgeable men met for the first time, (look them up). Over meetings at the inns they imbibed and got to know each other and discuss what would follow the success of the Revolution.

These men would be among the representatives sent to Philadelphia later. They knew going in that a new Constitution was going to be required. They'd corresponded in the interim in how to bring any new representatives to the point they'd already arrived

Your average new American hadn't much concern about the meetings these elites attended, they were glad to get back to their farms and hoped the new country would last. It wouldn't have without the meeting of the minds on certain issues, compromises on many, and agreement to ignor an elephant, (slavery) on one.

Any 'meetings' aka con/cons referred to, might well result in something totally unrecognizable to some that are pushing it. It may be the cynical part of me, but I don't see we have a group of intelligent and civic minded folks around today.

I'm loathed to add even amendments to the Constitution, let's argue the meaning of it through the ballot box.

[J.T]

Who said anything about elites ruling over the masses?

Wait for it...

We aren't a people that govern ourselves.

And there ya go.

If the masses don't govern themselves, who governs them?

[logroller]

It wouldn't make any difference.

We no longer operate under the Constitution anyways, the Supreme court has made sure of that

Even if some amendments were passed, the high court would change it back somehow, govt officials would sidetrack it, and get what they want via agencies using rules and regulations instead of laws, and the feds using income taxes to influence peoples choices, and control states by dispersing funds to those states that comply.

I don't disagree but congress and the executive branch are complicit in the actions of govt, not SCOTUS alone.


Bingo. Like we need more rules that would be debated/litigated ad infinitum. Any ConCon should discuss returning to original interpretations.

Right. An amendment that says "follow the Constitution". It's a shame the framers didn't think of that..oh wait, they did in Art 1 Section 8.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.-bold emphasis added



Yea, I'm on board for that. Unfortunately there are so many idiot voters these days that make their voting choice by 30 second clips they see on tv, and aren't even smart enough to punch out a chad.
You wanna talk about idiocy-- I bet you could distract a majority of voters with the premise of an Amendment which said Congress had to follow the Constitution. Meanwhile other laws fly under the guise of scrutiny; its the proverbial albatross ploy.



People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.



When did you become a fan of the elites ruling over the idiot masses, avatar?



Is that a friend request?:laugh:

[avatar4321]

Wait for it...


And there ya go.

If the masses don't govern themselves, who governs them?

The Generation of the Founders were prepared though the labor of half a century to prepare them with the proper mentality, culture, and knowledge of self government. Our culture has been degraded. The masses have become ignorant due to propaganda. Politicians have been making people dependent on government for the past 50 years.

Were we to have a Constitutional Convention with the people unprepared, we would be ruled by the so called elites.

If we want to regain our liberty, it won't be through a Constitutional Convention. Nor will it be due to amendments to our Constitution. It will because individuals, private citizens, chose to govern themselves rather then to rely on government. We would have to choose to be a virtuous people.

If we want to be free we have to do several things:

First, we need to eliminate corruption in our lives to the greatest degree possible. We have to become honest people. We must prize honesty. Honesty is the foundation to countless other virtues.

Second, once we have become honest, we need to build the other virtues in our lives (Ben Franklin had an incredibly efficient way to do so). With honesty comes humility because we see ourselves as we truely are and others as they are. We accept things are they are and become willing to learn.

With honesty, we see the need for the twin virtues of thrift and industry. So we will begin to develop the ability to use our money and our time wisely. We learn the need to work hard in life.

With honesty, we can learn justice and charity.

The government will always reflect the character of the governed. The reason we have a dishonest and unjust government is because as a whole the people are dishonest and unjust. The people are arrogant. We overspend as a government because we as a people overspend and dont understand the basics of creating wealth IE Thrift, industry, and humility.

Third, we need to learn the truth. We need to learn the truth about our past especially. We cant do that to the fullest until we are honest. Because if we are dishonest we will deny the truth. it wont have a place in us. If we seek the truth, we will have knowledge of history. We will have knowledge of those around us. We will have knowledge of the laws that govern the world around us (or the sciences).

Fourth, we need to be a people who can trust in the Hand of Divine Providence. Because this nation was established by that Hand. And this nation and it's greatness can only be restored by that same hand.

We aren't ready as a people yet. If we amend the Constitution or a hold Constitutional Conventions in our current state. What we get may be as far from freedom and liberty as we can get.

Would I like to see the Constitution amended? Yes. We need to Repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to the States. But can we do it now? No. The people aren't prepared. The whole point of the Senate being in the control of the States was to give the States a check on both the Federal Government and on the People. The 17th amendment put the Senate in the hands of the People instead of the States. And thus an important check was lost on the Federal Government and on the people. Do you honestly think that we have a nation of people who would, for the good of the nation, give up the power they have to popularly elect their Senators in order to restore the checks on the Feds and on ourselves? I sure as heck don't. But if we want to Restore the Republic, that check will be vital in doing so.

Do we have a people who, if they were eligible for some sort of federal assistance which is unconstitutional, would not take it?

No, we aren't prepared to save the Republic. I think we are heading in that direction. But we aren't prepared right now.

I just pray that we do become that people before it's too late. We need to prepare ourselves. and we need to help others prepare. As individuals, not through government programs.

[J.T]

Our culture has been degraded
Define 'our culture'...


The masses have become ignorant due to propaganda

What are you talking about? That's always been the case. Be it religion, the mythos of Liberalism, or nationalism, the masses have always been ruled by the intellectual elite who guide the popular consciousness.


Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind....Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government....If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.
-Bernay, Propaganda

The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.
– (Edward L. Bernays, "The Engineering of Consent", 1947)


This is nothing new.



Were we to have a Constitutional Convention with the people unprepared, we would be ruled by the so called elites.

So you're saying nothing would change?



If we want to regain our liberty, it won't be through a Constitutional Convention. Nor will it be due to amendments to our Constitution. It will because individuals, private citizens, chose to govern themselves rather then to rely on government.

Autonomism? When did you pick up the red flag?


We have to become honest people....

Third, we need to learn the truth.
Will never happen. Just try asking anyone an honest question about their politics, their cult of choice, race relations, or Isra-El.

Because are afraid of honesty because they fear Truth.

Men are governed by their faith and their emotional needs, not by their reason.

I refer you to my current signature:


The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and willfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.
— Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA




Fourth, we need to be a people who can trust in the Hand of Divine Providence

I think you already know my views on this.


Because this nation was established by that Hand.

This nation was founded on Liberalism and Slavery by Freemasons.

Please tell me why should be ruled not only by corpses, but by slavedrivers.



like to see the Constitution amended? Yes. We need to Repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to the States

Wait. What?


If we want to regain our liberty, it won't be through a Constitutional Convention. Nor will it be due to amendments to our Constitution.

So... why the amendments?

[indago]

Journalist Paul Weber wrote for The Associated Press 8 January 2016:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sought to lure Republican support Friday for calling the first U.S. constitutional convention since 1787, a new a priority for his administration that has bemoaned federal courts blocking state laws over gay marriage, abortion restrictions and voting rights. ..."The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution," said Abbott, the state's former attorney general and a former Texas Supreme Court justice. "Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONSTITUTIONAL_CONVENTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-08-18-34-29)

Don't need no Constitutional Convention! All they have to do is get together and say NO! To rail against schemes that government was never granted the power to do in the first place would be a fruitless enterprise. It is the toadified that succumb to the wishes of government that has upset the balance of power between the federal government — which was created by the States, by the way — and the States.

[glockmail]

I'm all for it. The Executive and Judicial branches have assumed too much power, and the impeachment process, which could be used to correct these usurpations, is almost never used.