The Liberty Amendments

[MisterVeritis]

The Federal government has become a monster. We need to restore the Constitution. We need to stop spending beyond our means.


What if we supported two amendments? These are from Chapter Five, Liberty Amendments, by Mark Levin.


TWO AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING AND TAXING

SPENDING

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.

SECTION 3: Total outlays of the United States Government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.

SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.

SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.

SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.


TAXING

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Levin, Mark R.. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-Republic-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/) (pp. 73-75). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

[donttread]

I agree with some , but not all of that. It is clear that we need some kind of hard line.

[Peter1469]

The Federal government has become a monster. We need to restore the Constitution. We need to stop spending beyond our means.


What if we supported two amendments? These are from Chapter Five, Liberty Amendments, by Mark Levin.


TWO AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING AND TAXING

SPENDING

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.

SECTION 3: Total outlays of the United States Government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.

SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.

SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.

SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.


TAXING

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Levin, Mark R.. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-Republic-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/) (pp. 73-75). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
I would prefer repealing the income tax and instituting the FAIR Tax. Outlaw the VAT tax.

I like the first section.

[DGUtley]

I’ve read the book. Good book.

[Luther]

Again, NOTHING happens positively politically until we first reform our citizenry

Americans must learn what it is to be an American

[Luther]

I’ve read the book. Good book.
I could have saved you $20.00 (LOL)

[Luther]

I would prefer repealing the income tax and instituting the FAIR Tax. Outlaw the VAT tax.

I like the first section.


I would prefer repealing the income tax and instituting the FAIR Tax.

Good luck!!!!


<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zNdw4DaUM8

[Cletus]

Again, NOTHING happens positively politically until we first reform our citizenry

Americans must learn what it is to be an American

Therein lies the root problem with MV's passion for another constitutional convention.

[Luther]

Therein lies the root problem with MV's passion for another constitutional convention.

Yep, that's what I believe

It doesn't do any good to put a new tire on a bad wheel

[MisterVeritis]

Again, NOTHING happens positively politically until we first reform our citizenry
Americans must learn what it is to be an American
If you have a plan start a thread to discuss it. This thread is about realistic options available to us now.

[Peter1469]

If you have a plan start a thread to discuss it. This thread is about realistic options available to us now.

He has complaints, not plans.

[Chris]

Therein lies the root problem with MV's passion for another constitutional convention.


Yep, that's what I believe

It doesn't do any good to put a new tire on a bad wheel


He has complaints, not plans.


Not a plan, true, but more rejection than complaint. And I agree. So let's see how the OP deals with rejection of Levin's plan.

[MisterVeritis]

Not a plan, true, but more rejection than complaint. And I agree. So let's see how the OP deals with rejection of Levin's plan.
It concerns me that Americans will sit idly by while we face the coming doom.

Many are so fearful and timid they will not take the single step that could make the difference.

[MisterVeritis]

Therein lies the root problem with MV's passion for another constitutional convention.
It is not a constitutional convention. Article V makes no provision for a constitutional convention. Have you become willfully ignorant as well as timid, Cletus?

[MisterVeritis]

.

Good luck!!!!


If you want to argue the merits please stay. If you are going to troll please do it elsewhere.

[Chris]

It concerns me that Americans will sit idly by while we face the coming doom.

Many are so fearful and timid they will not take the single step that could make the difference.


The solution lies not in the government with political change. That's what JIL and most liberals enamored of government solutions for everything argue. I thus reject such proposals as unrealistic and risky.

[MisterVeritis]

The solution lies not in the government with political change. That's what JIL and most liberals enamored of government solutions for everything argue. I thus reject such proposals as unrealistic and risky.
This is a political problem. Its solution is within the political sphere.

Saving your life is risky. Please don't try.

[Chris]

This is a political problem. Its solution is within the political sphere.

Saving your life is risky. Please don't try.


Exactly what liberals enamored of government solutions for everything argue.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly what liberals enamored of government solutions for everything argue.
It is a shame there may be enough people like you in the world to prevent the rest of us from saving all of us.

You will be one of the ones who looks around and wonders what happened. Meanwhile, those of us intent on saving the nation will move forward as we have for the past five years. After we have saved your sorry ass I expect you to thank me.

[Chris]

It is a shame there may be enough people like you in the world to prevent the rest of us from saving all of us.

You will be one of the ones who looks around and wonders what happened. Meanwhile, those of us intent on saving the nation will move forward as we have for the past five years. After we have saved your sorry ass I expect you to thank me.


IOW, as per usual, you repeat your opinion, insult those who disagree, but fail to argue your point. Oh, well.

[Cletus]

He has complaints, not plans.
He has a valid observation and it is relevant to this discussion.

[MisterVeritis]

He has a valid observation and it is relevant to this discussion.
In what ways can we create American citizens in time to prevent our end as a free nation and Republic. We have only a few years left. We have one more election cycle. Maybe two.

[MisterVeritis]

IOW, as per usual, you repeat your opinion, insult those who disagree, but fail to argue your point. Oh, well.
Yes, oh well. You are not here to discuss. You are here to object.

[Peter1469]

He has a valid observation and it is relevant to this discussion.
His observation is a complaint with no solution.

[Cletus]

It is not a constitutional convention. Article V makes no provision for a constitutional convention.


Let's see... you are proposing a CONVENTION of delegates from each state to rewrite the CONSTITUTION. How is this significantly different from what took place in 1787?



Have you become willfully ignorant as well as timid, Cletus?

You have become so wrapped around this idea that you have lost touch with reality.

[Chris]

Yes, oh well. You are not here to discuss. You are here to object.

Objections are part and parcel any discussion especially when you are trying to persuade people to your opinion, but you can't handle any disagreement with your opinions.

[Cletus]

His observation is a complaint with no solution.

What he said was a valid point and should be considered when talking about plan to change the Constitution of the United States. He did offer a solution. Before such an extreme step is taken, people in this country need to be reminded and in some cases, educated for the first time about how this country was created and how it was intended to be. To hold a constitutional convention with the current mindset of much of the nation in place is almost certain to end the republic as our Founders envisioned it.

[Cletus]

In what ways can we create American citizens in time to prevent our end as a free nation and Republic. We have only a few years left. We have one more election cycle. Maybe two.

That is Chicken Little talk. The sky may be cloudy, but it is far from falling.

[MisterVeritis]

Let's see... you are proposing a CONVENTION of delegates from each state to rewrite the CONSTITUTION. How is this significantly different from what took place in 1787?
You err.

And now, instead of simple error you have moved to lying. Shame on you.

You have become so wrapped around this idea that you have lost touch with reality.
You are too timid to be counted on.

[Cletus]

You err.

And now, instead of simple error you have moved to lying. Shame on you.

Answer the question.

[MisterVeritis]

That is Chicken Little talk. The sky may be cloudy, but it is far from falling.
Victory in 2016 was slim. In the meantime we have another million aliens who have become citizens. Eighty percent vote Democrat.

In another year we will have another 3/4ths of a million immigrants who will become citizens. Eighty percent will vote for Democrats.

We have one or maybe two more election cycles and we will vote for socialism.

But you cannot see the problem and you stand opposed to the only possible solution.

[MisterVeritis]

Answer the question.
Your question was a lie. You know it was a lie.

What is your real objection?

[MisterVeritis]

Objections are part and parcel any discussion especially when you are trying to persuade people to your opinion, but you can't handle any disagreement with your opinions.
I can. I can also dismiss you.

[MisterVeritis]

What he said was a valid point and should be considered when talking about plan to change the Constitution of the United States. He did offer a solution. Before such an extreme step is taken, people in this country need to be reminded and in some cases, educated for the first time about how this country was created and how it was intended to be. To hold a constitutional convention with the current mindset of much of the nation in place is almost certain to end the republic as our Founders envisioned it.
Luthor offered no solution. Nor do you.

The end of the Republic is at hand. And you repeat your lie. A convention of States to propose amendments is not a Constitutional Convention.

We have only one or two more election cycles and we will not again win a national election.

[MisterVeritis]

To hold a constitutional convention with the current mindset of much of the nation in place is almost certain to end the republic as our Founders envisioned it.
Two things:

First, get your wording right.
Second, the Constitutional Republic ended in 1943. The Democrat, FDR, overthrew it in a coup. Prior to FDR the Federal government was limited. By 1943 the limits were overthrown. Today we have an unconstrained, unlimited Federal government.

A convention of States to propose Amendments is the only remaining Constitutional method for giving the Constitution some teeth and claws.

Some distant belief that we can make better citizens in time to save what is left is fanciful but not useful.

[Captdon]

The Federal government has become a monster. We need to restore the Constitution. We need to stop spending beyond our means.


What if we supported two amendments? These are from Chapter Five, Liberty Amendments, by Mark Levin.


TWO AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING AND TAXING

SPENDING

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.

SECTION 3: Total outlays of the United States Government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.

SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.

SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.

SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.


TAXING

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Levin, Mark R.. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-Republic-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/) (pp. 73-75). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

It would be very good. It will never get ratified by 38 states. Term limits might.

[Captdon]

If you have a plan start a thread to discuss it. This thread is about realistic options available to us now.

Something that won't pass isn't realistic.

[MisterVeritis]

It would be very good. It will never get ratified by 38 states. Term limits might.
We do not know until we try. The Bill of Rights began as twelve amendments. Ten were ratified.

[MisterVeritis]

Something that won't pass isn't realistic.
We have become a nation of defeatests. Why is that?
I know. Let's just agree the nation is over.

[Chris]

Objections are part and parcel any discussion especially when you are trying to persuade people to your opinion, but you can't handle any disagreement with your opinions.


I can. I can also dismiss you.

Do it and prove my point.

[Captdon]

It is not a constitutional convention. Article V makes no provision for a constitutional convention. Have you become willfully ignorant as well as timid, Cletus?

A Convention could change anything they wanted to change. That's why we have the Constitution we have. One amendment could change the whole thing. Don't tell differently when I just read it again.

[MisterVeritis]

Do it and prove my point.
Dismiss you? That is easily done. We have nothing in common. We already know that.

You cannot even accept the basic premise that you are an individual with individual rights.

Something far more complicated like keeping a free Republic is beyond you. You believe we are still in normal times. We are not.

[Captdon]

Victory in 2016 was slim. In the meantime we have another million aliens who have become citizens. Eighty percent vote Democrat.

In another year we will have another 3/4ths of a million immigrants who will become citizens. Eighty percent will vote for Democrats.

We have one or maybe two more election cycles and we will vote for socialism.

But you cannot see the problem and you stand opposed to the only possible solution.

Possible is your opinion. IO will never happen.

[Captdon]

Luthor offered no solution. Nor do you.

The end of the Republic is at hand. And you repeat your lie. A convention of States to propose amendments is not a Constitutional Convention. Since they can't he controlled they certainly are. What is there to stop them?

We have only one or two more election cycles and we will not again win a national election.

[MisterVeritis]

A Convention could change anything they wanted to change. That's why we have the Constitution we have. One amendment could change the whole thing. Don't tell differently when I just read it again.
If a convention of States can change the entire Constitution then so could the Congress.

The Federal government is the problem. It has become tyrannical. The Framers gave us the second path, for the State legislatures, acting through a convention of States, to come together to propose amendments. They did it for exactly this occasion.

What is your real objection?

[Captdon]

We do not know until we try. The Bill of Rights began as twelve amendments. Ten were ratified.

You may not know. I know that 38 states are not going to vote for them. You need to understand the people of this country better. You couldn't get 38 states to find the country on a map.

The plan is excellent. We don't have excellent people.

[MisterVeritis]

You may not know. I know that 38 states are not going to vote for them. You need to understand the people of this country better. You couldn't get 38 states to find the country on a map.

The plan is excellent. We don't have excellent people.
You do not know about what is possible. You simply roll over, curl yourself into a fetal position and wait for the end.

[Captdon]

We have become a nation of defeatests. Why is that?
I know. Let's just agree the nation is over.

I agree you think that. I see no evidence we are going to fail. You never present any evidence is is going to fail. I have heard your argument from Goldwater right up to today. We're still here 8 Presidents and 69 years later later.

Now is time for you to snark me.

[Captdon]

If a convention of States can change the entire Constitution then so could the Congress.

The Federal government is the problem. It has become tyrannical. The Framers gave us the second path, for the State legislatures, acting through a convention of States, to come together to propose amendments. They did it for exactly this occasion.

What is your real objection?

I didn't say I objected to anything. You like to mischaracterize my posts to suit your argument. I support a convention . I also know that you think is going to happen won't.

[Captdon]

You do not know about what is possible. You simply roll over, curl yourself into a fetal position and wait for the end.

Now the snarking starts.I certainly know what you want isn't going to happen. The rest of it is bullshit you toss aroiund when someone disagrees with you. It means very little.

[MisterVeritis]

We have become a nation of defeatests. Why is that?
I know. Let's just agree the nation is over.

I agree you think that. I see no evidence we are going to fail. You never present any evidence is is going to fail. I have heard your argument from Goldwater right up to today. We're still here 8 Presidents and 69 years later later.

Now is time for you to snark me.
What path do you see for continued, sustained Republican wins at the Federal level?

I know you see no evidence we are going to fail. Nevertheless the evidence is all around you.

We have a massive, truly massive, all-encompassing, all-powerful federal government run primarily by Democrats. Most are Socialists and Marxists.

We have an unconstrained welfare state involving retirement, healthcare and daily living.

We have unconstrained immigration by people from authoritarian nations. They almost all vote for Democrats.

[Cletus]

Your question was a lie. You know it was a lie.

What is your real objection?

The question was a simple and legitimate one. You won't answer it because you know it would be self defeating.

[MisterVeritis]

I didn't say I objected to anything. You like to mischaracterize my posts to suit your argument. I support a convention . I also know that you think is going to happen won't.
Yes. I believe we will see a convention of States to propose amendments if we do not lose the presidency in the next two cycles.

Time is now short. We may have passed the tipping point already. I cannot say.

[MisterVeritis]

The question was a simple and legitimate one. You won't answer it because you know it would be self defeating.
You knowingly lied. Let's examine your lie.

"Let's see... you are proposing a CONVENTION of delegates from each state to rewrite the CONSTITUTION. How is this significantly different from what took place in 1787?"

----
1) Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?

2) One path is through the State legislatures who must petition the Congress. When two-thirds of the states (34) petition the Congress, the congress shall call the convention (the congress sets the date and place). Do you agree this is true?

3) The convention is called a convention of States to propose amendments. Do you agree this is true?

4) The purpose of the convention of States is to propose amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?


5) The second path is through the Congress.

6) In both cases the Amendments are sent to the States to be ratified or rejected. Do you agree this is true?
7) In both cases the exact same ratification requirements must be met. Do you agree this is true?


In neither case does the Constitution provide for a method to rewrite the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?


Therein lies your lie.


What happened under the Articles of Confederation?

They were not working. The confederation was unable to pay the debts incurred by the Revolutionary war. The Confederation had no means to make the states play nicely with one another. The Confederation had no means to provide for the common defense nor to pay for post roads. The legislatures sent delegates to a convention of states to solve the problem.

They did in a novel way.

[Peter1469]

What he said was a valid point and should be considered when talking about plan to change the Constitution of the United States. He did offer a solution. Before such an extreme step is taken, people in this country need to be reminded and in some cases, educated for the first time about how this country was created and how it was intended to be. To hold a constitutional convention with the current mindset of much of the nation in place is almost certain to end the republic as our Founders envisioned it.
He didn't offer anything- as with his complaints across the forum, although you are correct about warning Americans to wake up. They have until we get 34 states on-board with an Article V convention. That will take a few years.

[Cletus]

He didn't offer anything- as with his complaints across the forum, although you are correct about warning Americans to wake up. They have until we get 34 states on-board with an Article V convention. That will take a few years.

If you do this before the people are ready, you will destroy the republic. Mr. V is anxious to see that happen. I hope you are not.

[MisterVeritis]

If you do this before the people are ready, you will destroy the republic. Mr. V is anxious to see that happen. I hope you are not.
More lies.

[Cletus]

More lies.

No. you are in such a hurry to do something, even if it is wrong that you are just flailing away without thinking things through. That will lead to the destruction of the republic.

[MisterVeritis]

No. you are in such a hurry to do something, even if it is wrong that you are just flailing away without thinking things through. That will lead to the destruction of the republic.
It should be clear to you I have given this far more thought than you have. Try again.

The Republic is being destroyed right now. The Convention of States Project of which I am a part, is doing all we can to save the Republic. You stand opposed. You have offered no valid, good reason for doing so. It is your fear and timidity talking.

What happened to the Cletus I used to like?

Did you miss this post?

You knowingly lied. Let's examine your lie.

"Let's see... you are proposing a CONVENTION of delegates from each state to rewrite the CONSTITUTION. How is this significantly different from what took place in 1787?"

----
1) Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?

2) One path is through the State legislatures who must petition the Congress. When two-thirds of the states (34) petition the Congress, the congress shall call the convention (the congress sets the date and place). Do you agree this is true?

3) The convention is called a convention of States to propose amendments. Do you agree this is true?

4) The purpose of the convention of States is to propose amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?


5) The second path is through the Congress.

6) In both cases the Amendments are sent to the States to be ratified or rejected. Do you agree this is true?
7) In both cases the exact same ratification requirements must be met. Do you agree this is true?


In neither case does the Constitution provide for a method to rewrite the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?


Therein lies your lie.


What happened under the Articles of Confederation?

They were not working. The confederation was unable to pay the debts incurred by the Revolutionary war. The Confederation had no means to make the states play nicely with one another. The Confederation had no means to provide for the common defense nor to pay for post roads. The legislatures sent delegates to a convention of states to solve the problem.

They did in a novel way.

[Cletus]

You can flap your gums and accuse me of lying all you want. We both know I did not. That mans you did.

You are obsessed with a bad idea. Like most junkies, you can't even be convinced it is a bad idea, no matter how much evidence there is to support that it is a bad idea.

You can't have a constitutional convention, and yes, that is what it is, no matter how much you stomp your feet of hold your breath insisting it is not, you have to consider the human factor and the state of the union and the political atmosphere of the day. It is so obvious in this case, that even Ray Charles could see how this would not have result you seek. Amendments will be proposed and most of them will be to guarantee entitlements, change voting requirements, strip immigration controls, eliminate the Second Amendment and drastically alter the First to silence those whose speech is not popular with the mob.

This is what the current mood and state of education of the country will demand and that is what the country will get. That is reality. I know it conflicts with your fantasy, but it is what will happen.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The problem with the OP, which I shall not quote to save soace, is not the goal, but the execution.

I don't see how a budget for the next year can be passed that cannot exceed the tax receipts of next year, at least not since Jeanne Dixon died.

In fact, next year's budget could not be bound by this year's tax reciepts, or even the year before's. There would have to be some reasonable mechanism to adjust future spending with unknown receipts.

Also, there is no penalty on the Congress for REFUSING to do its job. Okay...there's an across the board spending reduction...Congress things won't care that much.

The penalty for delaying the budget passed to the President fir a week, or any fraction thereof, should be a full month's pay for everyone in Congress.

Two weeks, two months. And Congress remains in session until the budget is passed AND signed

Note that I provided no penalty to force the president to sign the budget.

Quite the opposie, the president should have line-item veto authority. If Alaska really needs another bridge to nowhere, they can just get thirds of house and Senate to vote for it in the override.

[Sergeant Gleed]

As for taxes, it should read thst congress cannot institute a national retail sales tax if any form of national income tax for any persons, is in effect.

And is should retain the blanket prohibition on VAT and other hidden taxes.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It is not a constitutional convention. Article V makes no provision for a constitutional convention. Have you become willfully ignorant as well as timid, Cletus?

The effort appears to be aimed at deceit, not an expression of ignorance since he's already been schooled on Article Vanderbilt cannot hide behind a false flag of ignorance.

He's fear of an Article V Conention is apparently irrational.

[Sergeant Gleed]

IOW, as per usual, you repeat your opinion, insult those who disagree, but fail to argue your point. Oh, well.

Actually, he posted an interesting matter only to be confronted by people with nothing constructive to say.

The Framers of the Constitution to have in Congress elected representatives responsive to the interests of their contituents, but those same Framers weren't fools, either and knew full well what kind of charlatans seek elective office.

So they placed in the hands of the stares a means to wrest power back from a Congress if thst Congress ceased to serve the interests of the states and the people in them.

The two proposed Amendments in the OP were crafted by one of the best constitutional scholars in the country.

How obout if you people discuss the OP in a constructive manner instead if informing yet, again, of your ignorance of Article V.

Which, btw, is not required to pass and ratify this or any other amendment

[Sergeant Gleed]

In what ways can we create American citizens in time to prevent our end as a free nation and Republic. We have only a few years left. We have one more election cycle. Maybe two.

We have no elections left to save this nation. The Rodents stole control of this Congress with massive and blatant voter fraud and the GOP has done and said nothing against it.

The Rodents are thus primed to do a better job of dealing the 2020 presidential election than they did in 2016.

The time of trial is rushing upon us.

[Sergeant Gleed]

That is Chicken Little talk. The sky may be cloudy, but it is far from falling.

So speaketh the Coyote under his umbrella in a rain of anvils.

[MisterVeritis]

You can flap your gums and accuse me of lying all you want. We both know I did not. That mans you did.

You are obsessed with a bad idea. Like most junkies, you can't even be convinced it is a bad idea, no matter how much evidence there is to support that it is a bad idea.

You can't have a constitutional convention, and yes, that is what it is, no matter how much you stomp your feet of hold your breath insisting it is not, you have to consider the human factor and the state of the union and the political atmosphere of the day. It is so obvious in this case, that even Ray Charles could see how this would not have result you seek. Amendments will be proposed and most of them will be to guarantee entitlements, change voting requirements, strip immigration controls, eliminate the Second Amendment and drastically alter the First to silence those whose speech is not popular with the mob.

This is what the current mood and state of education of the country will demand and that is what the country will get. That is reality. I know it conflicts with your fantasy, but it is what will happen.
You are a fearful, ignorant, timid soul. you are also wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

The problem with the OP, which I shall not quote to save soace, is not the goal, but the execution.

I don't see how a budget for the next year can be passed that cannot exceed the tax receipts of next year, at least not since Jeanne Dixon died.

In fact, next year's budget could not be bound by this year's tax reciepts, or even the year before's. There would have to be some reasonable mechanism to adjust future spending with unknown receipts.

Also, there is no penalty on the Congress for REFUSING to do its job. Okay...there's an across the board spending reduction...Congress things won't care that much.

The penalty for delaying the budget passed to the President fir a week, or any fraction thereof, should be a full month's pay for everyone in Congress.

Two weeks, two months. And Congress remains in session until the budget is passed AND signed

Note that I provided no penalty to force the president to sign the budget.

Quite the opposie, the president should have line-item veto authority. If Alaska really needs another bridge to nowhere, they can just get thirds of house and Senate to vote for it in the override.
You failed to read the two amendments.

[Cletus]

The effort appears to be aimed at deceit, not an expression of ignorance since he's already been schooled on Article Vanderbilt cannot hide behind a false flag of ignorance.

He's fear of an Article V Conention is apparently irrational.

Gleed,. you were dismissed as a poster of substance or consequence as soon as you started with your "Rodent" bullshit to describe your political opposition. You are little more than a low budget troll with little or nothing to add to any discussion. I am guessing V tolerates you right now because he knows he is wrong on this issue and is desperate for allies.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Victory in 2016 was slim. In the meantime we have another million aliens who have become citizens. Eighty percent vote Democrat.

In another year we will have another 3/4ths of a million immigrants who will become citizens. Eighty percent will vote for Democrats.

We have one or maybe two more election cycles and we will vote for socialism.

But you cannot see the problem and you stand opposed to the only possible solution.

Your statement assumes illegal aliens aren't registered to vote by the millions and assumes further thst they have not already voted.

[MisterVeritis]

As for taxes, it should read thst congress cannot institute a national retail sales tax if any form of national income tax for any persons, is in effect.

And is should retain the blanket prohibition on VAT and other hidden taxes.
SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

[MisterVeritis]

Your statement assumes illegal aliens aren't registered to vote by the millions and assumes further that they have not already voted.
If illegal voting is occurring it makes the case stronger.

[MisterVeritis]

Gleed,. you were dismissed as a poster of substance or consequence as soon as you started with your "Rodent" bullshit to describe your political opposition. You are little more than a low budget troll with little or nothing to add to any discussion. I am guessing V tolerates you right now because he knows he is wrong on this issue and is desperate for allies.
Timid, fearful Cletus. Why haven't you responded to my questions?

Do you need them one at a time?


Here is the first.

1) Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?

[Sergeant Gleed]

A Convention could change anything they wanted to change. That's why we have the Constitution we have. One amendment could change the whole thing. Don't tell differently when I just read it again.
Oh, ffs!

There is as much limit on what an Article V convention can do as there is on what Congress itself can do. No more, no less.

[Sergeant Gleed]

If illegal voting is occurring it makes the case stronger.
I don't disagree, but I do suspect the patient is already dead and minor triage efforts aren't going to fix him.

The survivors are going to have to recognize their rights as citizens and refuse, by whatever means necessary, the efforts of the Left to enslave him.

These amendments are fun and interesting to discuss, but I also agree there is no way to ratify them.

[MisterVeritis]

You can flap your gums and accuse me of lying all you want. We both know I did not. That means you did.
Do you agree that when a man says something he knows is untrue the man is lying?

You said something you know is untrue. You are lying. I wish it were not true.

You are obsessed with a bad idea. Like most junkies, you can't even be convinced it is a bad idea, no matter how much evidence there is to support that it is a bad idea.
I believe the Republic is still worth saving.

Did the framers make a mistake in creating Article V?

You can't have a constitutional convention, and yes, that is what it is, no matter how much you stomp your feet of hold your breath insisting it is not,
Once again you lie. You lie repeatedly and boldly.


you have to consider the human factor and the state of the union and the political atmosphere of the day.
We are in dire peril. It is time to act to save the Republic. It is a shame you are on the wrong side. You are on tyranny's side. I wonder why?


It is so obvious in this case, that even Ray Charles could see how this would not have result you seek.
You are fearful and timid. It will be the death of you.


Amendments will be proposed and most of them will be to guarantee entitlements, change voting requirements, strip immigration controls, eliminate the Second Amendment and drastically alter the First to silence those whose speech is not popular with the mob.

Do we not already have those things? Is your inaction in the face of growing troubles a cure for the troubles? Of course not.

This is what the current mood and state of education of the country will demand and that is what the country will get. That is reality. I know it conflicts with your fantasy, but it is what will happen.
If the citizens demand socialism do you think a defenseless Constitution will prevent it?

[MisterVeritis]

We have no elections left to save this nation. The Rodents stole control of this Congress with massive and blatant voter fraud and the GOP has done and said nothing against it.

The Rodents are thus primed to do a better job of dealing the 2020 presidential election than they did in 2016.

The time of trial is rushing upon us.
If true then all is lost. If not we can yet save the Republic. There is time for the civil war to come if we fail. And civil war will come.

[Just AnotherPerson]

If true then all is lost. If not we can yet save the Republic. There is time for the civil war to come if we fail. And civil war will come.
Watch list...….

[MisterVeritis]

Gleed,. you were dismissed as a poster of substance or consequence as soon as you started with your "Rodent" bullshit to describe your political opposition.
Using rodent does detract from Gleed's posts.


You are little more than a low budget troll with little or nothing to add to any discussion.
And yet Gleed understands the issues far better than you do.


I am guessing V tolerates you right now because he knows he is wrong on this issue and is desperate for allies.
Fifteen state legislatures already agree with me.

Georgia, Alaska, Florida,
Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana,
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona,
North Dakota, Texas, Missouri,
Arkansas, Utah, and Mississippi!

Twenty one more are debating it this year.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You may not know. I know that 38 states are not going to vote for them. You need to understand the people of this country better. You couldn't get 38 states to find the country on a map.

The plan is excellent. We don't have excellent people.

States that will vote against any restoration:

1 California
2 NY
3 Illinois
4 Washington
5 New Jersey
6 Taxechusetts
7 Connecticut
8 Vermont
9 Maine.
10 Virginia
11 Maryland
12 Minnesota
13 Wisconsin.

There needs be only those to refuse to ratify and no ratification happens.

And I forgot to list Oregon, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Your statement to the impossibility of ratification is correct.

Any argument thst the effort is piintless, which I am not claiming you made, is also wrong, because the war cannot be foylught until the goals of the war are understood by both sides.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Using rodent does detract from Gleed's posts.


And yet Gleed understands the issues far better than you do.


Fifteen state legislatures already agree with me.

Georgia, Alaska, Florida,
Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana,
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona,
North Dakota, Texas, Missouri,
Arkansas, Utah, and Mississippi!

Twenty one more are debating it this year.

See my above post.

Fifteen state legislatures agreeing are not the ooint.

Thirteen disagreeing are.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't disagree, but I do suspect the patient is already dead and minor triage efforts aren't going to fix him.

The survivors are going to have to recognize their rights as citizens and refuse, by whatever means necessary, the efforts of the Left to enslave him.

These amendments are fun and interesting to discuss, but I also agree there is no way to ratify them.
We will not know until we try.

I do not watch sports. Why do teams play? Isn't it a foregone conclusion which teams will win and which will lose?

[MisterVeritis]

States that will vote against any restoration:

1 California
2 NY
3 Illinois
4 Washington
5 New Jersey
6 Taxechusetts
7 Connecticut
8 Vermont
9 Maine.
10 Virginia
11 Maryland
12 Minnesota
13 Wisconsin.

There needs be only those to refuse to ratify and no ratification happens.

And I forgot to list Oregon, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Your statement to the impossibility of ratification is correct.

Any argument thst the effort is pointless, which I am not claiming you made, is also wrong, because the war cannot be fought until the goals of the war are understood by both sides.
We won't know until we try. if this fails there will be plenty of time for the civil war.

Civil wars will not have just two sides. Most civil wars have many sides until near their end.

[Sergeant Gleed]

If true then all is lost. If not we can yet save the Republic. There is time for the civil war to come if we fail. And civil war will come.

All is only lost if those who would be free refuse to fight.

All that has been lost is the opportunity to regain freedom bloodlessly.

[MisterVeritis]

Watch list...….
If I am on a watch list it is another indication that the hour is very late.

You so easily accept tyranny. I do not.

[Sergeant Gleed]

We won't know until we try. if this fails there will be plenty of time for the civil war.

Civil wars will not have just two sides. Most civil wars have many sides until near their end.

Which is why i support the Article V effort.

Not because it will effect Constitutional change, but because it will fail, but in the failing engender vast discussion on purposes and goals that will help to focus the polarity if the coming struggle.

And remember, it is the fascists who ate whining about Russia the loudest now that have before and will again reach out to the Kremlin and Beijing and Tehran for assistance in the war the seek to start with the Americans who remain unbowed.

[Cletus]

Timid, fearful Cletus. Why haven't you responded to my questions?

Do you need them one at a time?


Here is the first.

1) Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?

You are growing tiresome. Yes, that statement is true. It is also irrelevant. No one has questioned the legitimacy of a convention of states (constitutional convention). What is being question is the wisdom of such a move, given the current mindset of much of the nation. This is what you continue to dismiss and pretend is not of extreme importance. Your obsession with this convention has blinded you to reality.

Now, as to timid and fearful... that claim on your part is just another indicator that your mental faculties are failing.

[MisterVeritis]

1) Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Do you agree this is true?

You are growing tiresome. Yes, it that statement is true. It is also irrelevant. No one has questioned the legitimacy of a convention of states (constitutional convention). What is being question is the wisdom of such a move, given the current mindset of much of the nation. This is what you continue to dismiss and pretend is not of extreme importance. Your obsession with this convention has blinded you to reality.

Now, as to timid and fearful... that claim on your part is just another indicator that your mental faculties are failing.

On to the next. Let's do two this time:

2) One path is through the State legislatures who must petition the Congress. When two-thirds of the states (34) petition the Congress, the congress shall call the convention (the congress sets the date and place). Do you agree this is true?

3) The convention is called a convention of States to propose amendments. Do you agree this is true?

[Cletus]

We are done here. Maybe I will find someone still capable of critical thought to discuss the issue. If I do, I will let you know what he says.

[MisterVeritis]

We are done here. Maybe I will find someone still capable of critical thought to discuss the issue. If I do, I will let you know what he says.
You are a coward. You are no friend of liberty nor the Constitution. It is good you revealed yourself.

[Sergeant Gleed]

If I am on a watch list it is another indication that the hour is very late.

You so easily accept tyranny. I do not.

There's a big difference btween accepting tyranny and promoting it...

[Sergeant Gleed]

We are done here. Maybe I will find someone still capable of critical thought to discuss the issue. If I do, I will let you know what he says.

Jeez. All you had to do was stick to the OP and discuss the merits and flaws of the specific articles in the op.

What was so hard about thst?

My original post on thus thread did just that.

I don't particularly agree with Levin on what he suggests for the fiscal crisis.

[Just AnotherPerson]

If I am on a watch list it is another indication that the hour is very late.

You so easily accept tyranny. I do not.
Well, we consider tyranny to be different things. I consider tyranny to be corporate rule, but you champion for it. We have different ideas of tyranny. Only my solution, is the non violent method. Where as your solution involves a lot of killing.

[Chris]

Well, we consider tyranny to be different things. I consider tyranny to be corporate rule, but you champion for it. We have different ideas of tyranny. Only my solution, is the non violent method. Where as your solution involves a lot of killing.

Corporations rule? How? Where do they get such power? Please, explain, if you can.

[Just AnotherPerson]

Corporations rule? How? Where do they get such power? Please, explain, if you can.
Oh here we go. Chris are you pretending not to know again. You want me to explain it again and again and again and again and again? We have been through this routine time and time again. It gets played out big time. In the end you always spin it to it's the gov's fault not the corporations. Must you play this game? I don't feel like playing it today.

[Cletus]

Your premise is false.

[Chris]

Oh here we go. Chris are you pretending not to know again. You want me to explain it again and again and again and again and again? We have been through this routine time and time again. It gets played out big time. In the end you always spin it to it's the gov's fault not the corporations. Must you play this game? I don't feel like playing it today.


But you have never explained how they get the power to rule. Don't feign dismay to pretend you have. Not only that but when you say "In the end you always spin it to it's the gov's fault not the corporations" you demonstrate you don't even understand my position on the matter. So stop playing and get serious and explain how coporations rule.

[Just AnotherPerson]

But you have never explained how they get the power to rule. Don't feign dismay to pretend you have. Not only that but when you say "In the end you always spin it to it's the gov's fault not the corporations" you demonstrate you don't even understand my position on the matter. So stop playing and get serious and explain how coporations rule.

You are a master-baiter! You will not bait me today...…..It is your specialty though.

[Chris]

You are a master-baiter! You will not bait me today...…..It is your specialty though.

I see, so, unable to explain, you attack as if it means something.

[The Xl]

The Constitution is impotent, the proof is in the pudding at this point as the government has done whatever they want on seemingly every level for over a century. There are too many flaws with it, the biggest being its general vagueness on many issues.

[Just AnotherPerson]

I see, so, unable to explain, you attack as if it means something.

It is not an attack. That was an emotional response on your part. It is true you do have a propensity to bait people. We have been through this more times than I can count word for word. You are not interested in talking it out. If you were I would indulge. You have an agenda that you will push at any chance that you get, and it is so so so so annoying. Don't try to use me or my post, as an avenue to bring forth your agenda. You wont waste my time on this today. You have plenty of other people who you can strike up your anarchist agenda with.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Gleed,. you were dismissed as a poster of substance or consequence as soon as you started with your "Rodent" bull$#@! to describe your political opposition. You are little more than a low budget troll with little or nothing to add to any discussion. I am guessing V tolerates you right now because he knows he is wrong on this issue and is desperate for allies.

Dismissed?

By you?


The Sergeant chooses his words as carefully as did the Mayor of Snorkum before him. And to the same purpose. To identify the wet sisters and sore-losers who get hormonal over meaningless and deliberately triggering buzz words.

The arguments couched in those words are too deep for the emotional sisters to understand and the sergeant writes off as mere playthings those people who beleive they can achieve something by arguing against STYLE.

If you knew what a stile was, you'd understand the Sergeant's deliberate use of style, and then you would not be trapped in the overrated pastures of consecrated ideation.

In other words, don't fuck with your betters.

[Sergeant Gleed]

We will not know until we try.

I do not watch sports. Why do teams play? Isn't it a foregone conclusion which teams will win and which will lose?

I don't watch sports because I have a real life.

I pay attention to politics because I am not a slave.

In sports the outcome is often a forgone conclusion, like the annual basketball game between Lemoyne College and Syracuse University.

Exactly.

But that presumes those games are honest.

Our democratic processes have been presumed honest, but that presumption has been shown to be false far too many times in the last twenty years for us to expect honest results now.

Democratic government is not possible when the outcome is tainted with doubt.

The RODENTS tried to steal the last election.

The RODENTS failed, and in desperation they themselves confessed to cheating by accusing the honest winners of doing warm they attempted.

There is no reason, none at all, to assume they will not try even harder to achieve by theft what they last tried to steal but failed.

And then there was the massive cheating in the 2018 midterms.

No, there's no reason to accept the results of the next election unless the RODENTS somehow fail to steal it again.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The Constitution is impotent, the proof is in the pudding at this point as the government has done whatever they want on seemingly every level for over a century. There are too many flaws with it, the biggest being its general vagueness on many issues.
What part of "make no law" is vague?

Where is the obscurity in "shall not be infringed"?

[MisterVeritis]

I would prefer repealing the income tax and instituting the FAIR Tax. Outlaw the VAT tax.

I like the first section.
The FAIR tax is my favorite as well.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, we consider tyranny to be different things. I consider tyranny to be corporate rule, but you champion for it. We have different ideas of tyranny. Only my solution, is the non violent method. Where as your solution involves a lot of killing.
I cannot recall championing corporate rule. On its face it would appear to be unconstitutional.

Supporting and defending the Constitution may eventually involve plenty of killing. Prior to that it is essential we exhaust all possible Constitutional measures we have at our disposal. The Convention of States to propose amendments in accordance with the Constitution's fifth Article is the most important, if not the final remaining option.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The truly weird thing is that none of you people wanted to join into the spirit of the OP and discuss possible Amendments, however impossible they may actually be to ratify, as a thought experiment to clarify some of the issues destroying this country.

I am aware of the desire by many for a balanced budget Amendment.

The arguments in favor are many and solid.

I have serious concerns that the exact wording of any such Amendment can be extremely dangerous, so comparable extreme caution must be exercised in simply writing it out.

I oppose taxation of personal income. Businesses should never be taxed, because thst is just s hidden tax against consumption.

I prefer an open and transparently collected federal retail only sales tax, a tax collected not by individuals, but levied upon the states, almost all of whom already track retail sales in their boundaries.

The problem would be that different states exempt different items from retail taxation. Coordinating thst could be tricky. My idea would be thst the federal government be happy with collecting a fraction of whatever it is the states ollect, without attempting to define new items on a state by state basis...

...if Kansas doesn't tax the sale is sneakers, then the federal sales tax in Kansas does not tax sneakers, even if sneakers are taxed in Illinois and Wyoning. Makes collecting the tax simple...makes it possible for the federal government to merely go to the state to demand it's share.

I don't know how the states without sales tax would cough up their fair share..there would be some simple way, I'm sure.

The federal government t...no government..should have any means of demanding to know how the people earn their livings.

[MisterVeritis]

The Constitution is impotent, the proof is in the pudding at this point as the government has done whatever they want on seemingly every level for over a century. There are too many flaws with it, the biggest being its general vagueness on many issues.
Really this began with the Democrat (socialist) Franklin Delano Roosevelt's coup. It began with his historic landslide victory in 1936. By 1943 the coup was over. The Constitution was tipped on its head. Democrats won. The nation lost. We went from a constrained, limited federal government to an unlimited and unconstrained federal government.

The Roosevelt coup was utterly, and totally complete. Since then we have existed, as tyranny gradually increase, in a post-constitution US.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't watch sports because I have a real life.

I pay attention to politics because I am not a slave.

In sports the outcome is often a forgone conclusion, like the annual basketball game between Lemoyne College and Syracuse University.

Exactly.

But that presumes those games are honest.

Our democratic processes have been presumed honest, but that presumption has been shown to be false far too many times in the last twenty years for us to expect honest results now.

Democratic government is not possible when the outcome is tainted with doubt.

The RODENTS tried to steal the last election.

The RODENTS failed, and in desperation they themselves confessed to cheating by accusing the honest winners of doing warm they attempted.

There is no reason, none at all, to assume they will not try even harder to achieve by theft what they last tried to steal but failed.

And then there was the massive cheating in the 2018 midterms.

No, there's no reason to accept the results of the next election unless the RODENTS somehow fail to steal it again.
We play the games because we cannot know before we have played which team will win and which will lose. i have no patience for the cowardly and the timid who claim before the game that we cannot win therefore we should not play.

[Chris]

It is not an attack. That was an emotional response on your part. It is true you do have a propensity to bait people. We have been through this more times than I can count word for word. You are not interested in talking it out. If you were I would indulge. You have an agenda that you will push at any chance that you get, and it is so so so so annoying. Don't try to use me or my post, as an avenue to bring forth your agenda. You wont waste my time on this today. You have plenty of other people who you can strike up your anarchist agenda with.


It was an emotional response on my part to ask you to explain your claim that corporations rule? So how many posts and how many words will you waste to BS your way around the fact you have never and likely can never explain your claim.

[Chris]

The Constitution is impotent, the proof is in the pudding at this point as the government has done whatever they want on seemingly every level for over a century. There are too many flaws with it, the biggest being its general vagueness on many issues.

It's impotent because nothing but a mass of individual and equal men stand alone and helpless against an all to centralized and powerful statist government.

[MisterVeritis]

It's impotent because nothing but a mass of individual and equal men stand alone and helpless against an all to centralized and powerful statist government.
Individuals do not stand alone. You err.

[Chris]

Individuals do not stand alone. You err.

Now you're arguing my point for me.

[MisterVeritis]

Now you're arguing my point for me.
Not at all. I never said individuals stand alone. We don't. We join with other individuals as suits our purpose.

It is you who are unwilling to admit you are an individual with individual rights.

[Cletus]

Dismissed?

By you?

Yes, by me. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am fairly certain I am not the only one.



The Sergeant chooses his words as carefully as did the Mayor of Snorkum before him. And to the same purpose. To identify the wet sisters and sore-losers who get hormonal over meaningless and deliberately triggering buzz words.

Actually, all it does is show us that you have no original or clever thoughts.


In other words, don't fuck with your betters.

If I ever meet any such person, I will consider your advice. In the meantime...

If you give that advice frequently, you must get fucked with a lot.

[Chris]

Not at all. I never said individuals stand alone. We don't. We join with other individuals as suits our purpose.

It is you who are unwilling to admit you are an individual with individual rights.


Again, that has been my point. Not so simplistically as the few words you elide from a complex statement, coupled with others in this thread.

No, I have never denied individuals, just that, as you put in now, we are not alone, we are social beings, who gather strength and rights by the myriad associations with make with others.

My argument with you has never been about individualism but your ideology of individualism.

You'll catch up and figure it out eventually. I'll guide you as I just did so you say it for me.

[Chris]

Yes, by me. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am fairly certain I am not the only one.




Actually, all it does is show us that you have no original or clever thoughts.



If I ever meet any such person, I will consider your advice. In the meantime...

If you give that advice frequently, you must get fucked with a lot.


You're not. He's a progressive masquerading as a conservative.

[MisterVeritis]

Again, that has been my point. Not so simplistically as the few words you elide from a complex statement, coupled with others in this thread.

No, I have never denied individuals, just that, as you put in now, we are not alone, we are social beings, who gather strength and rights by the myriad associations with make with others.

My argument with you has never been about individualism but your ideology of individualism.

You'll catch up and figure it out eventually. I'll guide you as I just did so you say it for me.
It is the other way around.

[Tahuyaman]

Again, that has been my point. Not so simplistically as the few words you elide from a complex statement, coupled with others in this thread.

No, I have never denied individuals, just that, as you put in now, we are not alone, we are social beings, who gather strength and rights by the myriad associations with make with others.

My argument with you has never been about individualism but your ideology of individualism.

You'll catch up and figure it out eventually. I'll guide you as I just did so you say it for me.
I just polished off a bottle of a nice Merlot. I'm not grasping that one. Maybe tomorrow.

[Luther]

If you have a plan start a thread to discuss it. This thread is about realistic options available to us now.
No good

People are not ready for me

Things have to get worse

When the time is ripe

[Luther]

He has complaints, not plans.

You're not ready

[Luther]

It concerns me that Americans will sit idly by while we face the coming doom.

Many are so fearful and timid they will not take the single step that could make the difference.


It concerns me that Americans will sit idly by while we face the coming doom.

With that may come opportunity no?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yes, by me. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am fairly certain I am not the only one.

And, explain then, what purpose you serve in dismissing your dismissal when your own confession is one of emotional reaction? By confessing your emotion driven urges, you remove yourself from my consideration of relevancy.

Seriously, dude. You've been marked as inadequate. You're not up to my level of comprehension and you're certainly occupying a lower tier of capability.

And you're still not discussing this thread.

So you've got no ideas on what Amendments should be considered to correct the course the RODENTS are driving this country down?

You could argue that Amendments are not meaningful if the RODENTS aren't going to obey the Constitution any more then than they do now. But that argument hasn't passed your fingers to the Internet, you merely express the responses of your mind to the squirtings of your glands of various fear driving hormones into your blood.

You've expressed a fear that the Convention process might re-write the entire Constitution...ignoring the necessary subsequent ratification process...and ignoring also the ability of the Congress to write the exact same document any Convention might scribble out.

That's like looking only to the right when proceeding from a stop sign.

Dude.


Actually, all it does is show us that you have no original or clever thoughts.

Ah, you're jealous.

But you do beg a question, one that I'm sure you've heard often, and often from posters here:

How could you know what an original thought would look like? Repeating the fears pumped into you by people seeking to make you their slave doesn't inspire confidence in any observer that your hard-drive is set to be "master" not "slave".

There's that.

Hey! How good are you at creating imagery to illustrate the thoughts all those other people are feeding you?

What's your opinion on the Line Item Veto? You can look up what everyone else wants you to say on the matter, you know. You can pretend we won't be able to tell.

At least that would get you into posting in the actual purpose of this thread.


If I ever meet any such person, I will consider your advice. In the meantime...

If you give that advice frequently, you must get $#@!ed with a lot.

The girls love me.

They wag their tails and pant heavily.

They even drool.

They're not vey fetching though.

Huskies...

[Sergeant Gleed]

You're not. He's a progressive masquerading as a conservative.

You say that because I'm not a pro-death libertarian.

And you say that because you can't enter into the spirit of this thread because...there's words, you know.

Can you explain why you need to demonstrate lust for my posts rather than posting on the topic of this thread?

Levin also proposed a judicial term limit Amendment in his book.

What are your feelings on the matter?


And you should probably try to explain why you can't identify any left-wing ideas I've posted.

BTW, what are your feelings on the two Amendments proposed in the OP? Or is staying on topic too left-wing for you?

[Luther]

If you want to argue the merits please stay. If you are going to troll please do it elsewhere.

Hey, you and $Levin's$ liberty amendments are all yours



troll please do it elsewhere.

I'm sensing a little bit of scapegoating

[Chris]

You say that because I'm not a pro-death libertarian.

And you say that because you can't enter into the spirit of this thread because...there's words, you know.

Can you explain why you need to demonstrate lust for my posts rather than posting on the topic of this thread?

Levin also proposed a judicial term limit Amendment in his book.

What are your feelings on the matter?


And you should probably try to explain why you can't identify any left-wing ideas I've posted.

BTW, what are your feelings on the two Amendments proposed in the OP? Or is staying on topic too left-wing for you?


I say it because you're an obvious fake.



And you should probably try to explain why you can't identify any left-wing ideas I've posted.

You ask, like a liberal, "What are your feelings on the matter?"

[Chris]

I just polished off a bottle of a nice Merlot. I'm not grasping that one. Maybe tomorrow.

Yea, it's long involved running argument with MV. Basically, I am arguing against I'm arguing against individualism while MV, not getting that, argues he's an individual.

[Captdon]

I say it because you're an obvious fake.




You ask, like a liberal, "What are your feelings on the matter?"

The constant use of Rodents shows he has little communication skills.

[Chris]

The constant use of Rodents shows he has little communication skills.

And hints he's just a liberal progressive trying to make conservatives look bad.

[MisterVeritis]

Yea, it's long involved running argument with MV. Basically, I am arguing against I'm arguing against individualism while MV, not getting that, argues he's an individual.
You mistake both your case and mine.

Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?

[Chris]

You mistake both your case and mine.

Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?


What mistake? Explain. Oh, wait, I'm asking you to argue your point. You don't do that. You just declare others mistaken, in err, liars, loons, etc.

[MisterVeritis]

Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?

What mistake? Explain. Oh, wait, I'm asking you to argue your point. You don't do that. You just declare others mistaken, in err, liars, loons, etc.
Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?

[Chris]

Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?

Have you reached a point where you can admit you are an individual with individual rights?

Have you reached a point where you can argue a point instead of just declaring your opinion?

No.

Have you reached a point where you understand what I'm arguing?

No. Though last night you managed to declare my point that no individual stands alone.

[MisterVeritis]

Have you reached a point where you can argue a point instead of just declaring your opinion?
No.
Have you reached a point where you understand what I'm arguing?

No. Though last night you managed to declare my point that no individual stands alone.
You are free to discuss the Liberty Amendments in this thread. If you want to claim you are not an individual start a new thread.

[Chris]

It's impotent because nothing but a mass of individual and equal men stand alone and helpless against an all to centralized and powerful statist government.


No, I have never denied individuals...


You are free to discuss the Liberty Amendments in this thread. If you want to claim you are not an individual start a new thread.



If you want to claim you are not an individual start a new thread.

I have never argued I'm not an individual. Why do you lie?

My argument has to do with what individual means when we are by nature social beings. That argument seems to be beyond your comprehension.

[MisterVeritis]

I have never argued I'm not an individual. Why do you lie?

My argument has to do with what individual means when we are by nature social beings. That argument seems to be beyond your comprehension.
If you are not here to argue the liberty amendments I posted leave my thread. I will not allow you to further derail it.

[Chris]

The Constitution is impotent, the proof is in the pudding at this point as the government has done whatever they want on seemingly every level for over a century. There are too many flaws with it, the biggest being its general vagueness on many issues.


It's impotent because nothing but a mass of individual and equal men stand alone and helpless against an all to centralized and powerful statist government.


If you are not here to argue the liberty amendments I posted leave my thread. I will not allow you to further derail it.


There is my argument: Xl's post and my response to him. My response is why I disagree with the OP, it argues against the OP, it justifies my disagreement. So I am on topic.

You have tried to derail my argument by isolating a few words and declaring disagreement with them out of context, which is fine if you have some argument, some justification for your disagreement, but you don't. You just can't handle disagreement.

[MisterVeritis]

AN AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY

SECTION 1: All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

SECTION 2: All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.

SECTION 3: The Committee shall consist of seven members of the House of Representatives, four chosen by the Speaker and three chosen by the Minority Leader; and seven members of the Senate, four chosen by the Majority Leader and three chosen by the Minority Leader. No member shall serve on the Committee beyond a single three-year term.

SECTION 4: The Committee shall vote no later than six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee. The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.

SECTION 5: If the Committee does not act within six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee, the regulation shall be considered disapproved and must not be implemented by the Executive Branch.
Levin, Mark R.. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 99-100). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.

We have a unconstitutional administrative state that makes nearly all of our laws. The Democrat FDR committed a coup beginning in 1936 and completed by 1943. FDR's coup destroyed the central purpose of the US Constitution, its limits on federal power.

Today the tyrannical Executive Branch administrative agencies, too numerous to list, has been granted vast lattitude to make laws, enforce the laws, and in many cases judge the laws. The unelected, often nameless massive bureaucracies churn out regulations (laws) in prodigious numbers.

We cannot be free while this unconstitutional usurpation continues. This amendment is a good first step toward ridding ourselves of the massive, bloated, unconstitutional administrative state.

[MisterVeritis]

There is my argument: Xl's post and my response to him. My response is why I disagree with the OP, it argues against the OP, it justifies my disagreement. So I am on topic.

You have tried to derail my argument by isolating a few words and declaring disagreement with them out of context, which is fine if you have some argument, some justification for your disagreement, but you don't. You just can't handle disagreement.
I asked you to return to this thread's purpose. You continue. I have asked for your removal from this thread.

[DGUtley]

NOTICE - Chris at request of OP per ‘tpf-designated post’ rules.

[The Xl]

What part of "make no law" is vague?

Where is the obscurity in "shall not be infringed"?
I said many issues, not every issue.

[MisterVeritis]

A Convention of States to propose Amendments:

It is time to revive this thread.

[MisterVeritis]

The Federal government has become a monster. We need to restore the Constitution. We need to stop spending beyond our means.


What if we supported two amendments? These are from Chapter Five, Liberty Amendments, by Mark Levin.


TWO AMENDMENTS TO LIMIT FEDERAL SPENDING AND TAXING

SPENDING

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.

SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.

SECTION 3: Total outlays of the United States Government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

SECTION 4: Total outlays of the United States Government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.

SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for the repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 6: Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.

SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote.

SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.


TAXING

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s annual income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.

SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.

SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.

SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.

SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Levin, Mark R.. The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American-Republic-ebook/dp/B00CO4IP5M/) (pp. 73-75). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
It is time to revive this.

[DGUtley]

NOTICE - @Chris (https://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) TB'd at request of OP per ‘tpf-designated post’ rules.

NOTICE - @Chris (https://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) unbanned at request of OP.

[MisterVeritis]

In other threads people have revived an interest in amendments and the convention of states.

Read through these comments from a few years ago and see if anything catches your interest.

[Peter1469]

Repeal the 17th!

[MisterVeritis]

Repeal the 17th!
Agree.

[Chris]

NOTICE - @Chris (https://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) unbanned at request of OP.

No thanks.

[MisterVeritis]

no thanks.
lol. That is probably best. In looking through your posts you spend much of your time trying to derail the thread.