The framers put article five into the constitution for a reason. It's a check on the federal government by the states. I think it's quite clear that Congress is derelict in their duties. It's time we put pressure on them to clean up the mess they have created. It can be done with three simple and easy amendments.

1. Term limits
2. Single appropriation bills
3. Ban stock trading in Congress

We all know Congress will not willfully do this on their own and that's ok. What's not ok is not exercising our right as citizens to counter this behavior. These are 90-10 issues. I firmly believe we can get 34 states to agree on these three needed amendments. We must utilize our power to check the federal government. We can do it. What's odd is it's the easiest time in our nation to accomplish this task with rise of technology and communication and yet likewise the most difficult as we are pushed and pulled in some many directions.

To quote braveheart, "unite!" Let's exercise our right to check the endless powers of the federal government.

My worry is we'll wind up with 50 something new proposed amendments. Many of which will entirely be dedicated to "social justice"

Convention of states have a narrow focus. You can tailor the convention to only engage in those three narrow topics. Read up on the process. It's not an open door as one might think.

Maybe this will help. 19 state legislatures have passed resolutions supporting a COS.

Convention of States

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

My worry is we'll wind up with 50 something new proposed amendments. Many of which will entirely be dedicated to "social justice"

---

That's irrelevant because they won't pass. The Democrats have zero ability to pass a hard left amendment and they know it. That's why they never propose amendments to fix whatever they don't like. They don't have the required number of state legislatures.

Richleau12 said:

---

The framers put article five into the constitution for a reason. It's a check on the federal government by the states. I think it's quite clear that Congress is derelict in their duties. It's time we put pressure on them to clean up the mess they have created. It can be done with three simple and easy amendments.

1. Term limits
2. Single appropriation bills
3. Ban stock trading in Congress

We all know Congress will not willfully do this on their own and that's ok. What's not ok is not exercising our right as citizens to counter this behavior. These are 90-10 issues. I firmly believe we can get 34 states to agree on these three needed amendments. We must utilize our power to check the federal government. We can do it. What's odd is it's the easiest time in our nation to accomplish this task with rise of technology and communication and yet likewise the most difficult as we are pushed and pulled in some many directions.

To quote braveheart, "unite!" Let's exercise our right to check the endless powers of the federal government.

---

Add:
Must be a citizen to vote
In person voting only
Paper ballots only

And I'm in.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Balanced Budget Amendment

An Article V convention would immediately be named an insurrection and all parties arrested.

Richleau12 said:

---

Convention of states have a narrow focus. You can tailor the convention to only engage in those three narrow topics. Read up on the process. It's not an open door as one might think.

---

Right. Unfortunately its name sounds similar to a Constitutional Convention, which most people confuse it with, and rightly fear the second type could run away and end up rather different.

But Convention of States can be kept far more on track and is definitely something to be pressed further on these three areas of apparent broad agreement.

Incidentally though, balanced budget is futile with our unpredictable international expenses, war only being the most obvious. You would have to figure out some kind of carve-out or maybe just a set military budget that can be increased by Congressional vote, but is never small?

Rapier108 said:

---

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

Every state with a vote. Let the chips fall where they may.

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

Then term limits for bureaucrats. 4 years in your job and you move on. What a way to decrease the bureaucracy quickly.

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

No. That's always the go to for keeping the crap setup have. If need be, set limits on ALL jobs federal. Interesting precedents are being set by this administration. Also set up laws that neuter the power of the unelected to legislate, such as rules not passed by Congress have no force, or enforcement, etc.

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

Definitely a debate that should be had at the convention of states.

Rapier108 said:

---

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

There would probably have to be an exception for being at war. Which probably also means we would always be at war with someone.

96AgGrad said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

There would probably have to be an exception for being at war. Which probably also means we would always be at war with someone.

---

That's an interesting catch-22. You might create greater motive for war than already is. So the set budget idea would probably be a definite need. Sure there would be greedy times wanting to enlarge it, but thats a harder sell and you can't draft law with every exception or scenario in mind.

titan said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

There would probably have to be an exception for being at war. Which probably also means we would always be at war with someone.

---

That's an interesting catch-22. You might create greater motive for war than already is. So the set budget idea would probably be a definite need. Sure there would be greedy times wanting to enlarge it, but thats a harder sell and you can't draft law with every exception or scenario in mind.

---

Make the exception require a congressional declaration of war. No exceptions for one- off missions or WPA endeavors.

The Sun said:

---

titan said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

There would probably have to be an exception for being at war. Which probably also means we would always be at war with someone.

---

That's an interesting catch-22. You might create greater motive for war than already is. So the set budget idea would probably be a definite need. Sure there would be greedy times wanting to enlarge it, but thats a harder sell and you can't draft law with every exception or scenario in mind.

---

Make the exception require a congressional declaration of war. No exceptions for one- off missions or WPA endeavors.

---

That's a good idea. Any of those one-offs have to work with what given. Reducing what the federal govt is on the hook for currently from states would also help make the budget more predictable and ergo balanceable.

Or make the funding for a specific war a single bill. If it's funded, then great. If not, then the will of the people has spoken. Makes sense as well.

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

As I have often said, we have the opportunity to vote on term limits at every election, and we keep failing


Blah, blah, blah, incumbent advantage, blah, blah, blah.

Why don't we start with repealing income tax, term limits, single appropriation bills and banning insider trading.

Remember, it's about focusing on 90-10 issues to be able to summon support to convene.

As to what Burdizzo said, if you can't see consolidation of power right before your eyes, I don't know what to tell you.

Richleau12 said:

---

Why don't we start with repealing income tax, term limits, single appropriation bills and banning insider trading.

Remember, it's about focusing on 90-10 issues to be able to summon support to convene.

As to what Burdizzo said, if you can't see consolidation of power right before your eyes, I don't know what to tell you.

---

Women are the road block to a lot of that. They've enabled the runaway government and progressivism more than anyone imo.

Our government would be much more scared of an all male voting block. Men don't obsess over stupid sh** like abortion and "hair discrimination", and "but minorities are too helpless to get voter ID's" etc etc.

I realize this will never happen, and that we have to let women vote because it's the right thing to do (even though it is destroying us)…..just a thought experiment.

Again, it's not a 3/4 of the states issue. Regardless of how you feel about it.

Richleau12 said:

---

Why don't we start with repealing income tax, term limits, single appropriation bills and banning insider trading.

Remember, it's about focusing on 90-10 issues to be able to summon support to convene.

As to what Burdizzo said, if you can't see consolidation of power right before your eyes, I don't know what to tell you.

---

Term limits won't fix that. Tamany Hall should have shown us that.

Rapier108 said:

---

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Balanced Budget Amendment

---

Repeal the 16th and 17th.

The dems and communists will submit amendments that sound good but will allow back door expansion of government and reduction in civil rights.

Do you really think they would submit an amendment to limit the federal government or expand your rights.

No convention.

Fear is not a winning strategy. It's not like folks wouldn't have an opportunity to read them. You still need 3/4 of the states to say yes. Don't choose to do nothing out of fear of doing something.

Central Committee said:

---

The dems and communists will submit amendments that sound good but will allow back door expansion of government and reduction in civil rights.

Do you really think they would submit an amendment to limit the federal government or expand your rights.

No convention.

---

Again this isn't even a little bit relevant. Submitting an amendment has nothing to do with it passing. This is a terrible reason to avoid this option.

I've got news for you: leftists are past actually adhering to the Constitution. They are not a moral people and have no moral bounds. Changing the Constitution will not change that.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I've got news for you: leftists are past actually adhering to the Constitution. They are not a moral people and have no moral bounds. Changing the Constitution will not change that.

---

Not sure I buy this. Depends on the Amendment, probably. If you Repeal the 16th and 17th it's not like they have the ability to keep enforcing a federal income tax or statewide elections for Senators. Some of the things proposed for this may have some workaround but that probably means they need to be written better. I think we can all agree the 2nd would be better if it simply said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If anything, it would get kicked to the Supreme Court. Not a bad thing either.

Richleau12 said:

---

If anything, it would get kicked to the Supreme Court. Not a bad thing either.

---

Not even sure that's an option. Genuine question, does the Supreme Court have the ability to rule and amendment unconstitutional? I wouldn't think they have that ability.

IMO expand the House. I dont think framers anticipated the house reps representing 770,000 people. Smaller represented pop might mean more success for people willing to represent constituents instead of national parties.

No. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.