Ah hah, more comedy to keep me entertained. :-D

Cheers.

Here it seems like that most U.S. citizens want their states to go independent whilst over here a lot would just like to do away with the extra red tape that individual state government cost us.

Cheers.

Har you will believe anything mate.

More... more...

R0TLMA0!!

---

...

Here it seems like that most U.S. citizens want their states to go independent whilst over here a lot would just like to do away with the extra red tape that individual state government cost us.

Cheers.

Love your prohibition. Sure didn't stop it from happening the first time. Won't stop it the second either. Especially if there isn't a place to take the dispute. That leaves guns as the dispute resolution tactic. You see how well that is working already. Be thankful for Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Not including that was an oversight by the founders, but they are human.

As to your order of law, no foreign government will enter a treaty if some dingbat in a state can override it. Not going to happen. So each State will have to sign on. Article I Section 10 will have to go away or there will be no treaties, and I doubt many countries will bother trying to get 51 signatures.

With no treaties there won't even be a way for currency to be exchanged. Your 1870's model of a ship pulling up to the dock an the captain selling the hold empty in exchange for gold bars won't work. Maybe fly an airplane full of cash or gold bars? Nope. Can't fly without treaties on airspace and treaties on radio frequencies.

I understand the appeal. The reality of 1870's when the document was written and the reality of trade today can't be swept under the rug with nostalgia. As trade today depends on treaties they must be supreme over some fruitcake state government. Money will not be risked on the whims of some fruitcake to not upset the deal. The only way that happens is 51 sign or the Federal right of treaties is supreme to any state right. The founders realized that.

BUT Article I Section 10 puts the Federal right of Treaty ahead of any State right, and the tenth Amendment by its explicit delegation mention solidifies that. So now treaties are ahead of states in your order of power. And since the Federal government is the only one empowered to execute treaties, if treaties are ahead of states, the federal government must also be ahead of states. Sorry about that, but even the founders realized it.

If you want to argue that only entry into treaty was prohibited but not abrogation, you have a lot of convincing to do.

Absent that argument to abrogate, since the 1870's states are second class to the Feds and the tenth amendment solidified it. After all the Feds can enter into a treaty on any matter and thus force the states to do their bidding on anything not explicitly mentioned. They may even be able to enter into a treaty over matters expressly left to the states. SCOTUS would have to rule on that, but you just took Marbury vs. Madison (1803) away so they can't. Now what? a duel?

Now your isolationism will tank the US economy. You have repealed the income tax, the only tax left would be excise taxes on imports. Oh wait, a sin tax on booze, no, you just undid the commerce clause so it can't be taxed. Federal property tax?<ed>Well then the Feds would have to register property titles!

Now as to that commerce clause, I know you hate the word "made." I suspect you think it reads "assembled" but not "incorporated." Well it doesn't. And since damn near everything that isn't a farm product has some rare earth from China incorporated in it, damn near everything passed in foreign commerce.

If you want to change "made" to "assembled" and put a more than 10% (weight? volume? value?) requirement to have it kick in, well wait till the crooks begin to cheat the system!

If your revision is going to require a phone book size explanation on how to implement it, perhaps it is best left to regulation. You don't want to end up with a California Constitution.

---

WikiLeaks dump in two days. LOL

Who's gonna go bye bye...

---

...

#6 Okay, so now each country will have to negotiate 51 treaties for say NATO.

Prohibited explicitly by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution. Your example is without much merit with an isolationist foreign policy.

That was one of the big problems with the Articles of Confederation.

No... The big problems with the Articles of Confederation were lack of an executive and lack of taxation authority by the 'national' government.

As to the commerce clause, if you do what you want and make commerce a 1780's model, the USA will be overrun by the <REDACTED> within a year. Better practice your Mandarin.

你很搞笑 (Nǐ hěn gǎoxiào). As to the term you used that I redacted... Isn't that term somewhat racist?

As to Marbury vs. Madison (1803), if that isn't there, then there is no constitution as it does not name who gets to decide what it means.

Not true. Per the 10th Amendment, it belongs to the States themselves.

War between the states?!

Not true. Prohibited by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.

<ed>MK you talked about an "all" in another post about DIXIE and now you advocate war between the states, I left wondering about you. Is it ignorance or not being able to see consequence or Antebellum Tradition?

I do not advocate 'war between the States'. What I do advocate is as follows.

1. The democratic right of self-determination.
2. The philosophy that the best Government is one that is as local as possible.
3. The philosophy that the best Government is one that is as 'small' as possible.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Marbury vs. Madison (1803),

Thank you for that. That was a good reference point
to help me understand that issue much better now.

---

#6 Okay, so now each country will have to negotiate 51 treaties for say NATO. That was one of the big problems with the Articles of Confederation.

As to the commerce clause, if you do what you want and make commerce a 1780's model, the USA will be overrun by the yellow hoard within a year. Better practice your Mandarin.

As to Marbury vs. Madison (1803), if that isn't there, then there is no constitution as it does not name who gets to decide what it means. War between the states?!
<ed>MK you talked about an "all" in another post about DIXIE and now you advocate war between the states, I left wondering about you. Is it ignorance or not being able to see consequence or Antebellum Tradition?

---

Heil The Donald?

---

When Great Luck, Convention, Status, Rules and Laws are Followed, makes One Very Well Off or RichieRich like a mO fO, why would SomeOne Go Against such Beautiful, Wonderful Self-Interest? And If This SomeOne can See during this Fabulous Life all Incongruities of Such Silver Spoons and Linings, and Know Lessers Have No Chance, Betters a Slim Chance and Unbelieveably Ambitious, Tenacious, Talented have A Chance, and Wants,

In His Waning Days of Existence to 'Give Back' and Level Da Playing Field for ALL Americans, where A Chance becomes A Reality, then This Person, This Man, this Big Big Big Don of A Man, Should and Can Be BELIEVED; He Will Be Our ONLY CHANCE against Political Correctness, POLITICAL CORRUPTION, ALL POLITICAL CRAPPING On The People.

We Da People of America will Vote for This Totally American Story.

One with An Ending ALL AMERICANS can Benefit.

A New Chapter in American History Begins in Jan. '17

Da Book of Yap.

---

Well, article 5 says A) there is no convention of states unless 2/3rds of the states propose a convention (implying they must first agree on the agenda and rules of engagement) and B) once amendments are proposed, 3/4th of the states must approve any amendment.

True, at this time there is no certain limits on a convention; however, practicality points towards the idea that a convention can't happen unless there are limits. The dry-run was to demonstrate that the only logical way to actually get 2/3rds to agree to a convention is to propose a very narrow agenda.

I believe trusting this to happen is a reasonable gesture. I have no reason to believe 2/3rds of the states would agree to a convention proposing to completely re-write any particular parts or all of our constitution.

The dry-run (simulation) report is about to be finalized. A summary can be viewed here:

http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim


This simulated Convention passed 6 proposed amendments to our constitution:

1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.

If 3/4ths of the states ratified even one of these proposals, it would be a big step in repairing the damage done in the past several decades by both parties.

No matter who takes the white house next, I believe a convention of states restricting our federal government from crashing this nation is in order.

Why isn't this in the Federal Press? I know why. And many of you in here, deep down inside, know why.

As to the list of potential amendments you provided...

1. In favor, if it was required that approval be unaminous.
2. Term limits. Extend them to cover ANY and ALL Federal offices, elected or appointed, and make the allowed term to be 1... total... and it would be good.
3. that one is good.
4. Better would be to require ALL regulations to need Congressional approval, same process as laws.
5. that one is good.
6. Give the each states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order within its own borders. (FIFY) The sequence of authorities would be: The US Constitution, State Law, Federal Law, Treaties.

One additional one...

Since the text of the Constitution is up to the States ALONE...
Remove the power to decide its meaning that SCOTUS unconstitutionally seized in Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and return it to where it rightfully belongs... the States.

Two more:

In Article I Section 8, clarify that the phrase General Welfare refers to only the power to tax. Also, remove the 'necessary and proper' clause in its entirety.

And,

Strengthen the 10th Amendment as Follows:

The powers not explicitly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

If anyone knows how to make it fair, it would be Trump.

If anyone know how to make it worse, it would be Trump.

What ever possesses you to think he wants it fair? A lie out of a politician's mouth?

In its present unfair state it greatly favors him. Like all scum bucket politicians his only concern is his personal bottom line. He has even used the magic word: "fiduciary." It would be his job as president to do everything he can to personally profit. DON'T FORGET IT!

---

Trump inspired terror attack!

---

http://usdebtclock.org

He followed the law.

Are you ready to get rid of the NOL?

If not why do you want the clock ticking faster?

Do you think a 47%'er should be President? Wouldn't a 47%'er find dozens of ways to make that 75%'er?

---

Well, article 5 says A) there is no convention of states unless 2/3rds of the states propose a convention (implying they must first agree on the agenda and rules of engagement)

No where does it imply that. Unless 2/3 of the states only call for a convention on a single subject, they will be free to do anything! Then will set their own agenda. They will also set their own rules or complete lack thereof. Far and away more terrifying than congress being in session.

You have to understand, when the first constitutional convention was called Robert's Rules hadn't been written. The delegates were gentlemen and knew something had to be done. Today the delegates will be the slimiest of politicians and there is a do nothing two party system in place. Only vile filth or benign do nothing will escape. You really don't want them to get together and do away with the state's powers and only have a federal government. They would have that ability and if they thought they could get better bribes that way would do it instantly.

Well,

Speaking of the first Constitutional Convention....

It was called by the States to 'fix' some problems with the Articles of Confederation, NOT do a total rewrite.

At the Convention, the delegates decided to do a total rewrite, and we wound up with the US Constitution we have today.

I agree with your statement. Calling a Convention would be.... dangerous.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

...at this time there is no certain limits on a convention; however, practicality points towards the idea that a convention can't happen unless there are limits. The dry-run was to demonstrate that the only logical way to actually get 2/3rds to agree to a convention is to propose a very narrow agenda.

I believe trusting this to happen is a reasonable gesture. I have no reason to believe 2/3rds of the states would agree to a convention proposing to completely re-write any particular parts or all of our constitution.

socialism kills...

Trusting the Present Politicians?

Back when.... We had John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al.

We 'Lucked Out'.

Don't 'Press Your Luck'.

---

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton

Donald Trump is Mitt Romney's 47%!

Donald Trump's business losses in 1995 were so large that they could have allowed him to avoid paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years, according to records obtained by The New York Times.

In a story published online late Saturday, the Times said it anonymously received the first pages of Trump's 1995 state income tax filings in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The filings show a net loss of $915,729,293 in federal taxable income for the year.

---

Well, article 5 says A) there is no convention of states unless 2/3rds of the states propose a convention (implying they must first agree on the agenda and rules of engagement)

No where does it imply that. Unless 2/3 of the states only call for a convention on a single subject, they will be free to do anything! Then will set their own agenda. They will also set their own rules or complete lack thereof. Far and away more terrifying than congress being in session.

You have to understand, when the first constitutional convention was called Robert's Rules hadn't been written. The delegates were gentlemen and knew something had to be done. Today the delegates will be the slimiest of politicians and there is a do nothing two party system in place. Only vile filth or benign do nothing will escape. You really don't want them to get together and do away with the state's powers and only have a federal government. They would have that ability and if they thought they could get better bribes that way would do it instantly.

---