• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Convention of States - Article V

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So with the recent debt ceiling negotiations it is obvious that no one in in either party cares about limiting spending. Both parties basically agreed to adding $4,300,000,000,000 to the national debt over the next 2.5 years or so instead of cutting spending to pay the bills so to speak.
You do realize that the debt ceiling relates to bills we've already accrued?

Simply cutting spending has not worked, historically. In fact, in hard times the most beneficial approach would be the Keynesian tactic of increasing government spending and job creation.

We have a government that is not accountable to the people due to widespread corruption and greed in Washington not just on the budget issue. Inflation, crime, immigration for example are all issues that no one in congress is tackling. I think this is obvious. There have been proposed amendments to the constitution that would force politicians to be accountable to the people and increase our liberties.
Yes. Increasing corporate taxation, regulation, and resumption of spending on education, housing, infrastructure and healthcare would remove most of the causes of poverty, homelessness and crime.
Revamp commerce clause to reflect original intent to prevent states from impeding commerce and trade not allowing the federal government to regulate commerce or force individuals to participate in commerce.
So both the states and the federal government would be unable to regulate trade?
Isn't it just this deregulation that we've seen over the past 40+ years that's sent all our manufacturing jobs overseas, stagnated wages and infrastructure, made education, healthcare, and and housing unaffordable?
Make eminent domain illegal
How could we maintain an infrastructure, general prosperity and a functional, unified society if the country were a patchwork of tiny, sovereign kingdoms?
No US citizen shall be taxed more than 15% of their income, no matter the source. Tax deadline is one day prior to federal elections.
Would corporations remain citizens?
Q: What, in your opinion, is the purpose of government, and how is it to achieve this?
Revamp 2nd amendment
Revamp??? Explain, please.
Abortion amendment
???? -- explain, please. For? Against? Other?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The military. The US outspends the ten next biggest spenders combined on that issue. With a reasonable military budget, you could have all the amenities the civilized world has like function health care and a social security system and still have money left to fix roads and bridges.
Moreover, despite perpetual warfare, we haven't fought a defensive war since WWII. We've been using the military to secure and maintain markets, suppress democracies, and fund the military-congressional-industrial complex of industries.

It might be interesting to audit the Pentagon and see how much money is being spent on what. It's never been done, despite numerous proposals.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Moreover, despite perpetual warfare, we haven't fought a defensive war since WWII. We've been using the military to secure and maintain markets, suppress democracies, and fund the military-congressional-industrial complex of industries.

It might be interesting to audit the Pentagon and see how much money is being spent on what. It's never been done, despite numerous proposals.
The Pentagon has been audited, it just didn't pass - ever. They have "misplaced" trillions of worth of equipment.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
So with the recent debt ceiling negotiations it is obvious that no one in in either party cares about limiting spending. Both parties basically agreed to adding $4,300,000,000,000 to the national debt over the next 2.5 years or so instead of cutting spending to pay the bills so to speak. We have a government that is not accountable to the people due to widespread corruption and greed in Washington not just on the budget issue. Inflation, crime, immigration for example are all issues that no one in congress is tackling. I think this is obvious. There have been proposed amendments to the constitution that would force politicians to be accountable to the people and increase our liberties. These include:

Proposals I think both parties can agree on:

Imposing term limits for congress at 12 years total.

Set supreme court justices at 9, justice term limits of 12 years and replace 3 justices every 4 years. Limit chief justice position to 6 years. 3/5th of the states can override a supreme court’s opinion if enacted within 24 months.

Budgets must be submitted to the president by congress each year on May 1st, if budget not enacted by congress and the President then an automatic 5% cut across the board is enacted, and that is the new budget. Budget must be balanced unless 3/5th of congress votes in times of emergencies to deficit spend.

All federal departments must be reauthorized every 3 years by individual authorization bills by majority vote of congress.

Revamp commerce clause to reflect original intent to prevent states from impeding commerce and trade not allowing the federal government to regulate commerce or force individuals to participate in commerce.

Make eminent domain illegal

2/3 of state legislatures agree on an amendment it becomes part of the constitution, bypassing congress and no convention of states is needed as described in article V.

Voter ID is required to vote.


I think most conservatives would agree on these:

Repeal the 17th amendment

No US citizen shall be taxed more than 15% of their income, no matter the source. Tax deadline is one day prior to federal elections.


I think most progressives would agree on these:

Revamp 2nd amendment

Abortion amendment


Since the Congress will never propose these by the process in Article V, a convention of states (COS) is required to force amendment to the constitution that bypasses congress. This is also described in article V. This gives power back to the states and the people when the federal government is not doing the will of the people and is generally corrupt. There is already a movement and 19 states have already passed a COS resolution, 34 states are required to pass resolutions to make the COS happen with many more having proposed resolution in their congresses. Then 38 states need to ratify and constitutional amendment from the COS to become part of the constitution.


What amendments would you propose?
What is the reasoning behind repealing the 17th Amendment?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
How do you propose that political advertising & news coverage be paid for?
By whom?
Multiple ways.
1. With tax $. There could be a government refund possibly for every vote counted for the party. (That's how it's done in Germany.)
2. Through donations. Just with a cap and no loophole, i.e. no super PAC. Bernie Sanders has showed that that works and is enough.
3. A regulation that obligate "news" stations to carry political adds free of charge (and equal time for every party or candidate). (Also practiced in Germany and other countries.)
4. A regulation that obligates "news" stations to carry political adds for a fixed price and equal conditions for all parties or candidates.
5. A limitation of the campaign time. I think Canada does it and its 6? weeks.

Or any combination thereof.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Multiple ways.
1. With tax $. There could be a government refund possibly for every vote counted for the party. (That's how it's done in Germany.)
Taxes collected by government to determine
who gets how much political speech, eh.
2. Through donations. Just with a cap and no loophole, i.e. no super PAC. Bernie Sanders has showed that that works and is enough.
Calling something a "loophole" sounds demonizing.
Dems & Pubs never call their franking privileges by
that term, so I guess this unfair advantage over 3rd
parties makes it OK.

3. A regulation that obligate "news" stations to carry political adds free of charge (and equal time for every party or candidate). (Also practiced in Germany and other countries.)
Who decides which parties are allowed the free ads?
Government, ie, the Big Two parties/
4. A regulation that obligates "news" stations to carry political adds for a fixed price and equal conditions for all parties or candidates.
With government determine the limit on who gets how much air time, eh.
Price fixing and compelled speech?
Oh, I see much room for mischief there.
5. A limitation of the campaign time. I think Canada does it and its 6? weeks.
A government imposed restriction on political speech, eh.
That would require a constitutional amendment to prevent
as yet to be determined what constitues "campaigning.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
The military. The US outspends the ten next biggest spenders combined on that issue. With a reasonable military budget, you could have all the amenities the civilized world has like function health care and a social security system and still have money left to fix roads and bridges.

I suspect the OP won't like that plan. ;)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Taxes collected by government to determine
who gets how much political speech, eh.

Calling something a "loophole" sounds demonizing.
Dems & Pubs never call their franking privileges by
that term, so I guess this unfair advantage over 3rd
parties makes it OK.


Who decides which parties are allowed the free ads?
Government, ie, the Big Two parties/

With government determine the limit on who gets how much air time, eh.
Price fixing and compelled speech?
Oh, I see much room for mischief there.

A government imposed restriction on political speech, eh.
That would require a constitutional amendment to prevent
as yet to be determined what constitues "campaigning.
I'm sure the US politicians will find a way to **** up any good idea.
But the rules would have to apply to everyone legally running and you'd be able to sue for it. At least that will be as fair as can be in a cleptocracy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm sure the US politicians will find a way to **** up any good idea.
But the rules would have to apply to everyone legally running and you'd be able to sue for it.
Suing the government is very difficult & complex.
It requires much cash, which would make access
to that remedy discriminatory.
Whatever rules were devised, they couldn't possibly
treat the Big Two parties the same as smaller 3rd
parties.
At least that will be as fair as can be in a cleptocracy.
I see the bigger problem as the Big Two rigging the
system in their favor. Any reform they design would
ensure their supremacy.
The current system has its problems, but I don't trust
politicians to make it better...except for themselves.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Suing the government is very difficult & complex.
It requires much cash, which would make access
to that remedy discriminatory.
Whatever rules were devised, they couldn't possibly
treat the Big Two parties the same as smaller 3rd
parties.

I see the bigger problem as the Big Two rigging the
system in their favor. Any reform they design would
ensure their supremacy.
The current system has its problems, but I don't trust
politicians to make it better...except for themselves.
Wait a few years. As one of the Big Two is about to cancel the deal over shared supremacy in favor of their own supremacy, there may be an opening for some rational rules.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Amendments take too long to change if change is needed, so they should be at a bare minimum, imo.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wait a few years. As one of the Big Two is about to cancel the deal over shared supremacy in favor of their own supremacy, there may be an opening for some rational rules.
People are always predicting or lamenting the
demise of one or the other party. I've been
watching this for half a century. Yet they endure.
 
Top