Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: ACTION-Petition ALEC to make a statement about the concept of Preparatory Amendment before an Article V convention

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 26, 2012, 6:38 p.m. EST by rayolite (461)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Make these elites accountable to human Americans. Test them. Sign.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

American Legislative Exchange Council
1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800 | Fax: 202-466-3801

What is the title of your petition?

Does ALEC Really Want An Article V Convention with Constitutional Intent?

Who is the target of your petition?

American Legislative Exchange Council-ALEC, First Vice Chairman Rep. John Piscopo


What issue best describes your petition?

Request for definition of ALEC's position on preparation for Article V assuring constitutional intent.

Why should people sign this?

Article V is the right to "alter or abolish" from the Declaration of Independence codified in the Constitution. The creator of this petition has seen activity on web forums which is dominantly consistent with the presence of "cognitive infiltration as recommended by Cass Sunstein) in 2008 to Obama. The witnessed activities intent can only be interpreted as choreographed to alienate or make Americans fearful of the 5th Clause of the US Constitution, Article V.

This is a completely independent petition which concerns legal process and the meaning of speech, expression, opinion and democracy under the principles of this republic. It is for the purpose of ending American citizens fears of an Article V convention, a runaway or hijacked situation, the signatories to this petition, self declared constitutional citizens in defense of the constitution, HEREBY request that ALEC provide an opinion upon the concept and notion of preparing for an Article V with the goal of assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

Amendment effecting these issues is considered preparation. 1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

After amendment effecting the needed change has had its impact on American democracy, Article V can safely, constitutionally proceed. Does ALEC support that American people should take the role of "rightful masters of the congress and courts" (Lincoln 1859). Sign this petition to hopefully see the proper accountability, or some; to defense of the constitition; delivered, if possible, by ALEC through a statement to the creator of the petition, or thepetitionsite.com, or a page at their website dedicated to the peoples perceptions of what constitutional intent is.

114 Comments

114 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ray- I realize some of my posts have a nasty edge - I apologize -
your statements are due to a lack of knowledge of English - NOT trolling or stupidity.
PLEASE show your post and your original document to a lawyer or law student. Seriously - you are really misunderstanding a lot of this issue.- especially "intent" & "preparitory"

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I know constitutional intent very well, and can share it so well people just try and ignore its validity, I talking about YOU and your failure to reasonably consider what the preparatory amendment proposed does.

I've never met a lawyer that cared enough about the constitution and its service to humanity that would do anything meaningful for its defense.

Some states hung fined and jailed people that tried to be lawyers. We need Americans not scammers.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The Existential Danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention
IT CAN DISCARD OUR CONSTITUTION AND CREATE ONE FROM SCRATCH
ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
TO CREATE CON CON: ( 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate ) OR ( 2/3 of State Legislatures )
RATIFICATION OF CON CON PROPOSED & PASSED AMENDMENTS: ( ¾ of State Conventions ) OR ( ¾ of State Legislatures )


This language clearly states that only the Convention itself is authorized to determine the amendments that are to be proposed and what subjects will be addressed in those amendments. During the first 100 years of the Republic, applications for a convention did not try to tell the convention which amendments to propose, that is, they were, as stated in Article V, general applications for a convention.
Early applications, since 1788, properly left the determination of the content of the amendments to the convention. As time passed, the state legislatures lost sight of the clear language and intent of the U.S. Constitution. Later, they attempted to dictate to a convention what amendments it could propose. They did this by stating in their applications that they sought only a limited convention with authority to propose an amendment on a single subject. By issuing single-issue convention applications, legislatures sought to turn the convention into a rubber stamp which could do only what the applications stated. These unenforceable, unconstitutional limitations defy the intended purpose of the convention, which was to deliberate and decide what amendments to propose. Most recent calls for a con-con has been dressed up as a movement to require Congress to call a convention for the limited purpose of proposing an amendment requiring a balanced budget; to ban flag burning; to ban abortion…. Topics to which a convention is to be limited are designed to be appealing, but most jurists agree that Congress has no authority to dictate or limit what subjects to address in a convention. The Article V ratification process was not sufficient to stop the runaway convention which met in 1787. The delegates were called to meet in Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress. Yet it did not take the delegates long to assume upon themselves more powers than what they had been given. In fact , they completely discarded the Articles of Confederation and wrote a completely new Constitution – defining the first “runaway convention” - discarding the original document and starting from scratch
The primary argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to propose whatever amendments it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” - exactly like the 1787 Convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. U.S. Supreme Court justices and the nation's leading legal scholars have stated that these single-subject limitations cannot be enforced; that if a convention is called, it will be free to propose any kind and number of amendments to the same effect, as if the limitations in the applications did not exist. In other words, although applications are effective, all such limitations must be ignored.
We even have a warning directly from James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” concerning the inadvisability of calling for a constitutional convention. When the states of New York and Virginia formally petitioned Congress in 1788 to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Madison wrote a letter in 1788 in which he emphatically warned against convening such a convention: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... An election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans ... [and] would contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the [nation’s] very foundations.”
Chief Justice Warren Burger, vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention wrote on June 22, 1988: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The 1787 Convention ignored the limit stated by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose”. Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”
Associate Justice Arthur J Goldberg: "One of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from passing wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups, whose self interest may be contrary to our nations well being"
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe stated that a Con-Con could not be limited to a single issue. "The stakes in this institution are much greater because you are putting the whole Constitution up for grabs. In 1787, there was at least agreement on the direction we should move ... today, we don't even agree what direction we should move. In 1787, America had a treasure of enlightened leaders such as Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson. I don't know how you feel about the current cast of characters." Tribe also noted that a runaway convention could even change the rules of ratification, as the 1787 convention did, and make them ratifiable by national vote or some other method. (The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification by all 13 state legislatures, but delegates at the 1787 convention recognized this might not be accomplished, so they changed the ratification rules to three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.)

Professor Rex E. Lee, former law school professor and president of Brigham Young University : "In short, if the question is whether a runaway convention is assured, the answer is 'No', but if the question is whether it is a real and serious possibility, the answer is 'Yes'. In our history we have only one experience with a Constitutional Convention, and while the end result was good, the 1787 convention itself was a definite runaway" Professor Charles Allen Wright, a Professor of Law at the University of Austin. "I feel quite certain that even opening the door to the possibility of a constitutional convention would be a tragedy for the country."
Professor Gunther, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School wrote "The fear that a constitutional convention could become a 'runaway' convention and propose wholesale changes in our Constitution is by no means unfounded. Rather, this broad view of the authority of a convention reflects the consensus of most constitutional scholars who have commented on the issue. A convention, once called, would be in the same position as the only other convention of this kind that we have had in our history - the 1787 Philadelphia Convention - the first runaway convention."
However, if we use precedent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that includes one vote per state, just 14 states – a majority of a quorum [ 26 of 50 states ] is 14 states - representing less than 16,000,000 Americans could write & propose a completely new Constitution!

Some possible Amendments to come from an article V convention :
Evolution cannot be taught. No corporate tax. No inheritance tax. The gold standard. Labor unions are illegal. The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished. Islam is banned. Abortion is illegal.
For the purposes of house representation, women are counted as 3/5. Birth control is illegal.
Some people believe that the ratification process is a check on the insanity. What if the Democrats, as they are so co-operative [ like they gave up on single-payer ], agree to cut defense spending by 50%, in exchange for eliminating the inheritance tax & capital gains tax – how many billionaires would turn this down?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So you dont think America has the will to self govern?

I understand your concerns, but you dont think the risk is worth the reward? Because for everything bad you listed as posible outcomes, there could be another one that is fantastic. Right?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

NO! the congress is bought and paid for by the elites & special interests
It will be much easier for them to but the convention
If you were the koch brothers & the walton family, how much would you pay to eliminate the inheritance tax & all corporate tax?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im just saying, the chance to rewrite the constitution sounds like a fantastic idea. Unless you dont think the people can compete with the corporations. And if thats the case, then we have a much bigger problem than the corporations....we have a major problem with the general population.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Someone put a lot of time into that.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

The goal was/is for a corporate state. This is what we are up against.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Without a doubt. And we are getting our asses handed to us on a yearly basis. The fact that they are putting effort like this out there, on full time basis, and the 300million of us that are against them, cant seem to get people to even show to teacher board meetings, is a horrendous problem.

Its why I think we need to do some very big things, and promote them as a professional would. I agree that an Art5 conv would lead to nothing, but it could be an incredible recruitment tool.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

The problem is that it is already an incredible recruitment tool.

It has been useful for CCS, RNC, ALEC and these folks http://www.ntu.org/

Hell, it was useful for Ross Perot.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There are no leftist groups using it as a recruitment tool?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

http://www.ncsl.org/

Like that?

They have a little publication on their site on Article V and of course the budget. http://www.ncsl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gxlwDaVfCg4=&tabid=20865

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Thats an excellent link. Do you trust it?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I trust the NCSL like I trust ALEC. The dead give away that it is promoting a Right agenda is in their Article V publication for the balanced budget. That is a known proposed amendment for the Right organizations which is the high hope to cripple the Federal government.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Thats what I was thinking. So I guess theres not a lot of lefty groups attempting to do anything with this? OWS could be the first?

Im going to do some searching and phone calls to see whats up.

Honestly, the idea of any kind of convention of the people is fascisnating to me. Like the 7/4/11 Convention that was supposed to be in Philly, I thought that was a fantastic idea.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

If I remember correctly this was a form of contention and caused a split in Occupy Philly.

[-] -3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Then anonymous walked in and called out the group that stopped involvement with Article V.

GirlFriday wrote: "If I remember correctly this was a form of contention and caused a split in Occupy Philly."

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 1 year ago

Media prevents unity with motivation. Seems the entire design of communication technology actually keeps people apart or from meaningful communication on any effective scale.

"and the 300million of us that are against them, cant seem to get people to even show to teacher board meetings, is a horrendous problem."

Great effort! I'm signing. Put those 1%'ers on the spot, expose them.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Reading, I notice that no one is recognizing what ending the abridging of free speech will do. From what I see, America is so deceived, that amendment which does that will have a massive effect on it's own.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

(In reply to lower)

It was a point of contention everywhere, because of the no leaders thing, and the 1 man/1 woman thing, and all sorts of other things.

I would have rather muddled through it, learned a lot, created a lot of press, tried again in 2012, and then hopefully by this year, year three, it would be a national event and quite the event.

Everyone is always so afraid to make mistakes, so worried about planning and what can go wrong, that they become paralyzed.

I understand its natural, but it drives me nuts!!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

It will be more of a contention because it is notoriously associated with ALEC/the Goldwater Institute and Nelson Rockefeller.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Constitution guilty by association? Hah_the nwo wishes.

The people have an inherent agreement in natural law, they are catching on to this an how to you use it. I'm using it now.

"Which parent will ignore or pass the real opportunity that Article V and preparatory amendment with its ending the abridging of free speech wherein their child will protected in their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness by sharing and understanding information needed to survive, be free and seek happiness.?"

Article V is that opportunity with preparation that ends the abridging of free speech.

Which parent will state they will ignore the opportunity of Article V's preparation?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So is it associate with things like those you just listed because they are willing to try to go to those lengths to get what they want? Or because the process favors their groups more than it would the people?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

It favors the corporations more than the people.

[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think it does too. Im going to see if some groups in Tampa here know anything about it, and their views.

Most things with our democracy favor coprorations at this point. But we have to shake this shit up somehow. Because just going to the polls isnt doing shit.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

To understand, is to respect the details of the foundation of facts.

If the people cannot recognize, accept and understand constitutional intent, then yes, Article V could favor the corporations. However, that would be a fairly blatant violation of the constitution.

What alec seems to be \doing is scaring people away from Article V just by their association with it. If they were to outright serve the many corporations supporting them, they would be the vehicle of treason.

Accordingly, logically, they are simply hoping the people are too confused to use Article V and simply allow what the corps are doing, by default, to continue.

Correct, voting BEFORE preparatory amendment means diebold processes your vote with the wishes of the elite. Logically, local and state election by an informed and unified constituency can pound state legislations into shape to overcome corporate influences and get started on Article V with proper preparation.

In that, many of the minor issues are resolved quickly because conditons of the convention are massively changed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

CorpoRATions need to be brought back to earth. Thank goodness we have the birth of Occupy movements all around the world - working to make a better healthier prosperous world for the PEOPLE.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

In order to end corp personhood, Article V will be needed. That would be a constitutional amendment that congress will never do. Article V must be used.

To do this we must agree on a fundamental level which reflects our awareness of constitutional intent which each amendment must have. Our agreement on that level pre empts ALL political activity because it is at the top of legal process.

Constitutional intent is a legal agreement that must be made overtly as such in society and can be expressed by our vote.

Get the frauds, alec, if they are frauds, and everyone says they are, I agree they probably are. HOWEVER lets get the goods on the unconstitutionality of their legal position relating to constitutional intent because to proceed without assuring constitutional intent could be defined as treason, depending on the actual intent of mal amendment.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Yes, expose Alec in everyway possible. This petition is unique because it will show Alec is not interested in what is good.

So easy to show their bad association. This is different.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Support Move to Amend - It IS what You are Harping about. Only all laid out safely and in process already.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

"in process" before our current congress. Meaning we lose. What is so safe about that?

Oh, yea, nothing happens.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Not rewrite-First the nation becomes constitutional enough to be able to define constitutional intent. After that begins a few amendments could easily be well made. Then, with that fuller constitutional state existing for a time, there are going to be lots of benefits in information, education. Democracy will be more capable, and that tendency will continue with a functioning republic under that because the people needs/principles are paramount.

At that time, more amendment could be made that would cause continued positive change in numerous areas. There is no need to consider this all needs to be done at once. An ongoing definition of constitutional intent is a good thing at any time. If America did it for 10 years and made as many amendments, revisions of old or new, that would on be a rewrite.

Article V is overdue, so more is to be expected rather than less.

[-] -3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Thanks dad, we needed to know what the elites want us to know.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

ELITES?!?!?!?!?
who do you think alec represents?????????????????
koch brothers are their biggest supporters


http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://www.alecwatch.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection


in staed of silly remaks, do you have the courage to post any three things in my post that are provably wrong? two things? one? anything at all?.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Here, show how these can be constitutional.

"Evolution cannot be taught. No corporate tax. No inheritance tax. The gold standard. Labor unions are illegal. The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished. Islam is banned. Abortion is illegal. "

All wrong.

The elites want people afraid of Article V. They think people are stupid enough to be afraid IF they want it. It's theatre.

Sign the petition.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Look- I have to confess I do not speak or write in another language ( I am not proud of that fact )
but you really need to understand English.

I never said these were constitutional:
"Evolution cannot be taught. No corporate tax. No inheritance tax. The gold standard. Labor unions are illegal. The EPA & FDA & SEC are abolished. Islam is banned. Abortion is illegal. "

I said that an Article V Convention could put these things in a new constitution. OR ANYTHING ELSE

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

dad only reads and writes "in the box". Preparatory amendment befuddles him.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-should-we-expext-the-rs-to-be-sane-on-anything/#comment-891686

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Back yourself up-"any three things" in your post is what you wrote.

Also, you STILL haven't been accountable to address what preparatory amendment does to Article V. Accordingly your reasonable accountability to your position is lacking.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-should-we-expext-the-rs-to-be-sane-on-anything/#comment-891686

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

where is your definition in the constitution of a "preparatory amendment"

[-] -3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

It's logical dad. that's constitutional. Do you normally not prepare for important events integrating many people?

Of course if you don't know how free speech is abridged, then that will go right past you.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Because it is logical it is constitutional - aAHHHhahahahahahahahahaha - it does not exist - But - Because it is logical it is constitutional - aAHHHhahahahahahahahahaha

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

When the logical also is equal protection of law at Article V with intent to protect life by upholding and using the inherent intent of defense of he constitution, constitutionality grows.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Stinkle - 1st you have to have the involvement of the people - major involvement - or you end up with pharacies using the constitution for their own purpose same as those in positions of power/influence use religion - TO GET WHAT "THEY" Want - and to hell with everyone else.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Read the OP. Preparatory amendment ends the abridging of free speech which accommodates the peoples major involvement with truth and education.

Getting ALEC or bensdad to talk about it is the whole point of the thread.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No your point is to dare people into signing a petition that would call for a process to complete their burial.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Oh, poor 'fraid American. It's a challenge to do some critical thinking and apply it in defense of the constitution.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I understand it, good test! Sheep don't seem to though.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No - you are a poor deluded & no-doubt soon to be discarded shill - who does not realize that this has already been considered and rejected for pursual at this time due to the broken/bought/rented nature of our current government.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (34849) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You would have people bypass sensible/smart one issue ( controlled ) at a time to regain the government - and instead throw it all away. Fuck-off.

BTW - not to leave it there - But - again - FUCK OFF.

The public at large needs to become much more active and involved prior to anything resembling an article V.

BTW - what is your skin in the game - sellout? By your comments you are not a citizen of the USA - so - What - you figure that U R immune to repercussions of a totally failed USA democracy? If that is what you think - THEN - U - TRULY - R - a crazy Bastard.


[-] 0 points by rayolite (495) 7 minutes ago

The nwo and ALEC appreciate your position.

DKAtoday wrote: "No - you are a poor deluded & no-doubt soon to be discarded shill - who does not realize that this has already been considered and rejected for pursual at this time due to the broken/bought/rented nature of our current government."

WTF is " realize that this"? Afraid or wants other Americans to be afraid to test this quasi elite authority. cognifil ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

The nwo and ALEC appreciate your position.

DKAtoday wrote: "No - you are a poor deluded & no-doubt soon to be discarded shill - who does not realize that this has already been considered and rejected for pursual at this time due to the broken/bought/rented nature of our current government."

WTF is " realize that this"? Afraid or wants other Americans to be afraid to test this quasi elite authority. cognifil

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

You cannot show I want that, and I don't.

DKAtoday wrote: "You would have people bypass sensible/smart one issue ( controlled )"

Comment on the effect of preparatory amendment upon Article V.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Signed! Pretty good test. Somebody ought to question them.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I will try to cut this down to a very few words -
calling a convention requires 2/3 of the house + 2/3 of the senate and
NOTHING can be done before or during the convention to get them to pass or not pass anything

[ except bribes - of course ]

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

100 yr's ago we're due Article V-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-refuses-to-call-a-convention-to-amend/

Congress hasn't been counting and in 1911 2/3 of the states applied.

Article V


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so - impeach the people in congress for not calling a convention

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Now you gain a factual appraisal of unlawful government. If we had free speech we could, but we don't. So this petition and thread is here to show you that ALEC does not want an Article V convention. They want an un constitutional convention, such as you are afraid of.

Preparatory amendment WILL assure, redundantly that the nation is constitutional enough to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.

This cuts all the elites out, all types of them. This is for human beings and their greater interests.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, ALEC probably won't respond or be affected by the petition because they feel accountable to no one but themselves. I think it will take nonviolent direct action at their HQ and meetings, large enough that it brings with it mainstream media coverage.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Hmmmm I agree. And perhaps "nonviolent direct action at their HQ and meetings, large enough that it brings with it mainstream media coverage." is very appropriate because WHEN the petition is made, overtly in defense of the constitution, THEN people sign, but no answer on the issue of "constitutional intent" is provided. After that it is clear they are fraudulent and unconstitutionally misleading Americans into supporting the expansion of unconstitutional government. That's the academic or philosophic treason aspect. Such abuses of quasi authority fully justify nonviolent direct action to bring attention to the key issue that media ignores but people need to know.

That is why the best occupy then, and now, is "Occupy Congress" and demand Article V NOW, we are all due 100 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-refuses-to-call-a-convention-to-amend/

Heinous in light of the dumbing down and abridgment of free speech.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You seem to want smaller weaker government of the people. I think we need stronger government of the people with more power so that government of the people can check the power of corporations. Do you agree we need a bigger stronger government of the people?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Funny how no one here seems to understand this issue with alec.

Is fraud intended to usurp the constitution treason? When free speech is abridged, how would people know it's not fraud?

Maybe activist here want quasi authority to run things, to decide what is best rather than encouraging the peoples of the states to use their power as law currently grants it. By not using that power, alec gets to abuse it.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"ALEC will ten be deemed unconstitutional by their own failure and essentially many of their activities may be fraudulent. Some activities such as this one of promoting Article V, if they are working to see amendments without constitutional intent, or they fail to recognize the peoples right to define intents, it borders on philosophic or academic treason. Using authority to make the constitution appear what it is not."


it looks like you are using some sort of language conversion software -
from Martian? or is this a new madlibs program?

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

It is constitutional which apparently you do not understand. Without that, the other logic won't mean much.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

cite the parts of the constitution that makes it constitutional

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

It doesn't know how.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I think people should stop commenting to this thing altogether. This isn't a human voice at all, unless it's mother was a fucking IBM machine.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

My words support constitutional.

Article V-

shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,

I am determining IF they will promote an Article V convention where constitutional intent is assured. If they do not, then its not Article V they are working for, its something else.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

"My words support constitutional?"

Well if your words don't do it, try eating a lot of fiber . . . asshole.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

THX, we now know what you think of Americans working with their constitution.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

No, that is unconstitutional. That is an effort to hijack the constitution.

Preparatory amendment prevents that and instead makes the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.

Sign this petition to expose another such unconstitutional effort.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sorry once again your link did not work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

i will check it out.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

This is completely NOT how ALEC works.

It's the neolibe(R)tarian's legislation club.

They will laugh at this petition, if it ever gets there, and then go out for steaks and a few drinks..

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

TEST alec, expose an elite fraud.

Correct, the truth is they do not want an Article V convention under the US constitution. Nervous laughter, IF 1,000 Americans have what it takes to realize organizations like this need to be tested.

[-] 0 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

Who's going to be "grading" the "test"?

For their sake, I hope it's multiple "choice".

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

We are testing, we grade. We the people set the criteria by our agreement. But let us examine the outcomes.

A-Most likely, no reply-This tells us what we already know, but now we have more proof.

B- Reply trying to state that we are too confused to use free speech and should therefore leave it to the elite.

C-They recognize that the people define constitutional intent and they do it through free speech. Basically accepting that preparatory amendment is needed to conduct Article V properly.

We grade them according to their damage to the true American system of value based on constitutional principle which their neglect to preparations assures dysfunction. In the worst case.

GRADE = F-

ALEC is not constitutional, but IS working to promote an unconstitutional convention = white collar politico treason.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

I already tested them.

Why waste the time?

You can look here, for all the "proof" you need.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=alec

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Show your test.

[-] 0 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

Gosh ray, you didn't even bother to read the threads.

There's a lot of them. Do you deny their actions and intent?

If you need more proof than reality. You are in trouble.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Seems like you don't want them tangibly and specifically discredited relating to constitutionality.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

I don't find it necessary.

You do, because you are blind to their actions.

Too bad for you.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

You don't have a test for alec you can show me.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Tests not posts.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

The only thing you're testing is my patience.

It's not the first time either.

If you lack the wherewithal to understand their actions, you should just admit it.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I understand their actions to be much as you say their actions are but I intend to prove it by default when they refuse to discuss methods to assure that "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and courts".

You cannot reasonably object to that if you intend as you as you say.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Careful to not show you don't want them tested tangibly with specific constitutional issues.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

As soon as you find the impartial judge, let me know.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I'm impartial from the position of constitutionality. Each of us is IF we are constitutional citizens.

This is HOW we are the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts". Clear you don't like that.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

No. You are not impartial.

Nor are you a constitutional scholar.

You should test yourself.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Sounds like what alec would say

I notice you refer to elite for authority on the constitutional and not the people. That is what alec would do

[-] 1 points by shooz (18035) 1 year ago

One last thing ray.

Although I can't make heads or tails of 99% of what what you say, I would like to thank you for turning me on to Paul Chappell.

Thanks!

http://www.paulkchappell.com/

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Meanwhile America sees that they shun constitutional intent.

And that ALEC can only be a fraud if they are promoting Article V from that position.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No comments?

Perhaps everyone needs to study this a bit to see whats up.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

What is to study? Let's say that you petition ALEC and request the info.

The response is No. Not us.

Do you believe them? Why or why not?

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No I wouldnt believe them. I was talking specifically about the process of creating the convention.

Do you think if one was held, enough people would show up and do what is needed?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

Nope. It won't be legit.

Further more, ALEC has been behind the call for Article V conventions since at least the 1970s. The guy that wrote the publication for ALEC is one, Ron Natelson.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think that there are probably plenty of people who want one, from all walks of life. Some say the threat is what led to most of the amendments. DC would rather just do it than go through that.

Im not that familiar with it, but I do know its about damn time the people grabbed this thing by the horns and got aggressive.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

At best, if you had all the people show in one place for a "convention" then in 20 years it will be sold as cheaply as every jacked up nostalgia cd collection that airs on tv.

The only thing that they would have going is there are several additions of proposed amendments that have already had a great many people's involvement by way of the internet. But, then that's as far as it would go. Even if the task was simplified because of this............it doesn't do a damn thing.

Having enough people who want one is great but this isn't the avenue. They should find one on the table and get behind that one.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

But the vast majoritty of the main ones we want, like money out of politics, are horribly inept. Those in Congress dont have the will to do big things. Big things gets them kicked out, and there goes the plush lifestyle and cameras (mostly all in their heads).

I just would love to see any kind of massive gatherings of people dealing with issues. Yes, it would not be taken as the end all. But it would be a PR heaven for the people, and a PR nightmare for the politicians.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

I just would love to see any kind of massive gatherings of people dealing with issues. Yes, it would not be taken as the end all. But it would be a PR heaven for the people, and a PR nightmare for the politicians.

This I agree with.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

people show up???? please - do you have any idea what you are talking about ?
Again- here is the Fifth Amendment:


ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by [state] Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress. TO CREATE CON CON: ( 2/3 of House + 2/3 of Senate ) OR ( 2/3 of State Legislatures ) RATIFICATION OF CON CON PROPOSED & PASSED AMENDMENTS: ( ¾ of State Conventions ) OR ( ¾ of State Legislatures )


note that you could have a convention with 200,000,000 Americans and it would have the power to do nothing.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Yes. People showing up. Its very hard to get that to happen. How many people showed up to your latest meeting on the amendments?

And if you would like someone to redo the chart on amendments so that its readable, I would be willing to help. Similar to this: http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The people that showed up had the same power as the power of the convention proposed in the OP

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The Sanders/Deutch is one of over a dozen - and IT will never be passed because it treats unions differently than corporations - and that will get zero republiclan votes
"My" table is not perfect, but SPECIFICALLY, how would you redesign a single page to differentiate the key features of the proposed amendments

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think the table that shows the differences and whatnot is good, just saying its hard to see what amendments are being rated because of the fonts and whatnot.

I also agree about unions needed to be included. Im all for unions, but they need to play by the rules as the rest of us.

Perhaps we could create a baseline of whats 100% needed in ANY amendment, and see how many of them pass. And if not, what its lacking. I thought united republic did this, but Im having a hard time finding it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Here's mine - sort of movetoamend plus


Section 1 {A corporation is not a person and can be regulated}
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons { human beings } only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 { Money is not speech }
Federal, State and local government must regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State and local government may implement a public financing system to supplement or replace other financing systems.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
As above, all foreign contributions are forbidden.

Section 3 { Transparency & Disclosure }
Federal, State and local government must require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed less than 60 days after the transaction and before the election.

Section 4
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.


I might add ending the electoral college & fillibuster & voter suppression

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Change "may" implement to "must" ?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

referencing public financing?
the must/may issue is fundamental to the whole issue
I want to put in as little as possible that could cost support. I like public financing - but it is a huge can of worms - that a significant number of people are against - like the electoral college.


NY state & city are working on campaign finance reform via public financing - it is a real mess with too many people pulling too many different directions.


Other than corporations and the rich - and republiclans in general could support the above four sections


BUT
our WG effort is to get more pro-amendment people elected in 2014

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Unconstitutional convention proposals are treason. Failing to answer requests for info related to constitutional intent indicates a treasonous effort.

If that is what alec is up to with all of their power, we need to expose them because we cannot have powerful organizations working in America to usurp the constitution.

[-] -2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

If ALEC refuses to comment on the issue of constitutional intent related to Article V, they can accurately be defined as unconstitutional and their Article V scam is just that. They are working to usurp the constitution through Article V IF they won't provide opinion on preparatory amendment designed to create constitutional intent.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17442) 1 year ago

You are mighty slow, aren't you?

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Patience is a virtue.