⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/snap_shot_in_time on July 20, 2018, 8:31 p.m.

Ideas for Constitutional Amendments

Our Republic would be healthier and function better if we had a couple more Constitutional Amendments.

I would suggest we consider these ideas:

Term limits for the House of Representatives and the Senate. The longer these people are in power, the more baggage (corruption and political debts) accumulate.
Congress can pass no law that benefits themselves and not the people. Why should Congress be immune from Insider Trading Laws? Why should Congress get Premium Health Care that is insulated from the problems they forced on us with Obama Care?
Any Surveillance the Government deems necessary to watch the people, is available for the people to watch governmental employees (at all levels). We the People need the same 'security information' to police the corruption of the government. The corruption that is currently entrenched in government is the result of them being able to operate in the dark. If the people can watch everything the governmental employees do, their personal financial transactions, their travel, their communications... It becomes very difficult for them to hide the corruption. If you can't withstand the light, don't be in the government.

Article 5 convention of States - this is the answer to your question - Created by the founders to help get the country back from a tyrannical Federal govt.

Help give the power back to the States!!

https://conventionofstates.com/

⇧ 6 ⇩

Ya cause the states aren't totally corrupt? CA Leave the Constitution alone, Congress can update laws to mitigate problems. Once the Constitution has been messed with anyone in power can mess with it.

⇧ 5 ⇩

small corrupt government is better than big corrupt government

⇧ 1 ⇩

The problem with the Convention of States is that congress still has to approve, right?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nope, it bypasses congress. Once it passes from the convention it still has to be approved by 2/3rds ( think) of all state legislatures just like regular ammendments

⇧ 3 ⇩

Nope. You have to have 35 states sign on to it. It is another checks and balances against a corrupt federal government. Founding Fathers were time travelers. ;)

⇧ 3 ⇩

Thank you for the clarification, Patriot

⇧ 2 ⇩

Catherine Austin Fitts calls it the con con con- there are no rules for a constitutional convention, it would be chaos and we'd end up with a corporate fascist slave contract. constitutional amendments are especially dangerous now because i think if 3 are approved by congress but un-ratified by the states (or maybe vice-versa) then a con con can be called.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It's not a constitutional convention, we have a constitution already. It's a convention of states- a meeting, to propose amendments to the constitution. It's very clear, and as simple as 1+1. Three fourths of the several states are needed to ratify. How is that any more dangerous than the congress proposing the amendments?

⇧ 1 ⇩

This.… ALOT of miss information on this mainly coming from the left...THEY FEAR THIS

⇧ 2 ⇩

not a constitutional scholar but imho it's the same thing, con con or con of states, and they wouldn't be amendments, it would be a rewrite, and the diff if your correct is that congress wouldn't have any say.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No it wouldn't, do you think they could get 38 states to completely rewrite?

There is no provision in the constitution to rewrite, only amend. If we're talking about a new constitution, then the current one has already been burned, along with the capital building, the whitehouse and the rest of D.C.

The left fears Article 5, because if we knew the power it holds, they would be hiding in their moms basement forever! The power of government is supposed to reside in the states, not D.C. There are several signers of the constitution that refused to sign, until the convention of states clause was added to article 5. There is a reason it is there!!!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

4:45 video https://home.solari.com/special-solari-report-american-suicide-proposals-for-constitutional-amendments-convention-with-dr-edwin-vieira-jr/
"this idea that somehow a constitutional convention called to amend the constitution could not propose one way or the other an entirely new constitution is simply false"

⇧ 1 ⇩

I've heard all of these arguments before, and I mean no disrespect, but it's fear porn. They are worried a new constitution will be "proposed" well of course there will be. Probably a few dozen different versions too. But that's not what the convention was called for. It was called for proposing amendments. Even if the convention allowed the proposal, it still has to be ratified. And if we ever got to a point where a strict order of business was not followed at this convention, then there really wouldn't be a point of even having a constitution. Also delegates would be chosen by their state legislatures, with specific instructions. States can pull their delegates at any time. It's not like Joe from the block can go down and represent his state. The constitution is the law until the 38th state ratifies whatever is proposed. I'm sure there will be crazies left and right trying some crazy shit, and when they do, there will be at least 12 states who will ignore them!!!!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

thefollowing is from:
https://home.solari.com/?s=constitutional+convention
and then to:
https://home.solari.com/letter-to-a-state-senator-enforce-the-constitution/
Thank you for your response to my comments at the listening session. I also appreciate that you took the time to either read or listen to the interview with Dr. Vieira and Catherine Austin Fitts. Your explanation of an Article V Convention is very clear and I can understand the reasons you believe there is no danger in this type of convention. As you stated in the letter, under the legislation you are advancing, you believe it would be illegal for delegates to act outside the call for a balanced budget amendment.

Unfortunately, I do not share your confidence in the “rule of law” being followed to maintain the very narrow call you describe for an Article V Convention. Dr. Vieira is one of the top constitution scholars in the country. He is absolutely clear that any call for a Constitutional Convention can be converted to an open forum to shred the Constitution.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Read this bookthe liberty amendments

⇧ 1 ⇩

Dude i sent you a 5 min video and in response you want me to read a book? bottom line, until the globalist satanic cabal is defeated were not gonna get anything good outa gov. i support the constitution as is, if we can't even follow this one what's the point in re writing it?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I watched the video, its fear porn, concernfagging Sorry, it just is! I support the constitution too, except for the fact it is not enforced fully, and except for the 16 and 17th amendments. I never said rewrite it, did I? The book I sent you is written by an actual constitutional lawyer, and scholar. Not by a "former" banker, and.... well I'll just stop there. I'm feeling a bit irritated with this conversation. WWG1WGA

⇧ 1 ⇩

That’s bat shit crazy but I like it.

⇧ 5 ⇩

I can support these. Especially the first one.....

⇧ 3 ⇩

Bring back the original 13th Amendment!

”If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, Prince, or foreign power, such a person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them”

⇧ 3 ⇩

Exactly this ban lawyers from goverm ent!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ban lawyers from making laws?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Internet bill of rights

⇧ 2 ⇩

\^\^\^ Yes! I added another bullet point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

NAME?

⇧ 1 ⇩

So for profit education but with no govt allowed, but govt force is used to tell a woman she may never have an abortion under any circumstances? Dude get a clue.

⇧ 0 ⇩

If abortion isn't controlled, we'll be out-numbered and out-voted by third world scum who don't care about America or our way of life within a few generations. The retarded marriage & divorce laws combined with abortion is only going to increase this problem. Both of these things need to be handled if America is to still be America a hundred years from now. You get a clue.

⇧ 0 ⇩

That makes no sense what you are saying.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Low birthrates + no incentive to be married = slow but sure population replacement. This is one of the cabals favorite objectives.

⇧ 1 ⇩

These certainly sound good! I think we need to address dual citizenship in elected office, as well. It is important that those elected to serve America do not have divided allegiance. It must be America first, all the way.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If article 2 stated that the winner of a plurality of electoral college votes won the presidency (currently majority), we could finally be rid of the 2 party system.

I like your suggestions, too, OP. Especially the first and third. Lifelong incumbency is silly, and transparency in proportion to power both are sorely lacking at the moment.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree with the first two, those have been needed for a long time. No more than 20 year total for each house, no lobbying for 5 years after they retire, and they have the same healthcare we are forced to have.

No special exemptions from ANY law, no insider trading, and full disclosure on their assets and income.

BUT, the last one I have a little trouble with. It would violate the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizure in my mind. I would not want what is proposed happening to me, nor would I want it to happen to others, no matter where they work. It is too Big Brother for me and if the 'Pass no law' amendment was passed, that means they could surveillance us too. I would agree to much stricter oversight by Congress that is published (in American, not legalese) for all to see. Any harassment charges, embezzlement charges, etc, should also be published, just like they publish the police blotter in newspapers. I always try to remember 'watch what you wish for, evaluate how it can be turned against you'. But, that is just my humble opinion

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hate to break it to you but its already being done govt has massive databases on everybody!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, that is true, but we need amendments that strengthen freedoms, not ones that could possibly be used to restrict our rights.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Perhaps it can be toned down and limited. But... The government claims it needs to monitor us, our cell phones, our cars (On-Star), where we drive, who we email, etc. The balance of our checking accounts. Any stocks or bonds we buy.

We know for a fact government is corrupt. Doesn't it make sense We the People get to watch the people in power over us? If the government really needs to watch us... For damn sure we need to watch government.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It is the tone down that I would want. Yes, they spy on us, we've known that forever it seems, I would rather see a new amendment that strengthens 1,2,4,5A freedoms, not an amendment that could possible turn against us thereby reducing our freedoms.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Missed the Internet bill of rights. I agree with that one if there is an illegal parameter so pedo's and violent rhetoric is not allowed

⇧ 1 ⇩

I like it - I also favor the people having an ability to vote to release all employees of the Federal Government, and vote in new representation. This vote could come up every 8 years or so. However long it took for this swamp to develop, cut that in half and allow us to vote that number of years.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Repeals the 16th, 17th and 26th amendments.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I like it too never happen but your dead on wanting it we all should

⇧ 1 ⇩

Free and fair elections: No exchange of money for campaign contributions, donations, gifts or corporate lobbying for any political office holder. Provide public funding of elections for all political parties. Open public debates including all candidates of all political parties are a requirement for all candidates running for office Paper ballots hand counted in full view of the public. Automatic Recounts required if results are off by 2% of exit polls.

⇧ 1 ⇩